Feel free to discuss any topic of general interest, so long as nothing you post here is likely to be interpreted as insulting, and/or inflammatory, nor clearly designed to provoke any individual or group. Please be considerate of others feelings, and they will be considerate of yours.
This paper appears to present a very sound analysis of why hunter-gatherer societies don't have problems with cancer, while the rest of us do. Thanks to Dr. Briffa for bringing it to our attention. Here's a quote from it:
Modern hunter-gatherers´ diet
Data from 229 hunter-gatherer societies included in the revised Ethnographic Atlas indicate that hunter-gatherer diets differ from typical Western ones in basically two aspects: first, a strong reliance on animal foods (45-65% of energy or E%) and second, the consumption of low-GI plant foods such as vegetables, fruits, seeds and nuts [7]. This is consistent with stable isotope studies of human fossils [8, 9]. As a consequence, the amount and type of carbohydrates in the typical western diet differ markedly from the ones that our genes adapted to. In particular, Cordain and colleagues estimated that modern hunter-gatherers derived about 22-40 E% from CHOs and 19-30 E% from protein, which is lower and higher, respectively,than recommended by Western food agencies. Recently, Ströhle & Hahn confirmed that the energy derived from CHOs – despite being dependent upon geographic latitude and ecological environment – in modern hunter-gatherers is markedly lower than in Westernized societies [10]. High CHO intake, in particular in the form of sugar and other high GI foods, has been linked to modern diseases like metabolic syndrome [11], Alzheimer's disease [12, 13], cataract and macula degeneration [14-16] and gout [17]. Intriguingly, with the possible exception of Alzheimer’s disease [18], the occurrence and prognosis of cancer seems positively associated with both the prevalence of these diseases [19-28] and the GI and glycemic load (GL) of the diet [29-32]; this implies a possible role of high CHO intake in cancer as well.
In this review, we are going to present some arguments that support the hypothesis that lowering the amount of CHOs in the diet can have direct beneficial effects on the prevention and treatment of malignant diseases. The main focus will be on very low CHO, ketogenic diets as an effective supportive therapy option for cancer patients.
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Thanks so much for this. No, I hadn't seen it, and it makes perfect sense, doesn't it? I have forwarded it to my brother. Let me know if you find any more.
Lots of love,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Great link, Tex (I thought I had responded to this yesterday - meant to!). I'm forwarding this one to a friend who's committed to "very low carb" for weight loss (read Gary Taubes's latest book), as well...
Hi Tex.....WOW WOW WOW! Amazing! I just lost my Aunt a year ago to breast cancer. She ran everyday of her life, never smoked, never drank alcohol. She always ate very healthy(So I thought). She very rarely ate protein. If she did, the portion was the size of a quarter. Her main focus was whole grains, legumes and vegetables. Since being on Paleo/SCD and doing ALL the reading I have done, I know now that is the worst diet in the world! We have all been trained to eat less protein because of ketosis, more whole grains and legumes (which the body can not digest)! I am still trying to retrain my husband (that might take me the rest of my life LOL). My younger son was diagnosis with type 2 diabetes over ten years ago and has been on meds since. He recently had a physical (October) and he is now off of his meds. He has been eating the same way I have since May. He has lost 65lbs and he says he has never felt better. He also doesn't miss eating the way he use to and doesn't crave sugar or high carb foods.
So thanks Tex for the link...It just prove that we are what we eat. What we choose to put into our bodies has a great effect on our over all health. What we all do without you!
This article contains a few interesting points. You will probably recall that Vilhjalmur Stefansson is the man who proved all the medical "experts" wrong by demonstrating that it was possible to live, (healthily), on a diet of only fatty meat. I find the following quote from his book, very, very interesting:
it points out that Stanislaw Tanchou "....gave the first formula for predicting cancer risk. It was based on grain consumption and was found to accurately calculate cancer rates in major European cities. The more grain consumed, the greater the rate of cancer." Tanchou's paper was delivered to the Paris Medical Society in 1843. He also postulated that cancer would likewise never be found in hunter-gatherer populations. This began a search among the populations of hunter-gatherers known to missionary doctors and explorers. This search continued until WWII when the last wild humans were "civilized" in the Arctic and Australia. No cases of cancer were ever found within these populations, although after they adopted the diet of civilization, it became common.
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Visit the Microscopic Colitis Foundation Website
