Yes; Breast Cancer Incidence is Dependent Upon Dietary Factors.

Intermittent, Low-Carbohydrate Diets More Successful Than Standard Dieting, Study Finds

An intermittent, low-carbohydrate diet was superior to a standard, daily calorie-restricted diet for reducing weight and lowering blood levels of insulin, a cancer-promoting hormone, according to recent findings.

Researchers at Genesis Prevention Center at University Hospital in South Manchester, England, found that restricting carbohydrates two days per week may be a better dietary approach than a standard, daily calorie-restricted diet for preventing breast cancer and other diseases, but they said further study is needed.

"Weight loss and reduced insulin levels are required for breast cancer prevention, but [these levels] are difficult to achieve and maintain with conventional dietary approaches," said Michelle Harvie, Ph.D., SRD, a research dietician at the Genesis Prevention Center

Your dietary choices certainly DO affect your risk for cancer. And, in the case, breast cancer.

The idea that Insulin, an anabolic hormone, is a cancer promoter, is beginning to be considered strongly among researchers in the field of biochemistry and nutrition. Recent studies have been confirming that elevated serum insulin levels are heavily promoting cancer development and progression. It has to do with insulin-like growth factor (IgF-1), 1, a growth hormone that shares insulin receptor sites for cellular uptake. And when insulin resistance becomes systemic, affecting the peripheral, more IgF-1 is needed to get passed the receptor resistance and get the job done...unfortunately, cancer eats that stuff up.

Harvie and her colleagues compared three diets during four months for effects on weight loss and blood markers of breast cancer risk among 115 women with a family history of breast cancer. They randomly assigned patients to one of the following diets: a calorie-restricted, low-carbohydrate diet for two days per week; an "ad lib" low-carbohydrate diet in which patients were permitted to eat unlimited protein and healthy fats, such as lean meats, olives and nuts, also for two days per week; and a standard, calorie-restricted daily Mediterranean diet for seven days per week.

The study was nicely designed. Researchers split participants up into three groups.

1) A low-calorie, low-carb diet for two days a week. That is, a diet that is restricted in calories AND in total carbohydrate content intermittently.

2) An low-carbohydrate diet ad libitum two days a week. That is, a carbohydrate restricted, intermittent diet that has no restrictions on caloric quantity

3) A low-calorie, Mediterranean diet consumed 7-days a week.

Data revealed that both intermittent, low-carbohydrate diets were superior to the standard, daily Mediterranean diet in reducing weight, body fat and insulin resistance. Mean reduction in weight and body fat was roughly 4 kilograms (about 9 pounds) with the intermittent approaches compared with 2.4 kilograms (about 5 pounds) with the standard dietary approach. Insulin resistance reduced by 22 percent with the restricted low-carbohydrate diet and by 14 percent with the "ad lib" low-carbohydrate diet compared with 4 percent with the standard Mediterranean diet.

:O That's pretty damn significant. According to this study, low-carbohydrate, ad lib diets work better at reducing weight and serum insulin levels than does a low-calorie, healthy Mediterranean diet. And an interesting point from the Authors...

"It is interesting that the diet that only restricts carbohydrates but allows protein and fats is as effective as the calorie-restricted, low-carbohydrate diet," Harvie said.

That's because carbohydrate restriction and calorie restriction have almost identical effects on metabolism, much like carbohydrate elimination has the same effect as starving...only without the death part.

And this also supports the idea that intermittent fasting/intermittent carbohydrate fasting work much better than daily calorie restriction (even as it applies to longevity).

Eat raw,.organic fruits and vegetables + a daily practice of mindful intention on Love, and not Hate/Fear = NO DISEASES EVER!

The study is NOT nicely designed.

1. 15 woman? Do you really consider that to be a representative sample.
2. 4 months of dieting? Do you really consider that enough time to fully represent what the metabolism will do?
3. let us pretend for just a moment that the woman who only had to diet intermittently actually found the diet more interesting and satisfying - and therefore were better able to stick to the diet.
4. Did the woman who were on the calorie restricted diet cheat on their diet? Did these woman actually lose less wieght because they triggered a "starvation" restriction that caused their bodies to store more fat instead of losing it.

And on and on and on....

The only thing this study has proven is that it easier to lose wieght on a satisfying diet than a non-satisfying one.

WOW!!!! I think that was already known.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

This is pretty interesting, but I have to wonder since we keep hearing one thing is good for us one month and a few months later it's bad. The research methods look kind of ok from a limited standpoint, but a few years back there was that big hi-carb diet push going on and a load of doctors got behind it in a big way. Could this be the same thing but in reverse?

Good catch but... truth and research these days seems to really only have subjective value (read cash in their pockets) for those performing the research and selling the ideas or products that in most cases produce little to no results. Call me skeptical, but I know a few people who will try this and see what happens.

Cheers - Dave

And what about all the women who ate healthy and exercised and got breast cancer anyway?????

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
The study is NOT nicely designed.

1. 15 woman? Do you really consider that to be a representative sample.

Of course, it's not the best sample size. I'm speaking simply on design. And, relatively speaking, it's a good design.

2. 4 months of dieting? Do you really consider that enough time to fully represent what the metabolism will do?

Yes. Mainly because there were three groups, with one of the better studies allowing any QUANTITY of calories. Longer studies tend to lose participation for multiple reasons. Longer dietary intervention studies have shown how subjects adhere to certain diets. Low(er)-carb, ad lib diets tend to have better adherence long term and better results long term than do low-calorie diets. This study's results could reasonably be expected to get better over time with the low-carb, ad lib diets based on other studies and observations.

3. let us pretend for just a moment that the woman who only had to diet intermittently actually found the diet more interesting and satisfying - and therefore were better able to stick to the diet.

And? You don't have to pretend. Most long(er) term studies suggest this to be the case.

4. Did the woman who were on the calorie restricted diet cheat on their diet? Did these woman actually lose less wieght because they triggered a "starvation" restriction that caused their bodies to store more fat instead of losing it.

Of course, they probably cheated. But the participants probably wanted to lose weight so you can imagine, in the short term, they tried their best to adhere to a low-calorie diet (which is NOT easy).

The only thing this study has proven is that it easier to lose wieght on a satisfying diet than a non-satisfying one.

Really? Because, according to the vast majority of dietary recommendations, we're supposed to starve ourselves and eat less, which is less satisfying, to lose weight.

What this study has shown is that, eating a healthy, low-calorie diet won't net the metabolic benefits of a low-carb, eat-as-much-as-you-want diet. And those benefits include a reduced risk of developing cancer, along with reduced risk of developing obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


Methinks the man doth protest way too much.

Pathways to Breast Cancer: A Case Study for Innovation in Chemical Safety Evaluation

Breast cancer, the most common invasive cancer in women, is hypothesized to be linked to industrial chemical exposure through the environment and the use of consumer products. A major challenge in understanding the extent to which chemicals contribute to breast cancer is a lack of toxicity information—a data gap—for tens of thousands of commonly used chemicals. Through its Green Chemistry Initiative, California is attempting to address this data gap by seeking ways to develop toxicity information for chemicals used in consumer products. A bill recently introduced in the U.S. Congress to reform the decades‐old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) calls for the generation and disclosure of information on the toxicity of industrial chemicals. …..

Chemical toxicity testing—and the public policies that require it—can be critical tools in breast cancer prevention, providing a practical basis for reducing potentially harmful exposures


Full report available for download at:
coeh.berkeley.edu...

And don't forget loam's thread - it's the male version:

MEN: You are Being Chemically Castrated.


.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


I am sorry but I completely disagree.


Remember that there are other variables here - ie each woman has an individual metabolic rate etc etc

Besides - at the end of the day - this is still nothing but epidimiology. Correlation is still not causation.

While this experiment may point out a path for further "hard" research - it proves nothing by itself.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


The association, or the epidimiology determining the association, was discovered quite some time ago. And there have been numerous "hard" studies on this topic. This study is unique because it's demonstrating that a low-carb diet without caloric restrictions has a better positive effect on metabolic factors and body weight than does a healthy restricted calorie diet.

If there weren't mounds of data supporting this study, you're right, it wouldn't mean anything by itself. But that's not the case.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


Lets see it!

Tired of Control freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


See what? The evidence?

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


Yes - the hard science evidence that you claim exists.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


No problem. Stand by...

Still standing by????

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


You'll have to keep standing, too. I've been in the weeds at work. Though, I should have some time to gather a few sources for a good post today.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


No problem. This shouldn't take precedence over work or your family.

Merry Christmas

Tired of Control freaks

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
That's because carbohydrate restriction and calorie restriction have almost identical effects on metabolism, much like carbohydrate elimination has the same effect as starving...only without the death part.

No, the death part will come. Eliminating carbohydrates will ensure of that. We require them to survive, unlike dietary protein which we do NOT require whatsoever.

Why is the term “carbohydrate” so convoluted? Nowhere did I see mention of a simple carb found in fruit versus a complex carb found in say, bread. If you don’t distinguish between the two then you will be forever lost in the field of dreams with all the other intellectuals that don’t have a clue about the health of the human body.

In all fairness, society is designed to be convoluted so that the average person doesn’t stand a change and throws their arms up in defeat, surrendering their judgment to “whatever the experts say”. Most times, those experts are the furthest gone. Furthest gone from reality that is.

DevolutionEvolvd I’ve watched you over the years wade through this “nutrition mess”. I want you to know that I completely respect your efforts, research, study and certainly dedication to finding answers. Few people I’ve seen have put forth more than yourself and I doubt many have spent even a fraction of the time however I think you need to step back and re-evaluate. Certainly you must realize something is wrong. There is a manufactured complexity instilled into everything society does and it’s effective at keeping us off the golden path. Surely you must sense this by now. Why is it that we as humans still have no idea how we should eat? Look at all the “funding and studies" done. Does this make any sense? There aren’t any animals out there stressing over diets. Many great men have tore this subject apart. These answers, that are so elusive in our society, have been perfectly known for a hundred years now. The causative factors of dis-ease, and how to address them, are very well known and our society fails to recognize any of them. Instead more research, more funding, more studies, more convolution is all we always get.

The side of truth and remedy needs your passion and I think you desire the truth just as much as I did. I’ve offered myself and my resources to everyone, on several threads, in the past that you’ve been involved with; most recently the “naked-mole rat thread” but the offer hasn’t been taken. I’m extending it again with the full realization that that’s all I can do. You have to walk through the door; and in this case, just initiate the dialogue. However, in saying that, it's also quite possible that you're comfortable with the level that you’re at and the “overwhelmness” that I sense doesn't actually exist.

Originally posted by Night Star
And what about all the women who ate healthy and exercised and got breast cancer anyway?????

I think a lot of women who eat healthy, exercise and get breast cancer; THINK they're eating healthy (because they’ve been convinced via society) when in fact their diets are promoting cancer.

People think they are eating great if they have a bagel with peanut butter and a glass of milk for breakfast, Subway for lunch, and steak and potatoes with fixings for dinner. Plus various “low-calorie” snacks during the day. They think they are doing good! They’re eating a good diet. Unfortunately they aren’t at all and they are PROMOTING cancer with this lifestyle. This is how far removed from reality we are. If my example seems like a stretch to you, then I’ve made my point.

Quick example –

2 bananas has 54g of carbs. A bagel has 47g of carbs. Some might say the bagel is a better choice for certain situations or certain people. In no way is that ever the case. In fact, regarding health of the body, the bagel should never be eaten, ever, because it promotes ill health (for reasons that should be obvious to all of us but are not). The 2 bananas are highly energetic and nutritive to the body and promote health in every sense of the word. Why then might people compare things like carbs when deciding between the two items? Answer - because they’ve been manipulated into thinking this is a good practice for them to do.

Originally posted by StrangeBrew
Eliminating carbohydrates will ensure of that. We require them to survive, unlike dietary protein which we do NOT require whatsoever.

I suggest double-checking your facts before posting your rebuttals.

Essential Amino Acids

An essential amino acid or indispensable amino acid is an amino acid that cannot be synthesized de novo by the organism (usually referring to humans), and therefore must be supplied in the diet.

The amino acids regarded as essential for humans are phenylalanine, valine, threonine, tryptophan, isoleucine, methionine, leucine, lysine, and histidine.

To clarify; There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate to humans. Meaning, carbohydrates can be synthesized endogenously and dietary carbohydrates are not required to sustain life.

You have to remember the difference between optimal and essential. And, btw, there are essential fatty acids as well.

Why is the term “carbohydrate” so convoluted? Nowhere did I see mention of a simple carb found in fruit versus a complex carb found in say, bread. If you don’t distinguish between the two then you will be forever lost in the field of dreams with all the other intellectuals that don’t have a clue about the health of the human body.

Not necessarily. Quite honestly, classing carbohydrates as simple or complex is rudimentary and out-dated. If anybody doesn't have a clue, it's those who still adhere to those designations.

For instance; glucose and fructose are both "simple" carbs, yet both have entirely different effects on the body. Fructose is only metabolized in the liver and doesn't stimulate insulin secretion directly (sweet things in the mouth in general have a small effect on pre-meal insulin levels). While glucose is metabolized by nearly every cell in the body and has a measurable, predictable, direct, causal relationship with insulin secretion.

This study was designed to determine the efficacy of certain diets on lowering insulin levels and body fat. They did just that. I'm not sure what the problem is here? Maybe you can clarify...

DevolutionEvolvd I’ve watched you over the years wade through this “nutrition mess”. I want you to know that I completely respect your efforts, research, study and certainly dedication to finding answers. Few people I’ve seen have put forth more than yourself and I doubt many have spent even a fraction of the time however I think you need to step back and re-evaluate.

I appreciate the kind words. But perhaps you don't understand that, in science, re-evaluation MUST occur routinely in order to find the truth. And I follow the science. And the data over the past 100 years are pretty evident. And by analyzing ancient bones, paleoanthropologists are providing data in support of the experimental science.

Yes; most researchers have fallen into the dogmatism and continually beat the same proverbial drum without questioning the foundations upon which their understandings of biochemistry were built. But that can be attributed to former greedy scientists and, mainly, politicians. Now, it's propagated by industry and it's hard to correct, but it's slowly coming around.

And your whole Banana vs Bagel thing is heavily dependent upon the individual. Yeah, a banana is nutritious. But 20 bananas a day for an insulin resistant, obese, type-2 diabetic is ridiculous. They should be avoiding BOTH. An individual without a broken metabolism would do just fine by eating bananas and other fruits ad lib; not former.

Keep in mind, too, that based on isotopic analysis of the diet of early man, as well as other anthropological, clinical and observational evidence, we did not have year round access to fruit in abundance as ancient, hunter-gatherer societies. And considering that we didn't evolve eating a carbohydrate rich diet, but rather a diet that resembled, more closely, a carnivore's, it makes sense that we haven't done so well since the government labelled fat as a demon and began recommending high-carb diets to the general public as a "healthy" diet.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


The hypothesis in question is that low-carbohydrate diets reduce body fat and improve insulin levels and sensitivity. The following are recent studies in support of this hypothesis:

Therapeutic role of low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet in diabetes.

A [low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet] has a significant beneficial effect in ameliorating the diabetic state and helping to stabilize hyperglycemia. [in rats]

The improvement in blood glucose levels is a strong indication that insulin levels were stabilized and/or sensitivity was increased.

The effect of protein and glycemic index on children's body composition: the DiOGenes randomized study.

The effect of low-carbohydrate diet on left ventricular diastolic function in obese children.

The effect of a low-fat, high-protein or high-carbohydrate ad libitum diet on weight loss maintenance and metabolic risk factors.

Testing protein leverage in lean humans: a randomised controlled experimental study.

Low-carbohydrate(LC) diets are always higher in fat than high-carb diets, and because most dietary sources of fat are also good sources of protein, LC diets are associated with an increase in dietary protein consumption.

Short-term weight loss and hepatic triglyceride reduction: evidence of a metabolic advantage with dietary carbohydrate restriction.

• Reduced Body Weight and Adiposity With a High-Protein Diet Improves Functional Status, Lipid Profiles, Glycemic Control, and Quality of Life in Patients With Heart Failure: A Feasibility Study.

Protein, amino acids and the control of food intake.

Protein and Fats promote satiety and unconscious calorie restriction, which leads to weight-loss.

Moderate-carbohydrate low-fat versus low-carbohydrate high-fat meal replacements for weight loss.

Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet.

Paleolithic/hunter-gatherer diets are generally low-carb. And this study shows quite clearly how quickly LC diets positively affect glucose and insulin levels and weight loss.

Renal function following long-term weight loss in individuals with abdominal obesity on a very-low-carbohydrate diet vs high-carbohydrate diet.

Increased adipose tissue lipolysis after a 2-week high-fat diet in sedentary overweight/obese men.

High protein intake reduces intrahepatocellular lipid deposition in humans.

High protein diets decrease total and abdominal fat and improve CVD risk profile in overweight and obese men and women with elevated triacylglycerol.

Enhanced weight loss with protein-enriched meal replacements in subjects with the metabolic syndrome.

Efficacy and safety of a high protein, low carbohydrate diet for weight loss in severely obese adolescents.

CONCLUSIONS:

The HPLC diet is a safe and effective option for medically supervised weight loss in severely obese adolescents.

Effect of ketogenic Mediterranean diet with phytoextracts and low carbohydrates/high-protein meals on weight, cardiovascular risk factors, body composition and diet compliance in Italian council employees.

Diets with high or low protein content and glycemic index for weight-loss maintenance.

Carbohydrate restriction, as a first-line dietary intervention, effectively reduces biomarkers of metabolic syndrome in Emirati adults.

Metabolic syndrome is a combination of medical conditions. It's also known as Insulin resistance. Reducing biomarkers of metablic syndrome will effectively improve insulin sensitivity, lower insulin levels and promote weight loss.

Carbohydrate restriction has a more favorable impact on the metabolic syndrome than a low fat diet.

Carbohydrate restriction (with or without additional dietary cholesterol provided by eggs) reduces insulin resistance and plasma leptin without modifying appetite hormones in adult men.

A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet vs orlistat plus a low-fat diet for weight loss.

A randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of carbohydrate-reduced or fat-reduced diets in patients attending a telemedically guided weight loss program

A 6-month, office-based, low-carbohydrate diet intervention in obese teens.

Many of these links are referencing high-protein diets, but it's important to understand that high-protein diets are low in carbohydrate content.

Now, the aforementioned studies are from the last couple of years.

If you want larger, better designed studies, they won't be so new. But I'll dig them up if you'd like.