Carnivore Diet: More recently, there are Harvard scientists strongly advocating the "Carnivore Diet" as a "therapeutic diet" against cancer.
But how can it make sense for the condition when it has a long-standing history of research supporting findings that there are multiple cancer-associated risks with it such as the following: (1) High in Saturated Fats (2) HCA's from cooking (3) Growth Hormones (some) (4) Elevate IGF-1 (5)Pro-Inflammatory (except seafood).
Additionally, Asian populations consume less meat than us Westerners, and they have historically been less prone to cancer. Further, there have been numerous reports of individuals putting their conditions in remission or even making claims of cures by integrating "vegetarian-based" diets in their health strategies for cancer.
Question: Does the benefit of limiting carbohydrates with the Carnivore Diet, and therefore reducing cancer-feeding glucose, outweigh the risks of the Carnivore Diet cited above? Or is Glucose such a powerful feeder of cancer cells that putting the brakes on it is far more important than any or all of the concerns of a meat-based diet for cancer?
Written by
back2health
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Meat increases DHT and DHT is the culprit when it comes to prostste cancer not testosterone Approx 10% of testosterone made by the male body is converted into DHT by the enzyme 5alpha reductase - this is what causes prostate cancer and also male hair loss, there are drugs that target and block 5alpha reductase but food sources can do the same job reshi mushrooms and tofu to name a couple
I can't see how lots of DHT promoting meat is safe for preventing prostate cancer
If men adopted an Asian diet high in genistein from soya milk and tofu there would be less cases of prostate cancer but less money for meat industry
It's also my understanding that DHT, the most aggressive of the androgens, is the main is the problem one for PCa, the same one that causes male pattern baldness. On the natural side of things, spearmint extract, red reishi extract, and saw palmetto extract are inhibitors of the enzyme 5-alpha reductase.
I'm equally confounded by the research because meats, lacking cancer fighting phytochemicals and having more negatives than positives, does not sound like the right direction for the condition.
OMG ! What kind of researchers exist even in Harvard...Scary ! Most other cancers feed on Sugar... BUTProstate Cancer feeds on fatty acids ..mainly saturated fatty acids... Please remember this basic fact every time you come across a misleading Junk Study.
where are convincing studies on these claims about good and bad PCa diets? Have you read what the Harvard scientists have published?
Back2health should have provided a link to the info disseminated by the Harvard scientists!! No mention of PCa...just some generalized hypothesis about cancer overall.
Let's be for real, please. "Good and Bad Diets" play a role in nearly all diseases, especially chronic ones like cancer. And even if you don't have a disease, eating a bad diet long enough could give you one. Don't believe me--try eating hamburgers and hot dogs three times a day and drinking a six-pack of sodas. Maybe this is the best way to get the point across.
No, a plethora of things are drivers, not just "old hat" Androgens. Gotta look out for Inflammation and foods that increase them, Saturated Fats, Excess Meat (elevate IGF-1, a major driver), Zinc deficiency, excess Selenium/insufficient Selenium, elevated Glucose of course, Too much Dairy (loaded with hormones), HCA's from overly-cooked meats, Acrylamides from Fries, Toasts, Crackers, etc. And by the way, male Androgens aren't the only hormone instigator for PCa. A version of the female hormone Estrogen called Estradiol is implicated as well for the condition depending on the type.
Hey, these are just hormonal and dietary factors to consider. Then there are environmental toxins to steer clear of. Carcinogenic toxins first cause DNA damage. If the P53 genes are not up to the task of doing the repair work of them, the damage progresses to genetic mutations that eventually lead to cellular derangements.
Here's a link to a PubMed Central study on Saturated Fats and PCa. No secret, widely known!
No, I am not at all buying into that Harvard Study even though the doctors behind it have impressive resumes.
Interesting, "most other cancers feed on sugar, prostate cancers feed on saturated fatty acids." Actually from my searches, all cancer cells feed on glucose in varying degrees because it's a quick, essential source for their rapid proliferation. Actually some researchers are targeting the GLUTs (glucose transporters) on PCa cells as a means of blocking their uptake of glucose.
And they feed on not just these two nutrients, but as well they have big appetites for iron, glutamine.
To grow and proliferate, prostate cancer cells need an array of nutrients and hormones (DHT), some more than others.
Thank you, back2health, I've read about the other drivers lately, I wonder why they don't promote good food as a way of helping,I always see sweets an cakes in the cancer unit........and find no one really knows about food and nutrition thanks again
Perhaps easier to digest when nauseous, as prhaps many cancer patients are. Plus, those hospitalized are likely advanced, and diet would matter zero at that point!!
Thanks Beesnbonsai. Many on this and other sites are quite limited in their understanding of the role of nutrition and diet in disease pathologies. I studied nutrition in college and track research globally on studies involving the role and impact of diet and nutrition on cancer in general, and prostate cancer in particular.
I think it's important to understand the research from a global perspective because in some countries, the role and impact of nutrition may be more valued than in others, or less valued than in others.
What we have to understand is that "each of the huge number of biological processes related to carcinogenesis of the various types" are or can be impacted by diet and nutrition, including those at the level of DNA and genes.
For example, Sulforaphane/Sinigrin/Indole 3 Carbinol/DIM/AITC (all in Broccoli), Apigenin (apples, chamomile tea), EGCG, Quercetin, Zinc, Selenium, Vitamins, Herbal Compounds: (Curcumin, Quercetin, Resveratrol, Ursolic Acid, Silibinin, etc.) all are shown to positively impact on various complex processes in carcinogenesis. Note: In "knee-jerk" fashion, without thinking, many tend to jump to erroneous conclusions that what I am saying is that these agents "Cure Cancer"--which is not what I am saying!
What I'm only saying is that research has demonstrated that such agents positively impact the processes related to cancers such as inflammation/oxidation/impaired immunity /hormonal imbalance/DNA damage/genetic mutations/elevated glucose/glucose transporters over-expression/elevations in IGF-1/down-regulations of zinc transporters, etc. Since each cancer type has it's own set of rogue biological processes, and seemingly many of them, no one natural compound or synthetic drug is "likely" to correct them all or a sufficient number of them and result in a complete cure of the condition. This is worded "probabilistically," however, because cancer is still such a misunderstood condition that numerous individuals have claimed "cures" or remissions from it as a result of using certain natural compounds, combinations of them, or natural compounds plus pharmaceuticals.
One thing that cannot be overlooked is that there is a major difference between the levels or concentrations and qualities of researched substances used in studies and those that the consumer-patient may use for therapeutic intervention.
Seemingly, no one wants to know about beneficial natural interventions for cancer in the conventional settings. Notice, how large the spaces are for doctors and surgeons in hospitals, while the spaces for dieticians and nutritionists are a "closet" hidden in the building. And then, nutritionists and dieticians working in hospital settings are indoctrinated in "50 year old, out-dated knowledge" about cancer-friendly diets if you do have a chance to talk to one. Stuff like "get plenty of fruits and vegetables." You may do fine getting plenty of veggies, especially cruciferous for the condition--but absolutely not "plenty of fruit." The high levels of fructose, converting to glucose will make cancer cells feel like a party is on the way! NOTE: What they failed to learn properly is that while plenty of fruit is a good idea to Avoid cancers, but plenty of it is what you Avoid if you have the condition in process.
I had the opportunity to talk to Dr. Martin Gleave, albeit briefly, to pick his brain about drivers of PCA and I asked about diet and specifically about IGF-1, the latter which seems to be a scary thing in some of the literature. He dismissed IGF-1 as a driver, and mentioned having a "heart healthy diet" (didn't have time to ask more details on this) and low sugar.
Many doctor "dismiss" many things that researchers take "seriously." Often they base their views and assumptions on the patient histories they've observed in their practices while being blinded to the fuller scope.
My doctor's only concerns with my diet were dairy, red meat, and refined sugars. Apparently, she "dismissed" too much carbs of any kind, excess meat intake, overly-cooked meats of any kind (generate HCA's), the excess peanut butter that I crave (high in Omega-6 and promoter of Interlukin-6, a "bad-actor" pro-inflammatory with an impact on many chronic diseases, including cancers, and other problem dietary factors.
To sum up what people are telling you here... You can't always apply any claims regarding effects on cancer in general to a specific form of cancer like Prostate Cancer.
There is moderately strong evidence a diet low or devoid of red meat, chicken with skin on, high-fat dairy, and eggs can help reduce the incidence of PCa. There is evidence PSA progression is slowed on a Vegetarian Diet. BUT, in the larger context of everything you can do when you already have Prostate Cancer, diet, relative to the standard of care treatment and exercise may be RELATIVELY less important than these other things. We all desperately want to discover one day that our diet and/or a few supplements are the silver bullet. They're not.
In a nutshell: I believe for people that already have PCa where the definitive initial treatments have failed to be curative, I don't think having a cheeseburger with bacon once a week and a few slices of pizza is going to make much difference regarding your survival in the long run as long as you have a reasonable degree of healthy lifestyle habits (eating healthy most of the time and exercising) on average. I suspect people dealing with cancer generally have a bias that predisposes us to overinterpreting study results involving non-drug interventions.
Cancers are complex, multi-faceted, and multi-dimensional systems of aberrant processes. On a fundamental level, they all tend to share processes involving inflammation, oxidation, immunity, excessive expression of glucose transporters, P53 impairments and others.
But then, each type has its own set of rogue biological processes, such as with PCa, processes related to Androgen Receptor over-expression, high Androgen levels, especially DHT, bad Estrogen metabolites, excess saturated fats (disrupt hormonal regulations in gland, and not surprising since they are needed to build hormones).
Therefore, some things like antioxidants, anti-inflammatory agents, immunomodulators, glucose uptake inhibitors, tend to benefit most all cancers, while some like AR-regulators, DHT-blockers, 5-Alpha Reductase inhibitors are specific to PCa.
Many of the agents that I've written about on the site are those with broad and well-studied biological activities against many cancer types, including PCa, such as Quercetin, Apigenin, EGCG, Resveratrol, Curcumin, Silibinin, Sulforaphane, Fisetin, Berberine, etc.
"I've been on the Atkins diet, lost 10 pounds in a week, poop great, and feel amazing!"
"I've been on the carnivore diet for 10 days, poop great, and feel amazing!"
"I've been doing a juice fast for 3 weeks, I've been pooping out stuff I couldn't believe was in my gut, and I feel amazing!"
The common denominator between all these is caloric reduction/restriction. It seems just the act of restricting your calories improves digestion, lets your body devote more resources and energy to other functions besides coping with food intake, reduces IGF-1/mTOR and other cancer drivers. I think if researchers look deeper into this they'll find that this caloric reduction alone is what's driving these optimizations, rather than what the patient's eating.
The million dollar question though, is are any of these radical diets good for people long-term? It's unlikely that consuming only cabbage, meat products, or fruit and vegetable juice are healthy given a long enough time frame. I'll stick to a slight caloric reduction with a variety of healthy foods throughout the day (and YES, the occasional deviation meal of a burger with fries and a soda). I'm at 2200cal/day right now, I poop great, and I feel amazing!
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Protein intake and longevity
Princeton researchers discover that malignant tumors' metabolism is much slower than expected 
