Thursday, August 25, 2016

Zika Is Just the First Front in the 21st-Century Biowar

Zika Is Just the First Front in the 21st-Century Biowar
There are many national security challenges facing the United States, but too often our focus is exclusively on threats from terrorism, geopolitics and cyberattacks. As the country confronts the arrival of the Zika virus and contemplates travel bans to Miami, it’s time to have an adult conversation about the threats posed by biology.    It’s not hard to understand why our lives are increasingly wrapped up in the latest twists and turns of the cyberworld. That supercomputer you are carrying in your pocket (when its tiny colorful screen isn’t parked six inches in front of your eyes) is a synthesizer of all the world’s knowledge, photography, art, music, and data. It is also a kind of X-ray machine that can provide insights into the deepest recesses of our personal lives: our preferences, choices, intimate moments, health, purchases, and indeed our character.
Yet the impact of all that information and data pales in comparison to what is heading our way in the world of biology. Biological, not cybernetic, developments will determine the course of the 21st century. Ebola, Zika, and the emergence of antibiotic-impervious superbugs are just previews of the coming challenges.
By the turn of the next century, most scientists believe biological technologies will introduce the most wrenching changes — both practical and ethical — in our daily lives. These technologies will include human and animal life extension, crop and livestock genetic manipulation, and human performance enhancement, which together will begin changing the very nature of what it means to be human. As futurist and visionary Ray Kurzweil has famously opined, “The singularity is near,” meaning the merger of information, big data, artificial intelligence, and biology. Stand by for heavy rolls, as we say in the Navy.
A main element of the biological revolution will be its impact on security in the broadest sense of the term, as well as on the more specific realm of military activity. Both of these are part of the work being done by various laboratories around the globe, including here in the United States at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab, where I serve as a senior fellow.
Some of the most promising advances made at JHU APL and elsewhere involve man-machine interfaces, with particular emphasis on brain-machine connections that would allow the use of disconnected limbs; more rapid disease identification in response to both natural and man-made epidemics; artificial intelligence, which offers the greatest near-term potential for both positive benefit and military application (i.e., autonomous attack drones); human performance enhancement, including significant reduction in sleep needs, increases in mental acuity, and improvements in exoskeleton and skin “armor”; and efficient genome editing using CRISPR-Cas, a technology that has become widely available to ever smaller laboratory settings, including individuals working out of their homes.
The most important question is how to appropriately pursue such research while remaining within the legal, ethical, moral, and policy boundaries that our society might one day like to set, though are still largely unformed. Scientists are like soldiers on patrol in unmarked terrain, one that is occasionally illuminated by a flash of lightning, revealing steeper and more dangerous ground ahead. The United States needs to continue its research efforts, but, equally important, it needs to develop a coherent and cohesive biological strategy to guide those efforts.
But national biological research efforts will also have international implications, so over time there will need to be international diplomacy to set norms of behavior for the use of these technologies. The diplomacy that went into developing the Law of the Sea, and is under consideration in the cyberworld, could serve as a useful model.
A major challenge for such diplomacy is that individual nations, transnational organizations, or even individuals will soon have access — if they don’t already — to biological tools that permit manipulation of living organisms. The rise of low-cost synthetic biology technologies, the falling cost of DNA sequencing, and the diffusion of knowledge through the internet create the conditions for a breakout biological event not dissimilar to the Spanish influenza of roughly a century ago. In that plague, by some estimates, nearly 40 percent of the world’s population was infected, with a 10 to 20 percent mortality rate. Extrapolated to our current global population, that would equate to more than 400 million dead. 
Most alarming would be that either rogue nations or violent transnational groups would gain access to these technologies and use them to create biological weapons of mass destruction. As Josh Wolfe, a leading researcher at Johns Hopkins, has said, “Natural biological weapons are limited by the characteristics of agents that are not ideal for weaponization; synthetic biological weapons can be designed without these limitations.”
His work focuses on being able to quickly detect such synthetic biological threats, analyze them, and, perhaps most importantly, attribute them — that is to say, identify which lab or nation is the source of the bug. Wolfe’s research could provide governments with enough information about biological attacks to allow them to develop coherent responses — and thus provide the foundation for an international deterrent regime, which would hopefully prove effective against other countries. (Deterring terror organizations from using such bioweapons if they were able to construct or obtain them would be a far more daunting task.)
There are three key components to preparing for the biological revolution. First, we need an international approach that seeks to limit the proliferation of highly dangerous technologies (much as we try to accomplish with nuclear weapons) and fosters cooperation in the case of contagion or a transnational biological threat.
Here we already encounter a big problem. Nuclear proliferation is fairly straightforward to regulate, at least from a policy standpoint, because there are certain things that nobody needs unless they’re trying to make a nuclear weapon. Synthetic biology offers no such list. Even if we were omniscient in regard to every single gene being ordered or sequenced worldwide, it would still be nearly impossible, in the absence of other information, to tell which people or organizations were pursuing peaceful research and which ones were up to no good. It would be the Wild West, with no black hats or handlebar mustaches to tip us off.
Second, the American government’s interagency process must become more adept at addressing both the scientific advances and the security challenges emanating from the world of biological research. At present, federal policy pertaining to such work is organized in silos that prevent it from responding quickly or efficiently. Some of the work is done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, some by the Department of Homeland Security, and other responsibilities and capabilities are assigned to the Department of Health and Human Services. Alongside all that, the Department of Defense has developed its own fairly elaborate capability. Until this changes, the country will be at significant risk.
Finally, all this will require a powerful level of private-public cooperation. So much of the technological advances will come in the business ventures of the Route 128 biotech belt around Boston and other advanced centers in the private sector. Bringing them in concert with government and academic centers like Johns Hopkins will be significant, although this must be done in a way that does not stifle innovation unduly. How to link private and public in this sector is largely unclear, but there may be models in the world of cybersecurity, where some nascent attempts (and failures, frankly) are evolving.
Additionally, there is an imperative to open a broader conversation about the coming impact of the biological world. As citizens, both in the United States and globally, we spend far too much time focused on information and cyber-technologies. The weaponization of biology is coming, and coming quickly. And our ability to control that process — or not – will determine our destiny.

Saturday, August 20, 2016

Here's how scientists are going to save the world from annihilation
Move over, superheroes.
FIONA MACDONALD
19 AUG 2016
It’s no secret that the planet is in serious trouble. By August 8 this year, we’d already used up an entire year’s worth of resources - leaving us in the planetary red five days earlier than we were last year.
But while it can often feel like we’re powerless to stop the climate getting warmer or the oceans rising to the point where Earth is no longer habitable, scientists aren’t anywhere near giving up on our planet.
In fact, scientists are constantly coming up with some pretty ingenious ways to fix humankind’s biggest problems.
Here are just a few of the Marvel-worthy breakthroughs that happen when science and the environment collide:
1. Sucking CO2 out of the air and turning it into fuel
Researchers in Canada have developed a device that can suck CO2 pollution straight out of the air and convert it into fuel.
Developed by a start-up called Carbon Engineering, partly funded by Bill Gates, the system works by sucking CO2 out of the air, and then combining it with hydrogen split from water to form hydrocarbon fuel.
carbon-capture1Carbon Engineering
The process is totally powered by renewable energy sources, but so far the prototype can only remove about 450 tonnes of CO2 each year – which doesn’t make much of a dent in the roughly 40 billion tonnes of carbon pumped into the atmosphere by humans annually.
But the system could easily be scaled up, and an extended version launching in 2017 is expected to produce 400 litres of gasoline or diesel per day – all from the carbon in our air, rather than fossil fuels.
2. Getting worms to eat our plastic waste
By 2050, it’s predicted that there’ll be more plastic in than fish in the oceans, and a lot of it gets there after we throw out things like plastic bags and coffee cups, or when plastic waste blows off of landfill.
But at the end of last year, for the first time, researchers found bacteria inside the gut of mealworms that can safely degrade plastic.
In fact, the team showed that these mealworm can happily live on a diet of Styrofoam and polystyrene, which means that they could be used to break the waste down safely before it ends up in landfill or the ocean.
Right now, it would take a whole lot of mealworms to eat all the waste we produce, but the team is looking into which enzyme is responsible for breaking down the plastic, and hopefully enhancing it to make it more efficient.
3. Cleaning up the ocean garbage patch with a giant net
For the plastic that’s already in the ocean, 22-year-old Boyan Slat has come up with a different plan.
Two years ago, he proposed creating a giant v-shaped filter, and attaching it to the seafloor, so natural wind patterns and ocean currents would collect the trash for us.
CleanUp1TheOceanCleanup
It seemed like a pretty crazy idea at the time, but he’s now built a prototype and has the backing of 15 universities and a successful crowd-funding campaign. If anyone can make it happen…
4. Creating diamond clouds
Using geoengineering to create artificial clouds has been proposed as an extreme measure for cooling the planet down.
In the past, scientists have suggested pumping huge amounts of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere - the same substance that’s released during volcanic eruptions, which in the past have been shown to cool the planet down.
But sulphur dioxide also doesn’t have the best effect on planet and animal life, and isn’t the healthiest thing to breathe in, so Harvard scientists have come up with another idea – flinging tonnes of powdered alumina and diamond dust into the atmosphere.
The idea is that this dust, just like sulphur dioxide, will reflect sunlight, keeping Earth cooler for longer - without the toxic side effects. The research is still in its early phases, but it’s good to know that if the situation gets dire enough for geoengineering to step in, at least we’ll have something nice to look at.
5. Using drones to replant trees
With Earth’s forests being bulldozed faster than they can regenerate, former NASA engineer Lauren Fletcher has come up with an ingenious solution – usingdrones to plant trees at a rate of 1 billion per year.
The idea behind the company, BioCarbon Engineering, is that humans on our own are no longer enough to be able to replace all the trees we clear for housing, farmland, and paper every single year.
But developments in technology brought us this problem, so why not use technology to fix it?
drone-plants1BioCarbon Engineering
Thanks to the latest developments in drones, it’s now possible to have the aerial vehicles not only drop seed capsules, but also water and monitor new trees, all without humans having to leave their homes.
"Destruction of global forests from lumber, mining, agriculture, and urban expansion destroys 26 billion trees each year. We believe that this industrial scale deforestation is best combated using the latest automation technologies,"says the BioCarbon Engineering website.

Wednesday, August 17, 2016


Sugar has a stronger effect on our brains than we even realised, study finds
The complete opposite of what scientists thought.
BEC CREW
16 AUG 2016
German scientists have discovered that our brains are actively taking in sugar from the blood stream, overturning the long-held assumption that this was a purely passive process.
Even more surprising, they also found that it’s not our neurons that are responsible for absorbing all that sugar - it’s our glial cells, which make up 90 percent of the brain’s total cells, and until very recently, have been shrouded in mystery.  
Not only does the find go against conventional wisdom on how our brains respond to sugar intake, it also shows how cells other than our neurons can actively play a role in controlling our behaviour.
Astrocytes - which are a specialised form of glial cell that outnumber neuronsmore than fivefold - have long been thought of as little more than ‘support cells’, helping to maintain the blood-brain barrier, carry nutrients to the nervous tissue, and play a role in brain and spinal cord repair.
But we now have evidence that they also play a role in human feeding behaviours, with researchers finding that their ability to sense and actively take in sugar is regulating the kinds of appetite-related signals that our neurons send out to the rest of the body. 
And we’re not talking about a little bit of sugar here: the human brain experiences the highest level of sugar consumption out of every organ in the body. 
"Our results showed for the first time that essential metabolic and behavioural processes are not regulated via neuronal cells alone, and that other cell types in the brain, such as astrocytes, play a crucial role," explains study leader Matthias Tschöp from the Technical University of Munich.
"This represents a paradigm shift and could help explain why it has been so difficult to find sufficiently efficient and safe medicines for diabetes and obesity until now." 
Tschöp and his team decided to investigate how the brain decides to take in sugar from the blood - and how much - because this is directly related to our feelings of hunger. 
A better understanding of why we get hungry could quite literally change modern society, with recent estimates putting the number of obese people in the world above those of underweight people.
"We ... suspected that a process as important as providing the brain with sufficient sugar was unlikely to be completely random," says one of the team, neurobiologist Cristina García-Cáceres.
"We were misled by the fact that nerve cells apparently did not control this process, and therefore first thought it to occur passively. Then we had the idea that glia cells such as astrocytes, which had long been misunderstood as less important 'support cells', might have something to do with transporting sugar into the brain."
The team used positron emission tomography (PET) scans to observe how insulin receptors act on the surface of the brain’s astrocytes. Insulin is a hormone produced by the pancreas to allow the body to use or store sugar (in the form of glucose) from carbohydrates in the food we eat.
They found that if these receptors were missing on certain astrocytes, it would result in less activity in the neurons that are responsible for curbing food uptake, called proopiomelanocortin neurons. 
Not only that, but they found that astrocytes missing insulin receptors actually became less efficient over time in transporting glucose into the brain - particularly in a region of the hypothalamus that sends out signals that you're full, or satiated.
So it looks like glial cells, not the neurons, are the true 'gate-keepers' for how much sugar our brains absorb, and we now know that sugar has such a powerful influence on them, they're seeking out sugar, rather than just passively absorbing it.
A better understanding of how this works could change everything about how we treat obesity in the future.
The team says that a lot more research is now needed to adjust the old model that assumed the neurons alone were regulating our food intake and metabolism, and suggest that maybe even our immune cells are playing a role in it as well.
"We have a lot of work ahead of us," says García-Cáceres, "but at least now we have a better idea where to look."
The research has been published in Cell.

Friday, August 12, 2016

Contemporary Shrimp Production Poses Risks to Consumers and the Environment


 
Organic Consumers
 by Martha Rosenberg
Americans love shrimp. On average, we consume about 4.10 pounds of it a year, compared with only 2.8 pounds of canned tuna and 1.84 pounds of salmon. Most of that shrimp is imported from countries in Southeast Asia, where it’s produced using chemicals and drugs not approved in the U.S.
Shrimp may be the most popular seafood in the U.S. But would we eat as much of it if we fully understood the food safety, environmental and ethical issues associated with its production? Like contemporary factory farm meat production, shrimp farming has become intensive. Shrimp are crowded into small ponds. Because the water in those ponds typically is not re-circulated, harmful waste builds up, oxygen is depleted and disease breaks out. To combat disease, fish farmers often turn to the excessive use of antibiotics. 
It isn’t just the shrimp itself that’s questionable. Shrimp production in Southeast Asia is rife with worker abuse and destruction of local farmland—which means destruction of local livelihoods. In Bangladesh, for instance, local farmers have lost land to industrial shrimp operations that are operated by non-locals. Their once-fertile land now is submerged under the commercial operations’ man-made ponds, which often are built by destroying mangrove forests which previously supported the local community. The "chemical soup" that commercial shrimp are grown in threatens local workers, and pollutes their water bodies and marine life with toxic effluent. When the ponds become so polluted that even antibiotics no longer work, the operators pack up and move on to a new location where they destroy another local environment.
Clearly, consumers should avoid imported shrimp. But unfortunately, it’s not easy. Labeling omissions and even outright fraud make it almost impossible to know where the shrimp you buy comes from, or how it was produced. Farmed fish are often labeled “gulf shrimp” even though an Oceana exposé found instances where packages of “gulf shrimp” included many non-gulf species—even aquarium pet shrimp. Yet packages marked just “shrimp” often, ironically, contain wild-caught shrimp. Such fraud costs Americans an estimated $25 billion annually says the Atlantic.
Mislabeling is more often than not intentional. The largest seafood vendors pressure the government not to enforce proper labeling, seafood writer Jerald Horst told
the New York Times. The federal Country of Origin Labeling Law (COOL) used to mandate disclosure of where fresh seafood was farmed or caught, but the law didn’t apply to processed foods, including boiled and breaded seafood, seafood added to packaged meals, or shrimp sold in restaurants. However now, even that consumer protection is gone—Congress repealed COOL in December 2015.
Chemicals, including banned ones, dominate shrimp farming 
Commercial shrimp production in India, the second largest exporter of shrimp to the U.S, begins with a long list of chemicals, including urea, superphosphate and diesel. From there it gets worse.  Fish-killing chemicals like chlorine and rotenone (linked to Parkinson’s Disease), and the use of Borax and sodium tripolyphosphate (a suspected neurotoxin), are rampant in in India’s shrimp production,according to “Bottomfeeder: How to Eat Ethically in a World of Vanishing Seafood.”
By contrast, only one chemical, formalin, is approved for use in U.S. shrimp production. Formalin is a parasiticide which contains formaldehyde gas. It has no mandatory withdrawal time or legal residue tolerance.  Other chemicals, such as the antibiotics the chloramphenicol and quinolones, are completely banned in U.S shrimp production, while others are "unapproved" but widely used "off-label." 
Too many inspection loopholes
Both the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the shrimp industry have mechanisms to protect the consumer from bacterial and chemical shrimp risks, but the regulations are difficult to enforce. The FDA relies on the Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP) program, the PREDICT system, random shipment checks, "import alerts" and 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) regulations to stop unhealthful shrimp. But there are only 200 fulltime inspectors to police 300 ports, according to interviews. HACCP does not include checks for a bacterium called Vibrio in shrimp. Widely but erroneously believed to be destroyed by a quick freezing process, Vibrio is known to sometimes survive freezing.
When imported shrimp arrives in the U.S., the FDA is in charge of ensuring its safety—but over 96 percent of shipments are not opened or checked at the ports. Instead, the FDA relies on an automated system that flags companies with prior offenses for greater scrutiny, including document inspection, visual inspection (is it really shrimp?) and actual lab tests. If a company or country is an actual violator of FDA regulations, shipments are automatically detained and denied entry under the FDA’s Import Alert program, without inspections or lab tests. Automatic detention of shipments is not lifted until a manufacturer, shipper, grower or importer demonstrates to the FDA that the violation has been corrected.  But the system isn’t foolproof. When a country is blocked from shipping shrimp it often "transships" through a different country, one that is believed to be safe, say seafood safety experts.
Most trade and seafood experts agree the solution to unsafe shrimp from farming operations is not stopping it at the port but at the pond, using third-party certification in the country where it is produced. Yet a 2011 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which assessed FDA third-party certification of shrimp production, found language barriers, data collection irregularities and a general feeling that "no one was minding the store." Six out of eight auditors, for example, did not even know what drugs and chemicals were approved in U.S. exports. 
Wild-Caught shrimp—better for you, bad for the environment
Wild-caught shrimp do not put consumers at the same risk of exposure to chemicals as farm-raised shrimp, especially imported farm-raised shrimp. But wild-caught shrimp takes a huge toll on the environment.
The process used to catch wild shrimp involves dragging cone-shaped nets, called otter trawlers, along the ocean floor. But these nets catch more than just shrimp. For every pound of wild-caught shrimp, another six pounds of other marine life, referred to as “bycatch,” is destroyed—and discarded. 
Bycatch, including dolphins and sharks, can be reduced if shrimpers replace otter trawlers with Turtle Exclusion Devices (TED). But some shrimpers forego these devices because they reduce the size of the shrimp catch. In 1987, Louisiana even passed a law prohibiting enforcement of federal TED regulations in its water, rightfully inspiring the Monterey Bay Aquarium to blacklist Louisiana wild shrimp. 
Is there a way to safely and ethically eat shrimp?
Clearly, designations like “gulf shrimp,” “wild caught,” "organic" or "turtle safe” mean nothing.  Unless labels are third-party certified, shrimp sellers can, and do, claim whatever they like on their labels. Luckily several third-party certified labels exist on shrimp packages that provide some transparency about production methods, from stocking density and chemicals used to negative environmental and social impacts, including the use of unethical labor. 
Certifications that are widely trusted are the Marine Stewardship CouncilMonterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch, Global Aquaculture Alliance’s Best Aquaculture Practices label (BAP), the Aquaculture Stewardship Council's Farmed Responsibly label, Whole Foods Market's Responsibly Farmed label and the Naturland label. 
But for the most part, when it comes to buying shrimp—whether from a store or a restaurant—it’s buyer beware.
Martha Rosenberg is a contributing writer to the Organic Consumers Association. 

Thursday, July 28, 2016

WHY EATING RED MEAT CAUSES CANCER

SCIENTIST FINALLY DISCOVER WHY EATING RED MEAT CAUSES CANCER


A new study out of the University of California, San Diego has discovered the culprit behind why eating red meat leads to higher instances of cancer -and it all has to do with a sugar.
Humans are the only animals that have a higher risk of cancer when it comes to eating red meat, as other carnivores eat red meat naturally with no ill side effects. The study, which was published December 29 in the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,” discovered that a unique sugar named Neu5Gc, found in most mammals but not in humans, triggers an immune response that in turn causes inflammation.
Ajit Varki, who led the study, explained the effect Neu5Gc had in mice: “Until now, all of our evidence linking Neu5Gc to cancer was circumstantial or indirectly predicted from somewhat artificial experimental setups … This is the first time we have directly shown that mimicking the exact situation in humans – feeding non-human Neu5Gc and inducing anti-Neu5Gc antibodies -increases spontaneous cancers in mice.”
 

This particular sugar can be found in red meats (using the nutritional definition of red meat, which includes pork and other livestock), cow’s milk and certain cheeses. Unfortunately for humans, our bodies can’t produce this sugar naturally, so when it is absorbed into our tissues, it is seen as a foreign invader. This then leads to the activation of our immune systems.
The result is inflammation.
And, while inflammation is not a great thing, in and of itself, it gets worse. If the immune system is subject to Neu5GC frequently, chronic inflammation will result. This inflammation can then lead to cancer. Those who regularly consume red meat will definitely suffer a stronger reaction than those who ingest red meat on an occasional basis.
Other animals, strict carnivores, who can make the Neu5GC sugar can eat red meats. Humans, not being strict carnivores, can’t. Therefore it seems clear that humans must avoid red meat consumption or face inflammation and possible cancer. At the minimum, reducing red meat ingestion will boost health.
If for some reason you believe eating red meat every day (even if it is grass-fed) isn’t a bad thing, well now you have proof. Sorry, meat eaters, humans just aren’t built to be true carnivores.

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Elevated Blood Sugar Sets the Stage for Cancer Growth

Elevated Blood Sugar Sets the Stage for Cancer Growth

July 27, 2016 |By Dr. Mercola


The fact that sugar and obesity are linked to an increased risk of cancer is now becoming well-recognized. Obesity has also been linked to an increased risk of death from all causes.
According to research published in 2013, nearly 1 in 5 U.S. deaths is associated with obesity.1 More recently, researchers published findings from a meta analysis of 239 studies covering four continents, saying excess body weight is responsible for 1 in 5 of all premature deaths in the U.S. and 1 in 7 in Europe.2,3,4
On average, carrying excess weight may reduce your life expectancy by about one year, while being moderately obese may result in a three-year reduction in lifespan. Those of normal weight had the longest life expectancy and the lowest risk of dying before the age of 70.
Considering facts such as these, it's no surprise that the financial burden of excessive sugar consumption is also great.
According to the Credit Suisse Research Institute's 2013 study5 "Sugar: Consumption at a Crossroads," as much as 40 percent of U.S. healthcare expenditures are for diseases directly related to the overconsumption of sugar, and this includes obesity, diabetes and cancer.
So, sugary processed foods may be cheap on the front end, but they exact a hefty price tag down the line.

Diet Can Influence Your Cancer Risk in More Ways Than One

Your diet plays a crucial role when it comes to obesity and related health problems such as elevated blood sugar, insulin resistance and cancer. Research suggests obesity can promote cancer via a number of different mechanisms.
One of the key mechanisms by which sugar promotes cancer and other chronic disease is by causing mitochondrial dysfunction. Sugar is not an ideal fuel for your body as it burns "dirty," creating far more reactive oxygen species (ROS) than fat does when it's metabolized.
As a result, excessive amounts of free radicals are generated when you eat excessive sugar, which in turn causes mitochondrial and nuclear DNA damage, along with cell membrane and protein impairment.
So, contrary to conventional teaching, nuclear genetic defects do not cause cancer. Rather, mitochondrial damage happens first, and this then triggers nuclear genetic mutations.
Research6 has shown that chronic overeating in general has a similar effect, as it places stress on the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), the membranous network found inside the mitochondria of your cells.
When the ER receives more nutrients than it can process, it signals the cell to dampen the sensitivity of the insulin receptors on the surface of the cell.
Thus continuously eating more than your body really needs promotes insulin resistance by the mere fact that your cells are stressed by the additional work placed on them by the excess nutrients. Insulin resistance in turn is at the heart of most chronic disease, including cancer.

Sugar Is a Key Contributor to Cancer

Most people who overeat also tend to eat many sugar-laden foods, which promotes elevated blood sugar levels and insulin resistance. So overeating sugary foods equates to a double-whammy in terms of cancer risk, compared to overeating whole, unprocessed fare.
In fact, recent research has identified sugar as the top contributor to the worldwide cancer surge. According to a report7 on the global cancer burden, published in 2014, obesity is responsible for an estimated 500,000 cancer cases worldwide each year.
The reason for this is because cancer cells are primarily fueled by the burning of sugar anaerobically. Without sugar, most cancer cells simply lack the metabolic flexibility to survive.
Normal, healthy cells have the metabolic flexibility to adapt from using glucose to using ketone bodies from dietary fats. Most cancer cells lack this ability so when you reduce net carbs (total carbs minus fiber), you effectively starve the cancer. This is why nutritional ketosis appears to be so effective against cancer.
According to recent research from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, refined sugar not only significantly increases your risk of breast cancer; it also raises your risk of tumors spreading to other organs.8
It was primarily the refined fructose in high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) found in most processed foods and beverages that was responsible for the breast tumors and the metastasis.

The Role of Genetics, Proteins and Hormones

While genetic defects are not a primary cause of cancer, genes can still play a role. Scientists have discovered that a number of genes known to promote cancer by influencing cell division — including a gene called AKT — also regulate cells' consumption of nutrients.
So certain genes actually appear to play a role in cancer cells' overconsumption of sugar. Whereas healthy cells have a feedback mechanism that makes it conserve resources when there's a lack of food, cancer cells do not have this mechanism and feed continuously.
Recent research has also found that overweight women who lost weight reduced their risk of cancer by lowering their levels of certain proteins linked to cancer development.9
These proteins (VEGF, PAI-1 and PEDF) promote angiogenesis, a process your body uses to build blood vessels that tumors need to thrive. The greater the women's weight loss, the greater their reduction in these proteins.
Previous research suggests losing weight can reduce your risk of breast, colon and prostate cancer by as much as 20 percent, and this effect is thought to be due to reductions in these proteins and other inflammatory compounds stored in fat cells.10
Obesity also triggers overproduction of certain hormones, such as estrogen, which is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer.

Links Between Diabetes and Cancer Are Getting Stronger

Overall, insulin resistance is one of the key contributors to a heightened cancer risk, and many studies have confirmed that type 2 diabetics are at greater risk.
One recent study, which included more than 1 million adult cancer patients, found that those diagnosed with type 2 diabetes were 23 percent more likely to have received a cancer diagnosis during the decade preceding their diabetes diagnosis compared to non-diabetics.11,12
Recent research has also noted that a growing number of obese Americans have poor blood sugar control, which in turn promotes rising rates of type 2 diabetes and associated health conditions. To combat this trend, the researchers urge overweight people to consider "serious weight loss efforts." As reported by WebMD:13
"Between 1988 and 2014, rates of diabetes rose from 11 percent to 19 percent, which was due to increases in blood sugar, the researchers said.
The investigators found that the rate of obese adults without the three key risk factors for heart disease — diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure — held steady at just 15 percent.
But the rate of obese adults with all three risk factors rose 37 percent — to nearly [1] in [4] ... Risk for all three factors increased progressively from age 40 on ...
'We have two choices: letting this population get sick and provide monies for treatment of complications and disability; or intervene early and prevent diabetes by encouraging weight loss, leading to a healthier and more productive life,' [Dr. Joel] Zonszein, [director of the Clinical Diabetes Center at Montefiore Medical Center] said."

Prediabetes Also Raises Your Cancer Risk

Both of these findings tend to strengthen previous research showing that even prediabetes is a risk factor for cancer. More than 1 in 3 Americans aged 20 and older has prediabetes,14 a condition in which your glucose (blood sugar) levels are higher than normal but not yet high enough to be diagnosed as full-blown diabetes.
Of those with prediabetes, 15 percent to 30 percent will develop type 2 diabetes within five years.
A meta-analysis15 published in 2014, which included data from nearly 900,000 people, found that those with prediabetes have a 15 percent higher risk of cancer, especially cancers of the liver, stomach, pancreas, breast and endometrium. Other research has shown that people with the highest insulin levels at the time of a cancer diagnosis have significantly increased risks of cancer recurrence, as well as a greater risk of being diagnosed with a particularly aggressive form of cancer.16
From my perspective these findings aren't the least surprising and precisely what you would predict if you understand the mechanism of most cancers, which are essentially being fueled by a metabolism that is driven by sugar (glucose), generating loads of unnecessary and damaging free radicals, as opposed to clean burning, high-quality fats that generate far less ROS.

Ketogenic Diet May Be Key to Cancer Recovery

Nutritional ketosis is part of the answer here. In this type of diet, you replace net carbs (total carbs minus fiber) with moderate amounts of high-quality protein and high amounts of beneficial fat. Since cancer cells need glucose to thrive, and carbohydrates devoid of fiber turn into glucose in your body, cutting out net carbs quite literally starves the cancer cells. Additionally, low protein intake tends to minimize the mTOR pathway, which also helps restrict cell proliferation.
The video above features Thomas Seyfried, Ph.D., who discusses how, as a metabolic disorder involving the dysregulation of respiration, malignant cancer (in this case brain cancer) can be managed by altering your metabolic environment.
That said, this kind of diet (low in net carbs, moderate in high-quality protein and high in healthy fats) will also help normalize your weight and boost your general health for the simple reason that it helps you convert from carb burning mode to fat burning, which helps optimize your mitochondrial function.

How Fasting May Benefit Cancer Patients

Fasting is another strategy that helps reverse obesity and optimize mitochondrial function, and it too can offer hope in the fight against cancer. In fact, one research group is reportedly looking into the possibility of getting intermittent fasting approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as an adjunct therapy for cancer patients.17,18,19
Valter Longo, Ph.D., has published a number of studies on fasting and its impact on cancer. His most recent research, published in the journal Cancer Cell,20 found that fasting during chemotherapy boosts cancer-killing T cell activity, thereby improving the effectiveness of the chemotherapy. As reported by Science Daily:21
"[R]odents that received caloric restriction mimetics alone or chemotherapy combined with a fasting-mimicking diet had smaller tumor masses over time than those that received only chemotherapy ...
Mice with breast or skin cancers were given a low-sugar, low-protein, high-fat, low-calorie diet and were observed for [six] weeks while receiving doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide or no chemotherapeutic drugs. All of the mice receiving the diet-drug combination saw their tumors shrink to half the volume of the tumors in mice that received chemotherapy alone."
According to Longo:22 "The biggest factor exposing cancer cells to the T cells is the effect on the enzyme heme oxygenase-1, which is normally at high levels in cancer cells. Fasting reduces oxygenase levels and gives rise to a number of changes that included the increase of tumor-killing cytotoxic T cells."

What to Eat for Optimal Health and Cancer Prevention

From my perspective, ignoring diet as a cancer prevention tool is foolhardy at best. I'm convinced most cancers are preventable through proper nutrition. Avoiding toxic exposures (such as pesticides) is another important factor, and this is one reason why I recommend eating organic foods, especially grass-fed or pastured meats and animal products, whenever possible.
Make no mistake about it, the FIRST thing you want to do if you want to avoid or treat cancer if you have insulin or leptin resistance is to cut out all forms of sugar/fructose and grain carbs from your diet. This step will optimize the signaling pathways that otherwise might contribute to malignant transformation.
Remember, the foundational aspect that must be addressed is the metabolic mitochondrial defect discussed earlier, and this involves radically reducing the net (non-fiber) carbohydrates in your diet and replacing them with high-quality fats. Moderating your consumption of protein, and being mindful of the quality of the protein, is also important, as excessive protein can also trigger cancer growth. To learn more about this, please see my previous article, "The Very Real Risks of Consuming Too Much Protein".
So, in summary, for optimal health you need sufficient amounts of carbohydrates, fats and protein. However, there are healthy carbs and unhealthy ones. Ditto for fat and protein. From my review of the molecular biology required to optimize mitochondrial function, it may be wise to aim for a diet with the following nutrient ratios:
Healthy fats, 75 to 85 percent of your total calories. Beneficial monosaturated and saturated fats include olives and olive oil, coconuts and coconut oilbutter made from raw grass-fed organic milk, raw nuts such as macadamia and pecans, seeds like black sesame, black cumin, pumpkin and hemp seeds, avocados, grass-fed meats, lard and tallow, ghee (clarified butter), raw cacao butter, organic pastured egg yolks, animal-based omega-3 fats and small fatty fish like sardines and anchovies.
Harmful fats that contribute to disease are primarily trans fats and highly refined polyunsaturated omega-6 vegetable oils (PUFAs). Remember, glucose is an inherently "dirty" fuel as it generates far more ROS than fat burning does. But to burn fat, your cells must be healthy and normal. Cancer cells lack the metabolic flexibility to burn fat and this why a diet high in healthy fats appears to be such an effective anti-cancer strategy.
When you switch from burning glucose as your primary fuel to burning fat for fuel, cancer cells must struggle to stay alive, as most of their mitochondria are dysfunctional and can't use oxygen to burn fuel. At the same time, healthy cells are given an ideal and preferred fuel, which lowers oxidative damage and optimizes mitochondrial function. The sum effect is that healthy cells begin to thrive while cancer cells are "starved" to death.
Carbohydrates, 8 to 15 percent of your daily calories. Aim for twice as many fiber carbs as non-fiber (net) carbs. This means if your total carbs is 10 percent of your daily calories, at least half of that should be fiber. Fiber has a number of other health benefits, including weight management and a lower risk for certain cancers.23
I personally believe that most would benefit from reducing net carbs (not just fructose) to less than 100 grams (g) per day, and keeping your total fructose intake to a maximum of 25 g per day from all sources. If you are insulin resistant, you'd do well to make your upper fructose limit 15 g per day.
Cancer patients would likely be best served by even stricter limits. By reducing the amount of net carbs you eat, you will accomplish four things that will result in lowered inflammation and reduced stimulation of cancer growth. You will:
Lower your serum glucose level
Reduce your mTOR level
Reduce your insulin level
Lower insulin growth factor-1 (IGF-1, a potent hormone that acts on your pituitary gland to induce metabolic and endocrine effects, including cell growth and replication. Elevated IGF-1 levels are associated with breast and other cancers).
I typically keep my net carbs around 50 to 60 g per day While this may sound awfully complicated, the easiest way to dramatically cut down on your sugar and fructose consumption is to switch to real foods, as the vast majority of added sugar and fructose you end up with comes from processed fare.
Excellent sources of high-fiber carbs that you can eat plenty of include chia seeds, berries, raw nuts, cauliflower, root vegetables and tubers such as onions and sweet potatoes, green beans, peas, broccoli, Brussels sprouts and psyllium seed husk.
Protein, 7 to 10 percent of your total calories. Quality is important, so look for high-quality grass-fed or pastured meats and animal products. As a general rule, I recommend limiting your protein to 0.5 g of protein per pound of lean body mass, which for most people amounts to 40 to 70 g of protein a day.
(To estimate your protein requirements, first determine your lean body mass. Subtract your percent body fat from 100. For example, if you have 20 percent body fat, then you have 80 percent lean body mass. Just multiply that percentage by your current weight to get your lean body mass in pounds or kilos.)
Again, the reason for limiting protein is because excessive amounts have a stimulating effect on the mTOR pathway, which plays an important role in many diseases, including cancer. When you reduce protein to what your body needs for cell repair and maintenance, mTOR remains inhibited, which helps minimize your chances of cancer growth.

July 27, 2016 |
By Dr. Mercola
The fact that sugar and obesity are linked to an increased risk of cancer is now becoming well-recognized. Obesity has also been linked to an increased risk of death from all causes.
According to research published in 2013, nearly 1 in 5 U.S. deaths is associated with obesity.1 More recently, researchers published findings from a meta analysis of 239 studies covering four continents, saying excess body weight is responsible for 1 in 5 of all premature deaths in the U.S. and 1 in 7 in Europe.2,3,4
On average, carrying excess weight may reduce your life expectancy by about one year, while being moderately obese may result in a three-year reduction in lifespan. Those of normal weight had the longest life expectancy and the lowest risk of dying before the age of 70.
Considering facts such as these, it's no surprise that the financial burden of excessive sugar consumption is also great.
According to the Credit Suisse Research Institute's 2013 study5 "Sugar: Consumption at a Crossroads," as much as 40 percent of U.S. healthcare expenditures are for diseases directly related to the overconsumption of sugar, and this includes obesity, diabetes and cancer.
So, sugary processed foods may be cheap on the front end, but they exact a hefty price tag down the line.

Diet Can Influence Your Cancer Risk in More Ways Than One

Your diet plays a crucial role when it comes to obesity and related health problems such as elevated blood sugar, insulin resistance and cancer. Research suggests obesity can promote cancer via a number of different mechanisms.
One of the key mechanisms by which sugar promotes cancer and other chronic disease is by causing mitochondrial dysfunction. Sugar is not an ideal fuel for your body as it burns "dirty," creating far more reactive oxygen species (ROS) than fat does when it's metabolized.
As a result, excessive amounts of free radicals are generated when you eat excessive sugar, which in turn causes mitochondrial and nuclear DNA damage, along with cell membrane and protein impairment.
So, contrary to conventional teaching, nuclear genetic defects do not cause cancer. Rather, mitochondrial damage happens first, and this then triggers nuclear genetic mutations.
Research6 has shown that chronic overeating in general has a similar effect, as it places stress on the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), the membranous network found inside the mitochondria of your cells.
When the ER receives more nutrients than it can process, it signals the cell to dampen the sensitivity of the insulin receptors on the surface of the cell.
Thus continuously eating more than your body really needs promotes insulin resistance by the mere fact that your cells are stressed by the additional work placed on them by the excess nutrients. Insulin resistance in turn is at the heart of most chronic disease, including cancer.

Sugar Is a Key Contributor to Cancer

Most people who overeat also tend to eat many sugar-laden foods, which promotes elevated blood sugar levels and insulin resistance. So overeating sugary foods equates to a double-whammy in terms of cancer risk, compared to overeating whole, unprocessed fare.
In fact, recent research has identified sugar as the top contributor to the worldwide cancer surge. According to a report7 on the global cancer burden, published in 2014, obesity is responsible for an estimated 500,000 cancer cases worldwide each year.
The reason for this is because cancer cells are primarily fueled by the burning of sugar anaerobically. Without sugar, most cancer cells simply lack the metabolic flexibility to survive.
Normal, healthy cells have the metabolic flexibility to adapt from using glucose to using ketone bodies from dietary fats. Most cancer cells lack this ability so when you reduce net carbs (total carbs minus fiber), you effectively starve the cancer. This is why nutritional ketosis appears to be so effective against cancer.
According to recent research from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, refined sugar not only significantly increases your risk of breast cancer; it also raises your risk of tumors spreading to other organs.8
It was primarily the refined fructose in high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) found in most processed foods and beverages that was responsible for the breast tumors and the metastasis.

The Role of Genetics, Proteins and Hormones

While genetic defects are not a primary cause of cancer, genes can still play a role. Scientists have discovered that a number of genes known to promote cancer by influencing cell division — including a gene called AKT — also regulate cells' consumption of nutrients.
So certain genes actually appear to play a role in cancer cells' overconsumption of sugar. Whereas healthy cells have a feedback mechanism that makes it conserve resources when there's a lack of food, cancer cells do not have this mechanism and feed continuously.
Recent research has also found that overweight women who lost weight reduced their risk of cancer by lowering their levels of certain proteins linked to cancer development.9
These proteins (VEGF, PAI-1 and PEDF) promote angiogenesis, a process your body uses to build blood vessels that tumors need to thrive. The greater the women's weight loss, the greater their reduction in these proteins.
Previous research suggests losing weight can reduce your risk of breast, colon and prostate cancer by as much as 20 percent, and this effect is thought to be due to reductions in these proteins and other inflammatory compounds stored in fat cells.10
Obesity also triggers overproduction of certain hormones, such as estrogen, which is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer.

Links Between Diabetes and Cancer Are Getting Stronger

Overall, insulin resistance is one of the key contributors to a heightened cancer risk, and many studies have confirmed that type 2 diabetics are at greater risk.
One recent study, which included more than 1 million adult cancer patients, found that those diagnosed with type 2 diabetes were 23 percent more likely to have received a cancer diagnosis during the decade preceding their diabetes diagnosis compared to non-diabetics.11,12
Recent research has also noted that a growing number of obese Americans have poor blood sugar control, which in turn promotes rising rates of type 2 diabetes and associated health conditions. To combat this trend, the researchers urge overweight people to consider "serious weight loss efforts." As reported by WebMD:13
"Between 1988 and 2014, rates of diabetes rose from 11 percent to 19 percent, which was due to increases in blood sugar, the researchers said.
The investigators found that the rate of obese adults without the three key risk factors for heart disease — diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure — held steady at just 15 percent.
But the rate of obese adults with all three risk factors rose 37 percent — to nearly [1] in [4] ... Risk for all three factors increased progressively from age 40 on ...
'We have two choices: letting this population get sick and provide monies for treatment of complications and disability; or intervene early and prevent diabetes by encouraging weight loss, leading to a healthier and more productive life,' [Dr. Joel] Zonszein, [director of the Clinical Diabetes Center at Montefiore Medical Center] said."

Prediabetes Also Raises Your Cancer Risk

Both of these findings tend to strengthen previous research showing that even prediabetes is a risk factor for cancer. More than 1 in 3 Americans aged 20 and older has prediabetes,14 a condition in which your glucose (blood sugar) levels are higher than normal but not yet high enough to be diagnosed as full-blown diabetes.
Of those with prediabetes, 15 percent to 30 percent will develop type 2 diabetes within five years.
A meta-analysis15 published in 2014, which included data from nearly 900,000 people, found that those with prediabetes have a 15 percent higher risk of cancer, especially cancers of the liver, stomach, pancreas, breast and endometrium. Other research has shown that people with the highest insulin levels at the time of a cancer diagnosis have significantly increased risks of cancer recurrence, as well as a greater risk of being diagnosed with a particularly aggressive form of cancer.16
From my perspective these findings aren't the least surprising and precisely what you would predict if you understand the mechanism of most cancers, which are essentially being fueled by a metabolism that is driven by sugar (glucose), generating loads of unnecessary and damaging free radicals, as opposed to clean burning, high-quality fats that generate far less ROS.

Ketogenic Diet May Be Key to Cancer Recovery  ketosis is part of the answer here. In this type of diet, you replace net carbs (total carbs minus fiber) with moderate amounts of high-quality protein and high amounts of beneficial fat. Since cancer cells need glucose to thrive, and carbohydrates devoid of fiber turn into glucose in your body, cutting out net carbs quite literally starves the cancer cells. Additionally, low protein intake tends to minimize the mTOR pathway, which also helps restrict cell proliferation.

The video above features Thomas Seyfried, Ph.D., who discusses how, as a metabolic disorder involving the dysregulation of respiration, malignant cancer (in this case brain cancer) can be managed by altering your metabolic environment.
That said, this kind of diet (low in net carbs, moderate in high-quality protein and high in healthy fats) will also help normalize your weight and boost your general health for the simple reason that it helps you convert from carb burning mode to fat burning, which helps optimize your mitochondrial function.

How Fasting May Benefit Cancer Patients

Fasting is another strategy that helps reverse obesity and optimize mitochondrial function, and it too can offer hope in the fight against cancer. In fact, one research group is reportedly looking into the possibility of getting intermittent fasting approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as an adjunct therapy for cancer patients.17,18,19
Valter Longo, Ph.D., has published a number of studies on fasting and its impact on cancer. His most recent research, published in the journal Cancer Cell,20 found that fasting during chemotherapy boosts cancer-killing T cell activity, thereby improving the effectiveness of the chemotherapy. As reported by Science Daily:21
"[R]odents that received caloric restriction mimetics alone or chemotherapy combined with a fasting-mimicking diet had smaller tumor masses over time than those that received only chemotherapy ...
Mice with breast or skin cancers were given a low-sugar, low-protein, high-fat, low-calorie diet and were observed for [six] weeks while receiving doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide or no chemotherapeutic drugs. All of the mice receiving the diet-drug combination saw their tumors shrink to half the volume of the tumors in mice that received chemotherapy alone."
According to Longo:22 "The biggest factor exposing cancer cells to the T cells is the effect on the enzyme heme oxygenase-1, which is normally at high levels in cancer cells. Fasting reduces oxygenase levels and gives rise to a number of changes that included the increase of tumor-killing cytotoxic T cells."

What to Eat for Optimal Health and Cancer Prevention

From my perspective, ignoring diet as a cancer prevention tool is foolhardy at best. I'm convinced most cancers are preventable through proper nutrition. Avoiding toxic exposures (such as pesticides) is another important factor, and this is one reason why I recommend eating organic foods, especially grass-fed or pastured meats and animal products, whenever possible.
Make no mistake about it, the FIRST thing you want to do if you want to avoid or treat cancer if you have insulin or leptin resistance is to cut out all forms of sugar/fructose and grain carbs from your diet. This step will optimize the signaling pathways that otherwise might contribute to malignant transformation.
Remember, the foundational aspect that must be addressed is the metabolic mitochondrial defect discussed earlier, and this involves radically reducing the net (non-fiber) carbohydrates in your diet and replacing them with high-quality fats. Moderating your consumption of protein, and being mindful of the quality of the protein, is also important, as excessive protein can also trigger cancer growth. To learn more about this, please see my previous article, "The Very Real Risks of Consuming Too Much Protein".
So, in summary, for optimal health you need sufficient amounts of carbohydrates, fats and protein. However, there are healthy carbs and unhealthy ones. Ditto for fat and protein. From my review of the molecular biology required to optimize mitochondrial function, it may be wise to aim for a diet with the following nutrient ratios:
Healthy fats, 75 to 85 percent of your total calories. Beneficial monosaturated and saturated fats include olives and olive oil, coconuts and coconut oilbutter made from raw grass-fed organic milk, raw nuts such as macadamia and pecans, seeds like black sesame, black cumin, pumpkin and hemp seeds, avocados, grass-fed meats, lard and tallow, ghee (clarified butter), raw cacao butter, organic pastured egg yolks, animal-based omega-3 fats and small fatty fish like sardines and anchovies.
Harmful fats that contribute to disease are primarily trans fats and highly refined polyunsaturated omega-6 vegetable oils (PUFAs). Remember, glucose is an inherently "dirty" fuel as it generates far more ROS than fat burning does. But to burn fat, your cells must be healthy and normal. Cancer cells lack the metabolic flexibility to burn fat and this why a diet high in healthy fats appears to be such an effective anti-cancer strategy.
When you switch from burning glucose as your primary fuel to burning fat for fuel, cancer cells must struggle to stay alive, as most of their mitochondria are dysfunctional and can't use oxygen to burn fuel. At the same time, healthy cells are given an ideal and preferred fuel, which lowers oxidative damage and optimizes mitochondrial function. The sum effect is that healthy cells begin to thrive while cancer cells are "starved" to death.
Carbohydrates, 8 to 15 percent of your daily calories. Aim for twice as many fiber carbs as non-fiber (net) carbs. This means if your total carbs is 10 percent of your daily calories, at least half of that should be fiber. Fiber has a number of other health benefits, including weight management and a lower risk for certain cancers.23
I personally believe that most would benefit from reducing net carbs (not just fructose) to less than 100 grams (g) per day, and keeping your total fructose intake to a maximum of 25 g per day from all sources. If you are insulin resistant, you'd do well to make your upper fructose limit 15 g per day.
Cancer patients would likely be best served by even stricter limits. By reducing the amount of net carbs you eat, you will accomplish four things that will result in lowered inflammation and reduced stimulation of cancer growth. You will:
Lower your serum glucose level
Reduce your mTOR level
Reduce your insulin level
Lower insulin growth factor-1 (IGF-1, a potent hormone that acts on your pituitary gland to induce metabolic and endocrine effects, including cell growth and replication. Elevated IGF-1 levels are associated with breast and other cancers).
I typically keep my net carbs around 50 to 60 g per day While this may sound awfully complicated, the easiest way to dramatically cut down on your sugar and fructose consumption is to switch to real foods, as the vast majority of added sugar and fructose you end up with comes from processed fare.
Excellent sources of high-fiber carbs that you can eat plenty of include chia seeds, berries, raw nuts, cauliflower, root vegetables and tubers such as onions and sweet potatoes, green beans, peas, broccoli, Brussels sprouts and psyllium seed husk.
Protein, 7 to 10 percent of your total calories. Quality is important, so look for high-quality grass-fed or pastured meats and animal products. As a general rule, I recommend limiting your protein to 0.5 g of protein per pound of lean body mass, which for most people amounts to 40 to 70 g of protein a day.
(To estimate your protein requirements, first determine your lean body mass. Subtract your percent body fat from 100. For example, if you have 20 percent body fat, then you have 80 percent lean body mass. Just multiply that percentage by your current weight to get your lean body mass in pounds or kilos.)
Again, the reason for limiting protein is because excessive amounts have a stimulating effect on the mTOR pathway, which plays an important role in many diseases, including cancer. When you reduce protein to what your body needs for cell repair and maintenance, mTOR remains inhibited, which helps minimize your chances of cancer growth.