Cancer: Consequence of Dirty Bulking?

Off Topic
41

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
Hope he gets well regardless of what treatment he follows, by the sounds of it the cancer was too far advanced for conventional medicine anyways. His wife/partner is gorgeous, good looking couple. Hopeful they get to spend more years together.[/quote]
Wait man wait this made me chuckle.

You HOPE HE GETS WELL.

No the cancer was not to advanced for conventional medicine, its 2015 they can replace his liver. He refused.

He will die end of story. [/quote]

I thought I read them saying it was inoperable, there was nothing they could do. Hence telling him he had three weeks to live. A liver transplant would definitely be ideal. [/quote]
He was offered chemotherapy and a liver transplant, but he decided to turn both down in favour of natural remedies.
‘I refused it from day one,’ he said. ‘The main reason why I chose to do natural instead of artificial was because I wanted to live. I didn’t want to die.’

So you didnt read the article.
[/quote]

I didn’t get the chance to thoroughly read it the first time, being on break at work. Why are you so reactive to everything I post anyways? I noticed this has been a trend in a few different threads. Not even like I am saying anything personal to you or others here, nor am I speaking out of ignorance or making outlandish statements.

42

[quote]TDub301 wrote:
I didn’t read the article. Picking up what it said by your comments and context.

My first thought was liver transplant.

Why would he think he will die if he gets a liver transplant and does chemo?

Or is it that “I won’t literally die, but won’t be able to live like I want” thing? Since the way he wants to live is literally stuffing his face all day every day.[/quote]

He seems to believe that he can completely reverse the damage through natural remedies. In other words, in his mind, a transplant is unnecessary if he can fully heal the liver he already has. That’s the only reason I can think of for turning down the transplant…

43

[quote]MinusTheColon wrote:
Kind of surprised no discussion of GH has come up here, unless I’m missing something.[/quote]

I think a lot of (ignorant) people think of GH as a subset of anabolic steroids.

anyways, I wonder if eating a more conventional (even keto) diet, stopping all anabolic and GH/peptide/insulin use, supplementing with injectable curcumin, injectable glutathione, NAC, Liv52, and tudca would do much to mitigate the damage… I wonder how far it would go toward reversing the problem.

Some tumors are dependent on the presence of copious amounts of hormones (hepatic adenomas).

we had a guy on another board who had an adenoma on his liver the size of a grapefruit… he barely made it out of the operating room alive. They had to take a big chunk of his liver. he blamed his condition on his peptide use…

IGF LR3 has been attributed to the growth of cancers, especially in the liver, IIRC.

44

[quote]therajraj wrote:
If he needs that many calories to maintain his weight, what else could he do? Think how painful it would be to eat 10,000 clean calories/day[/quote]

not to mention expensive. that’s why the truly blessed bodybuilders are the ones who have really slow metabolisms. Jay Cutler was said to not eat very much, and Aceto was surprised how little Ramy had to eat during his short time working with him.

I remember one of Shelby’s clients. the guy had to eat roughly 6500-7000 calories a day just to get to 210lbs… and he was like 5’11, and not shredded. not even particularly lean…

IIRC, Shelby had him eating a pint of ice cream every night lol… everyone was saying how jealous they were of his ability to eat that much and not gain weight…but from a bodybuilding perspective, it’s not advantageous at all.

Max Charles claims to only eat once a day. he recently started adding protein shakes because he doesn’t have the appetite for more food, and he’s been growing.

on a semi-related note, im surprised they offered the guy the story is about a new liver.

45

[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:

we had a guy on another board who had an adenoma on his liver the size of a grapefruit… [/quote]

Who is we? You are such a brotard.

47

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

Who is we? You are such a brotard.
[/quote]

Interesting comment coming from T-Nation’s pet prick for several years now.
[/quote]

You both think you speak for a group. That’s laughable.

48

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

Who is we? You are such a brotard.
[/quote]

Interesting comment coming from T-Nation’s pet prick for several years now.
[/quote]

You both think you speak for a group. That’s laughable.[/quote]

as part of the group, I can tell you that yes, you are a prick.

49

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
In all seriousness, insulin sensitive cancers would grow much faster with this kind of diet. And if the guy was putting on a lot of fat tissue, it could definitely have increased his risk. People don’t seem to understand that much of what we do effects our cancer risk, it isn’t something that just happens or doesn’t happen.

I do find it funny that they call it a high fat/high protein diet, when the carbs are through the roof.[/quote]

All cancers are insulin sensitive - they have 10-20 times the amount of insulin receptors as normal cells. So yeah, you can literally feed cancer on that kind of diet, not to mention it would cause fatty liver disease which increases cancer risk considerably.

50

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

Who is we? You are such a brotard.
[/quote]

Interesting comment coming from T-Nation’s pet prick for several years now.
[/quote]

You both think you speak for a group. That’s laughable.[/quote]

as part of the group, I can tell you that yes, you are a prick.[/quote]

Yeah that dude is a dick. I’ve had him on ignore for at least a year.

51

[quote]theBeth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
In all seriousness, insulin sensitive cancers would grow much faster with this kind of diet. And if the guy was putting on a lot of fat tissue, it could definitely have increased his risk. People don’t seem to understand that much of what we do effects our cancer risk, it isn’t something that just happens or doesn’t happen.

I do find it funny that they call it a high fat/high protein diet, when the carbs are through the roof.[/quote]

All cancers are insulin sensitive - they have 10-20 times the amount of insulin receptors as normal cells. So yeah, you can literally feed cancer on that kind of diet, not to mention it would cause fatty liver disease which increases cancer risk considerably. [/quote]

I’ve heard a bit about keto diets being very beneficial for cancer patients, but most of the reasoning have sounded very bro-sciencey. Has there been any legitimate studies done to see the effect diet has?

52

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

Who is we? You are such a brotard.
[/quote]

Interesting comment coming from T-Nation’s pet prick for several years now.
[/quote]

You both think you speak for a group. That’s laughable.[/quote]

No actually you dont think you speak for a group, you pretend you do to give yourself more credibility. That is not laughable, that’s pathetic.

But what to expect from a delusionnal insane steroids addict and creationnist with his head in his ass.

54

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
In all seriousness, insulin sensitive cancers would grow much faster with this kind of diet. And if the guy was putting on a lot of fat tissue, it could definitely have increased his risk. People don’t seem to understand that much of what we do effects our cancer risk, it isn’t something that just happens or doesn’t happen.

I do find it funny that they call it a high fat/high protein diet, when the carbs are through the roof.[/quote]

All cancers are insulin sensitive - they have 10-20 times the amount of insulin receptors as normal cells. So yeah, you can literally feed cancer on that kind of diet, not to mention it would cause fatty liver disease which increases cancer risk considerably. [/quote]

I’ve heard a bit about keto diets being very beneficial for cancer patients, but most of the reasoning have sounded very bro-sciencey. Has there been any legitimate studies done to see the effect diet has?
[/quote]

Dr Thomas Seyfried has gotten some attention about this lately claiming that “keto diets beat chemo for almost all cancers”. He claims that chemo and radiation therapies show no significant increase in long term survivability but keto diets do. He claims that big pharma is suppressing this for economic reasons.

He cites a few mouse studies that are interesting, but way too thin to support the kind of claims that he is making. He also cites some human “trials” that would be difficult for any reasonable person to see as clinically significant. One sampled exactly 2 patients. Another sampled 56.

There really isn’t any significant amount of randomized human clinical data from which to draw conclusions.

There is more clinical data linking higher incidents of cancer (and liver cancer specifically) to diets containing over 10% animal protein. There are problems with many of those studies as well.

Same old story: X causes cancer. No wait, X actually cures cancer. No wait, this tribe from this remote location never gets cancer and they eat lots of Y, ergo Y must cure/prevent cancer. Deodorant and electromagnetic fields definitely cause cancer etc, etc, etc…

55

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
In all seriousness, insulin sensitive cancers would grow much faster with this kind of diet. And if the guy was putting on a lot of fat tissue, it could definitely have increased his risk. People don’t seem to understand that much of what we do effects our cancer risk, it isn’t something that just happens or doesn’t happen.

I do find it funny that they call it a high fat/high protein diet, when the carbs are through the roof.[/quote]

All cancers are insulin sensitive - they have 10-20 times the amount of insulin receptors as normal cells. So yeah, you can literally feed cancer on that kind of diet, not to mention it would cause fatty liver disease which increases cancer risk considerably. [/quote]

I’ve heard a bit about keto diets being very beneficial for cancer patients, but most of the reasoning have sounded very bro-sciencey. Has there been any legitimate studies done to see the effect diet has?
[/quote]

Dr Thomas Seyfried has gotten some attention about this lately claiming that “keto diets beat chemo for almost all cancers”. He claims that chemo and radiation therapies show no significant increase in long term survivability but keto diets do. He claims that big pharma is suppressing this for economic reasons.

He cites a few mouse studies that are interesting, but way too thin to support the kind of claims that he is making. He also cites some human “trials” that would be difficult for any reasonable person to see as clinically significant. One sampled exactly 2 patients. Another sampled 56.

There really isn’t any significant amount of randomized human clinical data from which to draw conclusions.

There is more clinical data linking higher incidents of cancer (and liver cancer specifically) to diets containing over 10% animal protein. There are problems with many of those studies as well.

Same old story: X causes cancer. No wait, X actually cures cancer. No wait, this tribe from this remote location never gets cancer and they eat lots of Y, ergo Y must cure/prevent cancer. Deodorant and electromagnetic fields definitely cause cancer etc, etc, etc…[/quote]

But it is known that insulin makes cancer grow. It only seems logical that keeping insulin low would minimize cancer growth.

56

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
In all seriousness, insulin sensitive cancers would grow much faster with this kind of diet. And if the guy was putting on a lot of fat tissue, it could definitely have increased his risk. People don’t seem to understand that much of what we do effects our cancer risk, it isn’t something that just happens or doesn’t happen.

I do find it funny that they call it a high fat/high protein diet, when the carbs are through the roof.[/quote]

All cancers are insulin sensitive - they have 10-20 times the amount of insulin receptors as normal cells. So yeah, you can literally feed cancer on that kind of diet, not to mention it would cause fatty liver disease which increases cancer risk considerably. [/quote]

I’ve heard a bit about keto diets being very beneficial for cancer patients, but most of the reasoning have sounded very bro-sciencey. Has there been any legitimate studies done to see the effect diet has?
[/quote]

Dr Thomas Seyfried has gotten some attention about this lately claiming that “keto diets beat chemo for almost all cancers”. He claims that chemo and radiation therapies show no significant increase in long term survivability but keto diets do. He claims that big pharma is suppressing this for economic reasons.

He cites a few mouse studies that are interesting, but way too thin to support the kind of claims that he is making. He also cites some human “trials” that would be difficult for any reasonable person to see as clinically significant. One sampled exactly 2 patients. Another sampled 56.

There really isn’t any significant amount of randomized human clinical data from which to draw conclusions.

There is more clinical data linking higher incidents of cancer (and liver cancer specifically) to diets containing over 10% animal protein. There are problems with many of those studies as well.

Same old story: X causes cancer. No wait, X actually cures cancer. No wait, this tribe from this remote location never gets cancer and they eat lots of Y, ergo Y must cure/prevent cancer. Deodorant and electromagnetic fields definitely cause cancer etc, etc, etc…[/quote]

But it is known that insulin makes cancer grow. It only seems logical that keeping insulin low would minimize cancer growth.[/quote]

Sure it does. However, “seems logical” is not the same as “supported by legitimate clinical evidence”, which was Ripsaw’s question.

There is also, like I said, a fair amount of evidence linking high percentage animal protein diets with cancer markers, so it also seems logical that a low protein diet is the way to go.

The only thing that consistently seems to reduce the incidence of illness and prolong life afaik is systematic under eating and periodic fasting. If that’s true, I expect most of us are SOL regardless.

57

[quote]batman730 wrote:

Sure it does. However, “seems logical” is not the same as “supported by legitimate clinical evidence”, which was Ripsaw’s question.

There is also, like I said, a fair amount of evidence linking high percentage animal protein diets with cancer markers, so it also seems logical that a low protein diet is the way to go.

The only thing that consistently seems to reduce the incidence of illness and prolong life afaik is systematic under eating and periodic fasting. If that’s true, I expect most of us are SOL regardless.
[/quote]

I actually have a theory about that. I have the idea (this is completely un-scientific) that going into a catabolic state serves to “thin the herd” of cells. When you go catabolic your body goes after the weak cells first. Thus preventing weak/defective cells from growing and splitting. This would strengthen the remainder and serve to help get rid of cells that might be cancerous or whatever. Being catabolic is like pruning your body’s cells. The problem is, because of eating frequency and amount, nobody goes catabolic anymore and defective cells are allowed to go unchecked.

58

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

Sure it does. However, “seems logical” is not the same as “supported by legitimate clinical evidence”, which was Ripsaw’s question.

There is also, like I said, a fair amount of evidence linking high percentage animal protein diets with cancer markers, so it also seems logical that a low protein diet is the way to go.

The only thing that consistently seems to reduce the incidence of illness and prolong life afaik is systematic under eating and periodic fasting. If that’s true, I expect most of us are SOL regardless.
[/quote]

I actually have a theory about that. I have the idea (this is completely un-scientific) that going into a catabolic state serves to “thin the herd” of cells. When you go catabolic your body goes after the weak cells first. Thus preventing weak/defective cells from growing and splitting. This would strengthen the remainder and serve to help get rid of cells that might be cancerous or whatever. Being catabolic is like pruning your body’s cells. The problem is, because of eating frequency and amount, nobody goes catabolic anymore and defective cells are allowed to go unchecked. [/quote]

You’re right. That’s completely unscientific :wink:

59

[quote]batman730 wrote:
… a fair amount of evidence linking high percentage animal protein diets with cancer markers, so it also seems logical that a low protein diet is the way to go.
[/quote]
Perhaps, but one must consider the animal source. Processed meats, and animals raised in “factory farm” settings (full of steroids, antibiotics and sub-par feed) would be red flags for disease.
I would bet the studies were not performed with natural, grass-fed, humane farm livestock as the protein sources.

60

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

Who is we? You are such a brotard.
[/quote]

Interesting comment coming from T-Nation’s pet prick for several years now.
[/quote]

You both think you speak for a group. That’s laughable.[/quote]

No actually you dont think you speak for a group, you pretend you do to give yourself more credibility. That is not laughable, that’s pathetic.

But what to expect from a delusionnal insane steroids addict and creationnist with his head in his ass.
[/quote]

You got yourself a couple of problems, Jassie sweetheart:

  1. You quoted yourself and, I guess, responded to yourself. Are you an insane steroids addict and creationist, btw?

  2. You can’t spell.

This, if anything, confirms your prickishness all the more.

Shall we continue?
[/quote]

Yes we could but you have nothing.