Caloric restriction as a cancer killer?

And again, there is a new study about cancer, but this time on a topic that seems to be from another planet: for it is not a new super pill made by synthetic health-maker, but rather how to use simple " less ", ie with less calories in food, can achieve better health. The authors even auction, observations, life-prolonging effect with their presumed. Their study found Every 2nd Day fasting at the same time, slight calorie reduction seems to reduce cancer risk.

Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley conducted experiments with mice. The basic idea was to reduce the number of calories in healthy mice of the food by 5 percent. The reduction in calories was among the "diet" mice achieved by feeding only every 2nd Days took place and only 3 days a week. It was observed that the advent of cell proliferation (in the development of malignant precursor, a cell causes cancer) could be significantly reduced. The control group were healthy mice with "full fare" and without restrictions elected to the eating.

What this connection interesting in is the fact that the decrease in cell proliferation in the less-fed mice only slightly less significant in practice as in a previous experiment with mice in which the calorie intake per cent reduction has been 33 about the same. Until now, scientists like assumed that a significantly reduced cell proliferation, high calorie restriction is to be expected in only one.

In view of the efforts of mainstream medicine, the "war on cancer", especially through the use of side effects ranging and profit-oriented cytotoxic drugs (chemotherapy) to win, the gist of the matter once again seems in a much simpler and much more straightforward (unfortunately not very profit-oriented) approach to lie, namely, the calorie restriction: Eating less and eating healthier.

The Berkeley researchers argue that curbing may be in the development of cancer, already been done in advance: For this one must be able to block cell proliferation, which is the first step in the cancer.

By common conception of medicine, cancer is essentially nothing more than an uncontrolled cell division that is based on one or more mutations. Normally, each cell attempts to repair such mutations. If this is not in a certain period of time possible (prior to the time of cell division that is), then mutations that the daughter cells passed on, in turn, the mutations at their daughters to pass, etc. So if this form of cell proliferation can be slowed down, then the cell additional time granted to repair the damage mutation.

Incidentally, this is by far not the first study that has been able to show that calorie restriction has a beneficial effect on cell proliferation. In the past 70 years, studies have demonstrated that caloric restriction reduced by up to 50 percent not only the cell proliferation rates, but also led to a survival benefit in a number of organisms. This was, for example, in rats, flies, worms and yeast found. The life-prolonging effect in these organisms was between 30 and 70 percent.

As you get to ponder ...

Let's assume that it would be, is not a fast method, or change in eating habits, but a tablet. In such case, the pharmaceutical companies would immediately pursue regulatory approval, including a marketing campaign that would make it clear to the last citizen and physician, that he would be hopelessly lost without this new pill. But a pure calorie restriction? Because no one deserves something so why put money into advertising?

And now comes "The Hammer" significant restriction of caloric intake is so far the only (significant) scientifically based evidence of a survival benefit! A Physical exercise and a healthy diet, however, can only "a premature death from various diseases prevented, but have no influence to the maximum life expectancy.

The reduction in calories has to show that in addition to a reduced development of cancer increases insulin sensitivity and decreases the risk of cardiovascular disease.

That is the theory and the data. And the practice? I can say from experience that it is not easy to persuade patients to eat less, to change the eating habits or too fast. fast ! If I make some people the word "fast" just mention, then look at me some, as if I had just invited her life to start over completely from scratch ...

It will be difficult to make people understand that less is more, eating well and are on the subject. Here, the above-mentioned study, in contrast to the earlier studies) can show (that the intended waiver of any beneficial effects may not yet high turn out as expected. A five percent reduction in calorie intake or intermittent fasting full fasting seem the same quality as be - at least in animal experiments.

To practice for certain diseases but relatively quickly to see the tangible results in, I still recommend the fasting, for example, after my fasting instructions , plus a change of eating habits. This way, I have in my interview to a healthy diet described.

My first conclusion:

It appears to have been more than 70 years to know that successful cancer control strategy is a restricted calorie intake. This new study, however, shows only that there are reasons to suspect that a great low impact on the carcinogenesis not only by a waiver must be purchased in quality of life by the "healthy hunger. When created in this field data relevant not only for mice, but also for people, then the medicine can eventually but still hope to win its "war on cancer" - if it has before. But that's another story ...

The following question from the previous comments, I would like:

But something I understand in the article (not a typo perhaps 5% instead of 50% ???).

It says here:

"Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, carried out experiments with mice. The basic idea was to reduce the number of calories in healthy mice of the food by 5 percent. The reduction in calories was among the "diet" mice achieved by feeding only every 2nd Days and took place only on 3 days a week "

So, if only every 2nd Feeding days, you do see, mathematically a calorie reduction of 50 not 5%?

My answer:

Mathematically, you are right, but unfortunately have reckoned without the mice. Because they are hungry the next day and eat everything accordingly. Compared with a day at a constant daily feeding. That means that the mice got to eat at feeding days as much as they could cram into itself. At the end of the study were then the quantities consumed by diet and normal mice compared and observed a reduction in calorie intake of 5% per cent in the diet study. At the same time, there was also a reduction in proliferation.

In my opinion, it seems to be that of feeding days when the body has enough time to take care of the repairs, instead of constantly still besides the digestion (also energy) costs to implement. I personally suspect that the reduction in calories is NOT the primary reason for the positive effects. I suspect however that the time-outs have given in to feed the body (the mice) the necessary recovery time. That will end up with a calorie reduction of 5 per cent came out, to me is pure coincidence. I think that works even if the same amount of calories is destroyed - the main thing there is calorie-free or very low-calorie days, for use by the organism to "self care". This hypothesis would be to me worth studying ...