karppaus.info

The “ultra-processed foods” NOVA group includes mass produced packaged breads and buns; sweet or savoury packaged snacks; industrialised confectionery and desserts; sodas and sweetened drinks; meat balls, poultry and fish nuggets, and other reconstituted meat products transformed with addition of preservatives other than salt (for example, nitrites); instant noodles and soups; frozen or shelf stable ready meals; and other food products made mostly or entirely from sugar, oils and fats, and other substances not commonly used in culinary preparations such as hydrogenated oils, modified starches, and protein isolates. Industrial processes notably include hydrogenation, hydrolysis, extruding, moulding, reshaping, and pre-processing by frying. Flavouring agents, colours, emulsifiers, humectants, non-sugar sweeteners, and other cosmetic additives are often added to these products to imitate sensorial properties of unprocessed or minimally processed foods and their culinary preparations or to disguise undesirable qualities of the final product.

The ultra-processed food group is defined by opposition to the other NOVA groups: “unprocessed or minimally processed foods” (fresh, dried, ground, chilled, frozen, pasteurised, or fermented staple foods such as fruits, vegetables, pulses, rice, pasta, eggs, meat, fish, or milk), “processed culinary ingredients” (salt, vegetable oils, butter, sugar, and other substances extracted from foods and used in kitchens to transform unprocessed or minimally processed foods into culinary preparations), and “processed foods” (canned vegetables with added salt, sugar coated dried fruits, meat products preserved only by salting, cheeses, freshly made unpackaged breads, and other products manufactured with the addition of salt, sugar, or other substances of the “processed culinary ingredients” group). As previously described, we identified homemade and artisanal food preparations, decomposed them using standardised recipes, and applied the NOVA classification to their ingredients. Precision and examples are shown in appendix 1.

In an exclusive interview, Dr. Seyfried told me the ketogenic diet has not been embraced by the medical community to treat cancer despite its proven track record both clinically and anecdotally for a variety of reasons unrelated to its efficacy.

So, here’s what we know. Cancer cells:
Switch over from the more efficient energy generating OxPhos to a less efficient process, even though oxygen is freely available.
Need glucose, but also need glutamine.
But the million-dollar question still remains. Why? It is too universal to be just a fluke. It’s also not simply a dietary disease, since many things, including viruses, ionizing radiation and chemical carcinogens (smoking, asbestos) cause cancer.
If it is not simply a dietary disease, then a purely dietary solution does not exist. The hypothesis that makes the most sense to me is this. The cancer cell does not use the more efficient pathway because it can’t.
If the mitochondria are damaged or senescent (old), then cells will naturally look for other pathways. This drives cells to adopt a phylogenetically ancient pathway of aerobic glycolysis in order to survive.
Now, we come to the atavistic theories of cancer.

It is clear that any preventive effort must focus on these factors identified. There is little controversy that
1 We should stop smoking.
2. We should avoid harmful occupational exposures (eg. asbestos).
3. We should try not to get infected with bad viruses and bacteria/ get vaccinated.
Therefore, any efforts must focus squarely upon the diet, because anything else, including trying to ‘hack’ your genetics will have minimal benefits. The link between diet and cancer is a singularly important one, but singularly ignored in the rush to proclaim cancer as a genetic disease of accumulated random mutations.

A diet-related inflammatory index was associated with cancer risk in a dose-dependent manner across 44 studies.

People with the highest diet-related inflammatory score had a 58% increased cancer risk compared to those with the lowest scores.

For example, 10 of the 24 (42%) clinical studies included in a recent review [1] provide evidence for the anti-tumor effect of KDs, whereas seven (29%) showed no effect and only one study reported a pro-tumor effect of the KD.

Warburg framed a quote from Max Planck and hung it above his desk: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die.”