Re: Kelley/ metabolic typing & meat

[Guest guest]

From: " me2youlink " <me2youlink@...>

> > > However, I'd avoid all red meat (except POSSIBLY grass-fed

> organic) if

> > > I had or was recovering from cancer, except perhaps if I had

> leukemia,

> > > lymphoma, myeloma, or melanoma.

> That's according to (among others) / findings -- they

> believe people with these cancers need red meat for recovery, since

> it is the " obligatory carnivores " among us who tend to get them.

Yes. Though ironically Kelley (but not ) now reportedly puts

ALL his cancer patients on a mostly vegetarian diet until they are

cancer-free. I don't know which diet is best, but I think it's safest

avoiding red meat so long as one has cancer (of any type).

[Guest guest]

>

> Yes. Though ironically Kelley (but not ) now reportedly

puts

> ALL his cancer patients on a mostly vegetarian diet until they are

> cancer-free. I don't know which diet is best, but I think it's

safest

> avoiding red meat so long as one has cancer (of any type).

I have to disagree. What it really is is the " most successfully

popularized " of the " alternative " dietary views, not the " most

scientifically sensible, " " most statistically significant " or " most

empirically successful " one. A lot depends on the choice of meat

and methods of preparation, but outside these considerations, I

don't see enough supportive evidence for this dietary approach being

useful long term. (A short-term sharp change of the diet, like any

other " healing jolt " to the system, can be beneficial in many cases

I believe, and exclusion of meat may be the right move for some

people for some of the time.) However, has written about

his lymphoma patients who've been on a vegetarian diet for years

prior to developing lymphoma -- what he wrote was that he told

them " this is why you developed it to begin with. " My own research

indicates that gluten-containing grains are THE number one suspect

food in lymphoma, closely followed by dairy and refined sugar. If I

were to " blindly " suggest a " one diet fits all " approach, I would

start with eliminating those, not red meat.

I have an 1850s medical encyclopedia that traces this anti-meat anti-

animal-fat sentiment to its fad-of-the-day source (a few physicians

living in the world of their fantasy, according to the author), and

doesn't list it among successful approaches to cancer (some of those

it does list are still used as " alternative methods " today, though

most are lost).

Elena

[Guest guest]

From: " me2youlink " <me2youlink@...>

> I think it's safest

> > avoiding red meat so long as one has cancer (of any type).

>

> What it really is is the " most successfully

> popularized " of the " alternative " dietary views not the " most

> scientifically sensible, " " most statistically significant " or " most

> empirically successful " one.

May I ask your basis for saying this? Do you know of any substantive

evidence (of any sort) that red meat is helpful (overall) to cancer

patients? My impression is that available evidence certainly points in

the direction of avoiding red meat.

> A lot depends on the choice of meat

> and methods of preparation

True. The only red meat I've heard of as being cancer-healing is raw

red meat (I don't know much about the diet, and it's probably a whole

other discussion).

> I don't see enough supportive evidence for this dietary approach

being

> useful long term.

Just to clarify, I'm a big believer in red meat and eat a lot of it,

but I believe it's undesirable for people w/cancer (at least until the

cancer's gone). If I got cancer, I'd stop all red meat immediately.

Even Dr. Atkins advised cancer patients to avoid red meat.

> However, has written about

> his lymphoma patients who've been on a vegetarian diet for years

> prior to developing lymphoma -- what he wrote was that he told

> them " this is why you developed it to begin with. "

That may be a large part of why they developed it (I really don't

know), but that doesn't mean it will help heal it. When I saw

speak, he seemed to believe that to heal lymphoma, leukemia, and

myeloma (which he called " diseases of an overactive immune system " ),

you want to <suppress> the immune system/parasympathetic nervous

system (which red meat tends to do), and he dismissed other

clinicians' efforts to strengthen these patients' immune system. But

in fact immunotherapies have been very effetive w/these cancers. Also,

Gerson therapy (strictly vegetarian, very low-protein,

extremely-low-fat) is highly effective w/lymphoma.

> My own research

> indicates that gluten-containing grains are THE number one suspect

> food in lymphoma, closely followed by dairy and refined sugar.

I agree w/gluten and sugar being huge culprits (though don't know much

about the causes of lymphoma). Dairy's a whole, complex discussion in

itself. I'll just mention that butyrate, found in cottage cheese,

butter, & a couple other dairy products, helps heal lymphoma,

leukemia, and certain other cancers. However, I agree w/eliminating

gluten/wheat, sugar, and dairy, except for FSO/CC.

> I have an 1850s medical encyclopedia that traces this anti-meat

anti-

> animal-fat sentiment to its fad-of-the-day source (a few physicians

> living in the world of their fantasy

I agree.

[Guest guest]

> May I ask your basis for saying this? Do you know of any

substantive

> evidence (of any sort) that red meat is helpful (overall) to cancer

> patients? My impression is that available evidence certainly

points in

> the direction of avoiding red meat.

I am not convinced it does. As for " substantive evidence... "

Leonard, it is out there, and it is extensive, but I don't think I

would satisfy you (or anyone) with a reference to this or that study

(if that's what you're after... however, if you are, the Price-

Pottenger Foundation's archives are it), because a counter-reference

to a counter-study is always available on request, just google and

ye shall find... ( " substantive " evidence on nutrition is a maze, I

almost dislocated my brain finding my way thruogh it...) So

instead, I will have to share the fruits of _integrating_ the

available evidence and what it really seems to point towards... to

me in any event. Here goes.

I do seem to recall that excellent nutritional status (no

deficiencies, no toxicities) is a prerequisite for a healthy immune

system, healthy blood, healthy bone marrow, and so on; that adequate

nutritional support of these systems will help fight all disease; I

don't think cancer is an exception, I don't think it is a disease

that tolerates poor nutritional status better than any other health

problems do; in fact, I believe the opposite is true. Now let's

take a look at red meat " objectively, " minus the emotions of those

who, for varying reasons, choose to condemn it.

First off, the different " healthy/unhealthy " labels attached to red

and non-red meat are the result of marketing-related effort and do

not hold any scientific or empirical water. The idea behind

promoting non-red non-fatty meat as a better choice of meat was

concocted in the minds of those who were trying to counteract the

loss of meat's consumer appeal when it was believed (oops... people

en masse STILL believe it) that one's body fat and cholesterol

problems is something one gets from eating foods containing same.

Not so. 95% of cholesterol is manufactured by one's own liver

instead of coming from the dietatry sources; instead of dietary

cholesterol and fat, it is the high levels of dietary (and

nondietary) toxins in the body that will cause elevated cholesterol

and obesity (both are, among their other functions, protective

responses to high toxicity, designed to trap and immobilize the

toxins till the liver, the lymphatic system, etc., can get a

breather and attempt to detoxify them; if toxicity doesn't go down,

this chance never comes, and eventually the protective response over-

relied on turns into a problem in and of itself... or one faces

even more severe problems when this response falters -- e.g., it is

LOW cholesterol that is considerably more conductive to cancer than

high cholesterol -- but I digress...) So, first of all, it's meat

or no meat, not white meat vs. red meat, since there's nothing

particularly " healthier " about non-red meat (in fact the opposite is

true...)

It has been known for a long, long time that meat in general and red

meat in particular, and fatty red meat especially, is easily

digestible (if prepared properly -- and I DON'T mean raw), highly

assimilable, highly bioavailable, high in many important nutrients

that people will otherwise keep trying to get from a bottle of

supplements (can't beat the real thing though), and contains some

substances that anyone would be hard pressed to get from other

sources which happen to be the building blocks of cancer-fighting

forces in the body.

So what is it that someone with cancer doesn't want that red meat

has?

OK, let's say iron. Now the objections against red meat as a source

of iron that " feeds cancer " are a bit tricky. I was unable to

figure out how healthy blood can be formed without iron. Iron is

something every molecule of hemoglobin carries on its back. To say

that iron feeds cancer is easy; unfortunately, to design a dietary

strategy based on this true fact is not as easy. Cancer cells eat

all the essential nutrient healthy cells eat too, and eliminating

something from the diet so as to starve cancer cells is not easy to

accomplish because of that, and as a therapeutic approach, is also

not all that far removed from chemotherapy's fatally flawed stratey

(hurt the wrong and the right alike, hit the cancer cells and

disregard the fact that the same blow is being delivered to the

cells that are supposed to FIGHT cancer.) So... remove iron

entirely? How can someone with a blood-based cancer recover healthy

blood without the obligatory building block for hemoglobin? I may

be missing something here, but I don't quite understand how the

restrictions on iron-containing foods can be anything other than a

short-term therapeutic dietary intervention. (As I mentioned

before, there's a difference between short-term target-dieting -- or

even fasting -- to accomplish a specific metabolic end, and doing

the same thing routinely as " the way to eat if one has cancer. "

Complete fasts are known to have been successful with cancer, but it

doesn't mean they can be promoted as THE " forever like that " dietary

solution to cancer... sooner or later one will have to start eating

regardless of whether the fast was successful in eliminating cancer

or not. Ditto with a diet that eliminates an essential nutrient, or

a whole bunch thereof.)

> > A lot depends on the choice of meat

> > and methods of preparation

> True. The only red meat I've heard of as being cancer-healing is

raw

> red meat (I don't know much about the diet, and it's probably a

whole

> other discussion).

It is quite possible raw meat has advantages. It is quite possible

it also has disadvantages. One of the disadvantages of raw meat is

that not everyone will eat it. Also, it requires stellar digestive

powers to begin with, and not all cancer patients have them,

obviously. The European tradition of therapeutic diets tailored for

specific disorders, as well as traditional Chinese medicine, favor

the kind of meat that is easy on the liver and the digestive system:

thoroughly tenderized (some authorities suggest putting it through

the meat grinder two or even three times), and steamed in preference

to fried, boiled, broiled, grilled or baked. The only other method

deemed approppriate is rapid stir-frying (and with this method, it

can indeed be left semi-raw if necessary).

> > I don't see enough supportive evidence for this dietary approach

> being

> > useful long term.

> Just to clarify, I'm a big believer in red meat and eat a lot of

it,

> but I believe it's undesirable for people w/cancer (at least until

the

> cancer's gone). If I got cancer, I'd stop all red meat immediately.

> Even Dr. Atkins advised cancer patients to avoid red meat.

Well, we gave a trial run to a strict Gerson diet plus FO/CC and had

to abort. Nothing but rapid worsening of Hodgkin's lymphoma while

on this regimen for a number of months, plus a growing profound

hatred of juices and vegetables on the part of the patient. The

first piece of chicken added to the diet did wonders for his mood,

and the first steamed meatball seemed to have been packed with the

will to fight which juices and vegetables somehow kept dammed down.

(Traditional Chinese medicine has a good explanation for this

effect. In any event, if someone feels good on a vegetarian diet,

that's fine and may indicate it's working for the individual... but

if it is conductive to depression at every meal over " being reduced

to a rabbit, " it means it's not all the healing goodness it could

be.)

> > However, has written about

> > his lymphoma patients who've been on a vegetarian diet for years

> > prior to developing lymphoma -- what he wrote was that he told

> > them " this is why you developed it to begin with. "

> That may be a large part of why they developed it (I really don't

> know), but that doesn't mean it will help heal it. When I saw

> speak, he seemed to believe that to heal lymphoma, leukemia, and

> myeloma (which he called " diseases of an overactive immune

system " ),

> you want to <suppress> the immune system/parasympathetic nervous

> system (which red meat tends to do), and he dismissed other

> clinicians' efforts to strengthen these patients' immune system.

But

> in fact immunotherapies have been very effetive w/these cancers.

It depends on the type of immunotherapy. The ones that stimulate

the B-lymphocytes are potentially disastrous with certain

lymphomas. The ones that support T-lymphocytes can be very

helpful.

Parasympathetic system must be " tuned up " rather than suppressed,

since the problem is not so much " too relaxed " as " too permeable "

(and they are not the same) -- poor barriers for viruses, poor skin

barrier (there's often a long history of dermatitis-type skin

problems prior to the onset of lymphoma), " liquid " cell membranes

and the resulting multiple chemical sensitivities... and it is a

bit more complicated than merely a " parasympathetic-dominant "

picture paints, far as I've been able to discern. But he's

on the right track with his multiple diets AFAIK.

> Gerson therapy (strictly vegetarian, very low-protein,

> extremely-low-fat) is highly effective w/lymphoma.

Perhaps with certain types, unfortunately they don't offer any

concrete information on the types of lymphoma it is NOT successful

with. Gerson was my first choice, and it didn't live up to

expectations, alas. So my second choice was " stay fluid, adjust,

narrow down, modify as necessary. "

> > My own research

> > indicates that gluten-containing grains are THE number one

suspect

> > food in lymphoma, closely followed by dairy and refined sugar.

> I agree w/gluten and sugar being huge culprits (though don't know

much

> about the causes of lymphoma). Dairy's a whole, complex discussion

in

> itself. I'll just mention that butyrate, found in cottage cheese,

> butter, & a couple other dairy products, helps heal lymphoma,

> leukemia, and certain other cancers.

True. However, milk proteins are often problematic. Hence our

choice of a butyrate-containing substance that has more of it than

the rest of the dairy products, and none of the offenders: ghee, or

clarified butter. I either make my own (cheaper and tastier) or buy

it at a HFS.

Best wishes,

Elena

[Guest guest]

Hi Elena,

From: " me2youlink " <me2youlink@...>

>

> > Do you know of any

> substantive

> > evidence (of any sort) that red meat is helpful (overall) to

cancer

> > patients?

> As for " substantive evidence... "

> Leonard, it is out there, and it is extensive, but I don't think I

> would satisfy you (or anyone) with a reference to this or that study

Do you know of any studies at all directly suggesting red meat's

beneficial for cancer patients? Any successful cancer-healing diets

that specifically emphasize red meat? The Hausers use a high-protein,

low-carb diet (which I don't really agree with), but I think that even

they don't push red meat.

http://www.caringmedical.com/cyberclinic/info_hauser_diet.asp

> Price-Pottenger Foundation's

I'm quite familiar w/them and agree w/most of what they say. I don't

believe they discuss cancer patients.

> because a counter-reference

> to a counter-study is always available....

> ( " substantive " evidence on nutrition is a maze, I

I'm not asking for irrefutable evidence. I'm asking if there's any

direct evidence, even anecdotal, even opinions of experienced holistic

cancer practitioners

> excellent nutritional status (no

> deficiencies, no toxicities) is a prerequisite for a healthy immune

> system, healthy blood, healthy bone marrow, and so on; that adequate

> nutritional support of these systems will help fight all disease; I

> don't think cancer is an exception

I don't ENTIRELY agree. Many highly effective cancer therapies work

via depleting iron, copper, glutathione, sodium, protein, fat, sugar,

perhaps even B6, and other nutrients (though nutrient deprivation is

the exception; most do work by giving ample nutrition)

> So what is it that someone with cancer doesn't want that red meat

> has?

omega 6 fat (Boik), saturated fat (Boik), iron, excessive protein (in

some cases), potentially the fact that it's highly acidifying for most

people (in some cases), that it stimulates sympathetic nervous system.

There may be other things. Also I think red meat (the way it's

commonly prepared) is a digestive burden--very undesirable for a sick

person, particularly a cancer patient, and particularly if not taking

digestive enzymes.

> So... remove iron entirely?

no; just reduce it

> Well, we gave a trial run to a strict Gerson diet plus FO/CC and had

> to abort. Nothing but rapid worsening of Hodgkin's lymphoma while

> on this regimen for a number of months, plus a growing profound

> hatred of juices and vegetables on the part of the patient. The

> first piece of chicken added to the diet did wonders for his mood,

> and the first steamed meatball seemed to have been packed with the

> will to fight which juices and vegetables somehow kept dammed down.

> (Traditional Chinese medicine has a good explanation for this

> effect. In any event, if someone feels good on a vegetarian diet,

> that's fine and may indicate it's working for the individual... but

> if it is conductive to depression at every meal over " being reduced

> to a rabbit, " it means it's not all the healing goodness it could

> be.)

Very interesting and enlightening. I agree Gerson therapy, juicing,

and a fruit/vegetable diet isn't right for all cancer patients by any

means. Any guidelines on how to tell which people the above applies to

and which people it doesn't apply to?

> It depends on the type of immunotherapy. The ones that stimulate

> the B-lymphocytes are potentially disastrous with certain

> lymphomas. The ones that support T-lymphocytes can be very

> helpful.

Very good to know.

> Parasympathetic system must be " tuned up " rather than suppressed,

> since the problem is not so much " too relaxed " as " too permeable "

> (and they are not the same) -- poor barriers for viruses, poor skin

> barrier (there's often a long history of dermatitis-type skin

> problems prior to the onset of lymphoma), " liquid " cell membranes

> and the resulting multiple chemical sensitivities... and it is a

> bit more complicated than merely a " parasympathetic-dominant "

> picture paints

I strongly agree.

> But he's on the right track with his multiple diets AFAIK.

What does AFAIK stand for?

THanks very much for your thorough, thoughtful reply.

Best,

Leonard