Caveman Doctor Interview on Blogtalkradio Ranked 3rd of 1400 for Health Podcasts!

 

Can a ‘Caveman Diet’ Help Fight Cancer?

 
Caveman Doctor is very happy to announce that his recent interview on blogtalkradio with Erin Chamerlik is now ranked no. 3 of 1400 health podcasts. While Caveman Doctor has no clue what a podcast is (since much like grains, they never existed during his time), he is still very excited by this recent news.
 
Click here to check out the entire interview.
 
“Colin Champ, MD has a keen interest in the dietary effects on the prevention and treatment of cancer, along with the effects of a ketogenic diet on cancer. The connection between the modern diet, obesity, and cancer has been remarkable. Visit Dr. Champ’s website – it will empower you to fight all three.”
 
 

7 Comments

  1. Suzie_B

    Great podcast!

    I get that cancer feeds on glucose. Could you explain the glutamine connection (I think I read something about it in Dr. Seyfried’s writings)? Do you have to control glucose and glutamine and how would you go about doing that? Thanks!

    Reply
    1. cavemandoctor (Post author)

      Suzie,

      Dr. Seyfried is a great thinker in the field. He has many papers and a new book on cancer as a metabolic disease. Evidence exists that glutamine can also provide energy for cells with dysfunctional mitochondria, i.e. some cancer cells. The hypothesis is that when mitochondria return to normal in tumor cells, the need for glutamine (and sugar) will decrease. Starving tumor cells that can rely on glutamine poses a much more difficult challenge without the use of drugs or other therapies, though green tea polyphenol (EGCG) may target glutamine when used with a ketogenic diet. Glucose, however, is a much easier target through lifestyle alone.

      Thanks!
      CD

      Reply
      1. Suzie_B

        Thank you for your explanation to my question. I do not mean to be ignorant pest, but could you explain :

        “The hypothesis is that when mitochondria return to normal in tumor cells, the need for glutamine (and sugar) will decrease.”

        How does the mitochondria return to normal and does this change the tumor?

        Thanks!

        Reply
        1. cavemandoctor (Post author)

          Suzie,

          No problem. So a definitive answer to this doesn’t yet exist and is hypothetical. In fact many do not see cancer as a metabolic disease but purely genetic, some the opposite, some a mix. I have heard all sides of the argument. If you are interested, here are some of Dr. Seyfried’s papers:

          http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-7-7.pdf
          http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v89/n7/abs/6601269a.html
          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01853.x/full
          http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/30

          He is clearly convinced cancer (at least glioma) is a metabolic disease. His points are well-taken and he has done some great research. I refer to his work often and definitely agree with much of it, though I am not convinced calorie restriction is necessary. Though, I did recently submit a paper on this topic, so hopefully I can link that soon.

          CD

          Reply
  2. newyorker

    i’m happy to see people with credibility such as you and dr. peter attia take a stand against the conventional dietary wisdom. everyone in my family has gone low-carb since we’ve read taubes’ ‘good calories, bad calories’. (i’m the cook, so they don’t have a choice=). my son is an md as well and of course never got this info in med school. he says he can’t recommend low-carb to patients since it makes him vulnerable legally, a real ethical dilemma. i have to hand it to you though, taking that risk.

    this may sound conspiracy-like but i have to wonder if the low-carb message is being deliberately downplayed because, let’s face it, it’s ecologically unsustainable. it’s one thing if a relative handful eats this way, another if 7 billion do. (factory farmed carbs are the reason we _got_ to 7b).

    Reply
    1. cavemandoctor (Post author)

      This is a great point which people argue about all the time in the caveman world. The counter is that the grain industry covers a massive amount of the country with monocropping which destroys and strips the land of nutrients and requires massive amounts of resources. Free-ranging cows take up some space too, but at least if its done right the soil can be replenished. There isn’t an easy answer though. Granted, I don’t think civilization and population expansion to such a great extent would be possible without easy access to food sources. However, I think there is a lot of underlying conspiracy-like activity going on (but I believe in a lot of conspiracy theories…).

      -CD

      Reply
  3. Edward

    If you don’t think livestock are sustainable, read Simon Fairlie’s book, Meat, A Benign Indulgence. He presents a very even treatment of the possibilities of living with or without meat eating. It is not a diatribe by a carnivore, by any means.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>