This guy, William Li, gives a nice intro to anti-angiogenetic eating.

[www.ted.com]

Good find i will give it a watch later on.

Anti-angiogenesis can be an important part of a cancer treatment program in my opinion and many herbs possesss anti-angiogenesis properties.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]

Once in a while, a cancer treatment protocol based on the all but forgotten work of Otto Warburg--whose ideas should be core curriculum in clinical oncology--bobs to the surface, like an old 2 liter bottle tossed at sea.

I hope that Li's foundation continues to participate in symposia and to get funding, I hope, I hope. In the meantime, I wonder how many other innovators have to remind us to eat our plant foods for optimum health!

Thanks for posting, HH

Cancer cells eat sugar. Carbs are sugars, and protein is easily converted, in the body, to sugar.

Fat is the only fuel that isn't converted to sugar.

Eat fat to starve out cancer cells.

Are you talking about plant fat c-k?

Professor Carroll shows how breast cancer is associated with animal fat but not plant fat - to give but one example

ref: The China Study by T. Colin Campbell from page 81

cherimoya_kid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cancer cells eat sugar. Carbs are sugars, and
> protein is easily converted, in the body, to
> sugar.
>
> Fat is the only fuel that isn't converted to
> sugar.
>
> Eat fat to starve out cancer cells.

You are correct about sugar feeding cancer cells and we have numerous studies to back this up, we cannot deny this fact now when it comes to cancer research.

Although either way we are stuffed because every macronutrient whether it be protein or fat is converted into glucose at some point in the body. The key is using healthy carb sources that come with the accompanying nutrients and anti-cancer phytonutrients such as fruits, vegetables, possibly even wholegrains to an extent which are gluten free such as quinoa.

Although this is another reason why i still think a high sugar diet is not a good idea. Moderate intake suits my needs and has served me well enough so far.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 10:36AM by powerlifer.

You're not much of a raw foodist if you're quoting the China Study.

The animal fats in that were all cooked.

The truth is, I've not seen any study that fairly compares high-quality raw animal fat versus high-quality raw plant fat.

Also, I don't even think that study included fatty fish.

So I'd say the jury is still out.

flipperjan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you talking about plant fat c-k?
>
> Professor Carroll shows how breast cancer is
> associated with animal fat but not plant fat - to
> give but one example
>
> ref: The China Study by T. Colin Campbell from
> page 81

yes CK we shoudl all listen to you and ignore the china study ..

because YOU have talked to a BUNCH of people and have ALL the answers because YOU are so more evolved then "us people" here with your anecdotal claims.

ok peeps ..ignore the china study !

trick question .. who knows what number a *BUNCH* exactly is ?

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

LOL Jodi!

"'I'm making no absolute statements for this, notice. Guy-Claude Burger's wife, Nicole Burger, died of cancer on a diet heavy in raw meat. However, we know that fat is the hardest nutrient for the body to convert to glucose, and cancer cells just have sugar to survive. She was eating ultra-lean grassfed MUSCLE meat, without the fatty body parts. Most traditional tribes throw the muscle meat to the dogs, and value the fatty body parts the most highly. "


CK Please don't discuss this here - this kind of conversation is upsetting to me for many reasons.

'

Yeah, cherimoya, you're kind of breaking Rule Number One of these forums.


Also, it isn't so simple as to starve cancer cells of glucose by consuming only fats, or primarily fats. Every healthy cell--including immune cells--requires sugar to function. Starving cancer cells of sugar ultimately gives them leverage, as they are much more efficient at eking out glucose, even in privation, than healthy cells are. Thus, the anti-angeogenisis proponents may be on the right track; you can't do anything about a cancer tumor's wanting glucose, but you may be able to prevent the cancer tumor from physically developing the means to get it.

Agreed Tamukha, although you can not excessively feed it also with high sugar diets in my opinion. Some will disagree, like i say its about using healthy sugar sources such as fruit and vegetables as they have the anti-cancer promoting nutrients also, but excessive intake hmm im not convinced its healthy with the amount of studies.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]

Post reported sport. Not that I have any expectation if you are banned you won't reinvent yourself. You do though need to know the dictionary definition of "hubris" [en.wikipedia.org] [www.merriam-webster.com]

I don't know whether you are out of touch or just seeking attention. either way... pest control.... a troll is just another name for a human pest.




cherimoya_kid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So are you a raw foodist, or a cooked-rice-eating
> native of East Asia?
>
> IF you wouldn't blindly accept negative study
> results about cooked PLANT food as also being
> accurate for RAW plant food, then why accept such
> a thing for animal fat?
>
> I'm making no absolute statements for this,
> notice. Guy-Claude Burger's wife, Nicole Burger,
> died of cancer on a diet heavy in raw meat.
> However, we know that fat is the hardest nutrient
> for the body to convert to glucose, and cancer
> cells just have sugar to survive. She was eating
> ultra-lean grassfed MUSCLE meat, without the fatty
> body parts. Most traditional tribes throw the
> muscle meat to the dogs, and value the fatty body
> parts the most highly.
>
> I personally think the jury is still out on
> high-quality RAW animal fat, in moderation. If I
> had to guess, I'd say it's still probably more
> likely than plant fat to cause cancer, but that's
> just a guess. Also, I've read no study that
> correlates wild-caught ocean FISH consumption with
> cancer. Are you aware of such a study?
>
> And note, I'm still open to the possibility that a
> HIGH-FAT raw vegan diet is perfectly adequate,
> assuming high soil quality.
>
>
>
> I have no idea how long I could have survived in
> great health with a raw mostly-vegan diet if I
> hadn't run into the roadblock called 80/10/10,
> but it would probably have been a LONG time, if I
> were guessing. I felt great and looked great.
>
> I still think unprocessed mineral supplements like
> Terramin and dolomite are not at all a bad thing
> on ANY diet. I think minerals and fats are where
> many raw vegans are deficient.
>
>
>
> Jgunn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > yes CK we shoudl all listen to you and ignore
> the
> > china study ..
> >
> > because YOU have talked to a BUNCH of people
> and
> > have ALL the answers because YOU are so more
> > evolved then "us people" here with your
> anecdotal
> > claims.
> >
> > ok peeps ..ignore the china study !
> >
> > trick question .. who knows what number a
> *BUNCH*
> > exactly is ?

cherimoya_kid, I'm starting to get some complaints about your meat and non-vegan oriented posts. This is your first and last warning from me, the next time your account will be history. Is there a way for you to share your experience without being anti-vegan / pro animal products? If so, you are welcome to say. If not, I can respond appropriately.

I truly don't think cherimoya_kid can help himself, guys.

Prana Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cherimoya_kid, I'm starting to get some complaints
> about your meat and non-vegan oriented posts. This
> is your first and last warning from me, the next
> time your account will be history. Is there a way
> for you to share your experience without being
> anti-vegan / pro animal products? If so, you are
> welcome to say. If not, I can respond
> appropriately.

Brother, I spent years posting on this forum, and walked away from it, before you ever heard of the raw diet. It didn't USED to be a strictly vegan forum. We had LOTS of discussion about whether it SHOULD be or not.

Nobody got banned for their opinions, either way. It was a discussion forum. You know, for DISCUSSION? Yeah, that's the point of a forum. If you don't want discussion, you can just post articles and disallow comments.

Like I said, we discussed animal products here plenty, long before most of you ever heard of the raw diet.

I couldn't care less if you ban me. I own my knowledge, and you don't control that. I do think it would be intelligent of you to ban DR, since there's already a thread about it here. I would never have come back here, had you not allowed him and his supporters to turn this place into his toilet. He is the cause of whatever problems you have with me.

I was here before you were, and I care about this being a good place to learn. It's where I first started gathering information about raw foodism, and there's still good information here, if you can dig through DR's posts.

Yeah, this place matters to me, or at least used to. I learned about everything from water fasting to Weston Price here, and I value the introductions to all of that tremendously. Of course, I've gone far beyond what this place can offer, but it's an excellent starting place, minus the 8/1/1 trolls.

And those are my thoughts. As you probably are aware, I don't give much of a rip what anyone here thinks of my dietary or moderating approaches. That's not an insult, it's just confidence.

But yeah, I was getting bored this time around. The only reason I started posting again a couple of weeks ago was because of the relentless one-sidedness of the 8/1/1 discussions. I find the one-sidedness to be misleading, and I feel misled about it, and feel that I was harmed as a result. I learned about 8/1/1 here, as well. I'm just balancing things out, so the noobs don't get misled.

If you won't take care of business re: that, then what am I supposed to do? Let DR destroy the credibility of the raw food movement by single-handedly spamming himself here, on youtube, and my website too? Let him lead other foolish newbies (like I myself used to be) into possible serious health issues because of an extreme and unproven dietary theory?

I don't see you making any effort regarding all that. Maybe you are, behind the scenes. If so, I apologize for doubting you. My impression, though, is that you just don't care, for whatever reason. That's a little sad, maybe.

Good luck in your endeavors cherimoya_kid.

That's sooo cool Prana

It's kewl... and the word that supports and epitomizes our mod is "equanimity"

"Definition of EQUANIMITY
1: evenness of mind especially under stress <nothing could disturb his equanimity>
"

I watched my meditation instructor set through chronic pain in a lotus stance for 90 minutes. I was astounded. It wasn't that she didn't feel it. She did and was aware of it. And transcended it.

Paul

We are not designed to kill animals nor to eat meat. Here is why:

[michaelbluejay.com]