ERICOPOLY Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 That's very interesting that cancer cells can't propagate without fructose. Do you have a reference for that? Thanks. lmgtfy click here :) Quote from first the link: "They grew pancreatic cancer cells in lab dishes and fed them both glucose and fructose. Tumor cells thrive on sugar but they used the fructose to proliferate." I wonder what would happen if they tried feeding ethanol to the cancer cell. Maybe one can get all the phytochemicals and antioxidants from drinking wine with none of the cancer-promoting fructose from drinking grape juice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uccmal Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I wonder what would happen if they tried feeding ethanol to the cancer cell. Maybe one can get all the phytochemicals and antioxidants from drinking wine with none of the cancer-promoting fructose from drinking grape juice. They would get drunk and have promiscuous sex with all of the other cells.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 What do you think of this natural sweetener? It contains no fructose. Xylitol, or "birch sugar". It is not made in a lab or anything like that. They use it in chewing gum in Europe. It does not promote tooth decay. http://www.3dchem.com/moremolecules.asp?ID=306&othername=birch%20sugar Here it is described on a different page: http://www.ultimatelife.com/CatSweet.htm Third, in spite of the fact that it is a pure carbohydrate, it is metabolized very slowly. This helps prevent sugar "highs" and "lows" experienced by people who have diabetes, hypoglycemia, chronic fatigue syndrome, candida (yeast infection) or any condition caused by sugar imbalance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UhuruPeak Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 I hate you guys - because of this thread, I've been drinking my black coffee w/o sugar and it is just no as good :( As for the following... They would get drunk and have promiscuous sex with all of the other cells.... This thread 'part en couilles' as the French would say. Not gonna translate to English lest young eyes read it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valuecfa Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 I hate you guys - because of this thread, I've been drinking my black coffee w/o sugar and it is just no as good :( As for the following... They would get drunk and have promiscuous sex with all of the other cells.... This thread 'part en couilles' as the French would say. Not gonna translate to English lest young eyes read it ;D That's funny. I just started cutting back on my sugar with coffee too. It's just not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 "The only place in the body where fructose is used (outside of the liver) is by cancer cells. Cancer cells use fructose to propagate. Without fructose, no cancer propagation." This is the dirty little secret the processed food and drink industry don't want you to hear: Sugar feeds cancerous cells, after all they are fast growing and require constant feeding. They also require a growing flow of blood and secrete hormones that stimulate the growth of new blood vessels. One way to counteract tumour growth is to take vascular inhibitors for certain tumours, like Thalidomide, previously famous for inhibiting the natural growth of blood vessels in fetuses. Unfortunately neither of these therapies are popular with the dispensers-for-profit. Unfortunately diseases like Type II diabetes are a major profit center for the medical industry whose interest is in selling therapies to maintain the patient's health for as long as they can pay. Prevention and remediation by diet and lifestyle changes are not profit generating. I agree. Keeping people sick to grow GDP, and make it easy to win their votes (their cognitive functions are in a semi-hibernative state from the very insulin spiking that is making them fat). I'm convinced this diabetes is a hyberation trait -- insulin spiking from refined carbs slows you down physically and cognitively, to conserve energy in the winter when food is scarce. The low blood sugar makes the fat burning cycle easy to attain because a minimum of effort (even sleep) depletes what's left of the glucose in your blood. So you stay warm because the fat burning cycle generates heat. I honestly can't think of any other mechanism through which you could conserve as much energy as possible while staying warm at the same time -- isn't that basically what hybernation is all about? It's in the winter when you eat the sugar-mush from the berries you gathered all summer. So a populace that eats a steady diet of sugar much will slip into a hibernation like state both physically and cognitively, ready to believe that even Palin is smart enough to lead us, and if they don't like something they lack the energy and motivation to organize and fight it. Other parts of the world where the diet is better must look at Americans and think they are genetically just really slow -- but it's just hibernation. Look at what happens to other animals Bears hibernate. They eat tons of food in winter and generate body fat. They have thick fur. Once snow accumulates, they stop eating and retire do their dens. Their blood sugar drops and they slip into hypoglycemia -- triggering the fat burn that will keep them warm steadily all winter. In order to make their fat last, they slow their cognitive function way down (brains use energy) and keep completely still (heavily lethargic). They just sleep. Not sure what wakes them up. Perhaps when the weather warms come spring they get night sweats and wake up drenched in sweat? I believe that with global warming I heard somewhere that bears were waking up early from hybernation -- it would mesh well with the night sweat theory. They don't sleep for a set amount of time, they sleep until they wake up drenched in sweat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biaggio Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 That's very interesting that cancer cells can't propagate without fructose. Do you have a reference for that? Thanks. lmgtfy click here :) Quote from first the link: "They grew pancreatic cancer cells in lab dishes and fed them both glucose and fructose. Tumor cells thrive on sugar but they used the fructose to proliferate." http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/08/fructose_and_pancreatic_cancer.php Critical writeup up re study. Author infers that conclusions noted above may be premature and maybe exaggerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aberhound Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 As an aging soccer player I have learnt some tricks that work for me: 1. Grass fed beef tastes better. In Vancouver Steveston Farms sells it at a price to please any value investor. 2. Scotsmen were hunter-gatherers longer than most Europeans so don't do well eating wheat. A paleo diet is best. 3. If you are warmer than your partner your thyroid is probably healthier. Healthy thyroids need iodine. Iodine is on the same column in the periodic table as bromine, fluorine and chlorine. These therefore are chemically similar with the same charge and must be avoided or they will compete with the iodine and deprive the thyroid. Colder people probably each too much bread, toothpaste with fluoride and chlorinated, fluoridated water and struggle with their weight. There is no fluoride in Vancouver water and Vancouver residents are significantly skinnier than most Canadians. 4. A healthy thyroid allows the pituitary to pump out the human growth hormone that comes from intense cardio exercise. HGH is what keeps muscles strong, helps to keep you lean and helps to prevent injury. This is why regular soccer players look like soccer players. 5. Eating sugar allows other soccer players to play better than you. If you don't eat it you no longer want it as it tastes sickly sweet except when mixed with dark chocolate. Dark chocolate and wine do not seem to harm soccer performance and a post-game beer seems to speed recovery. No one has yet proven that coffee in the morning is bad for soccer players. 6. Reishi plus Vitamin C helps me score more goals. I don't know why. 7. If you do intense exercise like soccer you can experiment to see what helps or not. The intense exercise makes it obvious. 8. Eating millet on game day morning seems to reduce muscle fatigue and reduce post game pain. Pre-game baroque music seems to improve performance. Coaches often have kooky sounding advice that seems to work. 9. Your mother was right about eating your vegetables. You can tell real organic vegetables because they taste better. 10. Don't bore your wife with diet tips. She doesn't want to hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twacowfca Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 What do you think of this natural sweetener? It contains no fructose. Xylitol, or "birch sugar". It is not made in a lab or anything like that. They use it in chewing gum in Europe. It does not promote tooth decay. http://www.3dchem.com/moremolecules.asp?ID=306&othername=birch%20sugar Here it is described on a different page: http://www.ultimatelife.com/CatSweet.htm Third, in spite of the fact that it is a pure carbohydrate, it is metabolized very slowly. This helps prevent sugar "highs" and "lows" experienced by people who have diabetes, hypoglycemia, chronic fatigue syndrome, candida (yeast infection) or any condition caused by sugar imbalance. Xylitol is a rare sugar. People seem to be able to handle small amounts OK, but it might be unwise to over do it because our bodies aren't used to it. It does do weird things such as cause "black tongue". :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twacowfca Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 I wonder what would happen if they tried feeding ethanol to the cancer cell. Maybe one can get all the phytochemicals and antioxidants from drinking wine with none of the cancer-promoting fructose from drinking grape juice. They would get drunk and have promiscuous sex with all of the other cells.... Thus validating the advertising mantra, "sex cells". 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 I hate you guys - because of this thread, I've been drinking my black coffee w/o sugar and it is just no as good :( As for the following... They would get drunk and have promiscuous sex with all of the other cells.... This thread 'part en couilles' as the French would say. Not gonna translate to English lest young eyes read it ;D That's funny. I just started cutting back on my sugar with coffee too. It's just not the same. What's funny is that I thought the same thing when I started drinking it black, but now when Dunkin Donuts messes up and puts sugar in it, I can't even drink it. I dump it out. You appreciate good coffee more when you drink it black. You realize how bad most donut shop coffee is. I don't like starbucks either very much. Get a good burr grinder and order whole bean coffee from either a good local coffee roaster who roasts quality beans in small batches, or order online from http://capulin.com/ This is my favorite coffee: http://coffeeroasterscafe.com/page8.php The guy who owns it used to be local to me, but he moved his business to New Hampshire. I still order from him and have it mailed to me. I just order his house blend. It is excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 I hate you guys - because of this thread, I've been drinking my black coffee w/o sugar and it is just no as good :( Lol I agree. Having withdrawals. Coffee isnt so bad. But tea isnt the same. I do sugar once a week and its a real threat honestly, you really come to appreciate it when its not a 3 times a day thing. Its kind of nice. I also agree with everyone else. Without the sugar you can really tell good tea and coffee vs. bad tea / coffee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triedtestedand Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 All: I hadn't poked around in this thread since the original conversation focused on the very large cup size now promoted at Starbucks ... there's another seguay opportunity by the way ;-) ... but was trolling some of the investment banter last night and noticed all the recent posts in this thread regarding sugar/nutrition/etc. ... I must say it only reaffirms a thought one of you posted that this board harbours a wealth of knowledge and curiosity. Thanks again Sanjeev! It was also a very timely and informative nutrition read as I've started a program to run a marathon in late May/early June (likely Grandma's, or possibly San Diego ... if anyone has any opinions, I'd be all ears). I'm looking to run sub-3 hours, and seeking to get my weight/BMI down to avoid extra baggage charges (i.e. time/energy) during the race. In the footsteps of Ericopoly, this has come about as was able to "de-institutionalize" myself last month (i.e. quit my job), and the break has afforded me the luxury of time to do the necessary training (and recovery in between!), while also keeping me away from the proverbial business lunch temptations. On that lunch note, a message to Sanjeev ... I'm Vancouver based, and have been ever meaning to track you down in person and take you for lunch (so we can see FFH stock spike again, ha!), but was always travelling ... I'll send a note to your personal email, as now that I have some space in my schedule, I'd be keen to take you for whatever sized lunch/coffee you see fit. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valuecfa Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 It was also a very timely and informative nutrition read as I've started a program to run a marathon in late May/early June (likely Grandma's, or possibly San Diego ... if anyone has any opinions, I'd be all ears). I'm looking to run sub-3 hours, and seeking to get my weight/BMI down to avoid extra baggage charges (i.e. time/energy) during the race. You mean the Half-Marathon, no? That would be a heck of a Marathon time! I'm doing my first Half-Marathon in March and aiming for a sub- 2 Hour, 7 minute time. If you have never trained for one before, and want a good training schedule (for the Half), the one i am using can be found here: http://www.halhigdon.com/halfmarathon/novice.htm Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UhuruPeak Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 In the footsteps of Ericopoly, this has come about as was able to "de-institutionalize" myself last month (i.e. quit my job) Congratulations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 In the footsteps of Ericopoly, this has come about as was able to "de-institutionalize" myself last month (i.e. quit my job) Congratulations! Second that. Congrats! (by the way, to correct something I said earlier, fat burning cycle doesn't happen when hypoglycemic in the presence of insulin. The insulin has to be first absorbed by the body's cells, only then will the fat burning cycle be possible. So in my case, I go to bed and progressively get more hypoglycemic as the night rolls on (so I'm not getting hot), but then eventually the last of my bloodstream insulin gets absorbed and then the fat burning cycle starts which cooks me and makes me sweat. I wake up feeling relatively okay because my blood sugar has come back from the fat burning cycle). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncommonprofits Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 It was also a very timely and informative nutrition read as I've started a program to run a marathon in late May/early June (likely Grandma's, or possibly San Diego ... if anyone has any opinions, I'd be all ears). I'm looking to run sub-3 hours, and seeking to get my weight/BMI down to avoid extra baggage charges (i.e. time/energy) during the race. You mean the Half-Marathon, no? That would be a heck of a Marathon time! I'm doing my first Half-Marathon in March and aiming for a sub- 2 Hour, 7 minute time. If you have never trained for one before, and want a good training schedule (for the Half), the one i am using can be found here: http://www.halhigdon.com/halfmarathon/novice.htm Good luck! You marathoners might want to have a read of what Art De Vany has to say on the subject. Again, Art has studied the scientific evidence in forming his opinions on this stuff. http://www.arthurdevany.com/articles/20091028 Why is our body not designed for running marathons? Well it has to do with much of what else has been discussed on this thread. As much as we would like to think so, we have not yet evolved to human genome 2.0. We still exist under human genome 1.0, with very insignificant modifications. It's not only common sense but scientific fact that hunter gatherers did not jog -- they sprinted. They may have trail ran a bit but there was a high need to keep the energy balance in place -- there was no need to jog long distances to catch their prey. The human brain allowed them other means of survival. A healthy male adult hunter gatherer could also (at minimum) dead lift twice their body weight - but probably a lot more. Diet is probably #1 in terms of importance of our health. Exercising is #2 - but the key in this regard is doing things that will create an adaptive response particularly in the fast twitch muscle fibers. This involves the safe lifting of heavy weights (low reps preferable) and sprinting. A very effective alternative to jogging is walking with a heavily weighted back pack. I don't know what the alternative to marathoning might be -- maybe two wheel transit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triedtestedand Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Uncommonprofits: Check out the book "Born to Run" ... it's more storybook than thesis, but a great read, and good for making conversation at a dinner party. I've got zero aspirations to do an ultramarathon - but the author does raise some good arguments in favour of the idea that we're made to run - making strong argument, with evidence from some tribe in Namibia I believe that still does this today - that humans (if approaching the hunt in the right manner, and as a group) can essentially "run" their prey to exhaustion, more by outlasting them than anything. http://www.amazon.ca/Born-Run-Hidden-Superathletes-Greatest/dp/0307266303 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McDougall#Born_to_Run Thanks for the link to Art Devany ... good arguments counter, probably meaning that the truth is somewhere in the middle ... Note that in his #1 reason he highlights that the first marathon runner, Phidippides, collapsed and died at the finish of his race ... and then goes on to also say that "Jack LaLanne, the only well-known guru to advocate body building, will outlive us all." ... of course the irony is that Jack died last week. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 "The only place in the body where fructose is used (outside of the liver) is by cancer cells. Cancer cells use fructose to propagate. Without fructose, no cancer propagation." This is the dirty little secret the processed food and drink industry don't want you to hear: Sugar feeds cancerous cells, after all they are fast growing and require constant feeding. They also require a growing flow of blood and secrete hormones that stimulate the growth of new blood vessels. One way to counteract tumour growth is to take vascular inhibitors for certain tumours, like Thalidomide, previously famous for inhibiting the natural growth of blood vessels in fetuses. Unfortunately neither of these therapies are popular with the dispensers-for-profit. Unfortunately diseases like Type II diabetes are a major profit center for the medical industry whose interest is in selling therapies to maintain the patient's health for as long as they can pay. Prevention and remediation by diet and lifestyle changes are not profit generating. That's a major strike against the privatization of basic scientific research. The studies that get done are the studies that get funding. Would the drug and food companies willingly fund studies where the thesis is based on something that would put them out of business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncommonprofits Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Uncommonprofits: Check out the book "Born to Run" ... it's more storybook than thesis, but a great read, and good for making conversation at a dinner party. I've got zero aspirations to do an ultramarathon - but the author does raise some good arguments in favour of the idea that we're made to run - making strong argument, with evidence from some tribe in Namibia I believe that still does this today - that humans (if approaching the hunt in the right manner, and as a group) can essentially "run" their prey to exhaustion, more by outlasting them than anything. http://www.amazon.ca/Born-Run-Hidden-Superathletes-Greatest/dp/0307266303 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McDougall#Born_to_Run Thanks for the link to Art Devany ... good arguments counter, probably meaning that the truth is somewhere in the middle ... Note that in his #1 reason he highlights that the first marathon runner, Phidippides, collapsed and died at the finish of his race ... and then goes on to also say that "Jack LaLanne, the only well-known guru to advocate body building, will outlive us all." ... of course the irony is that Jack died last week. Cheers The hunter gatherer societies that remain today live in marginal territories. There is a reason why tribes like the Namibia remain somewhat undisturbed in a modern world. The territories where they live were of little importance as modern society pushed it's way in to much more abundant lands. The strongest of hunter gatherers dominated the most abundant lands -- until the advent of agriculture and modern revolution that came about. The more abundant lands afforded less desperate means of hunting and physical activity. So when developing an exercise regime would we be better off replicating the physical habits of the strongest? Or, the weakest? I think the answer is obvious. Take a look at the bodies of track and field athletes. Sprinters look far more healthy than long distance runners. Yes, tribes have been known to run down prey until exhaustion -- and it probably has a high success rate. However, as a long distance runner I would be more concerned about the failure rate.... the chances of the runner collapsing before the prey might be low -- but I doubt it is zero. Below is an interesting video of an apparent actual persistence hunt: The interesting thing that Christopher McDougall brings to the subject is barefoot running -- it's a very interesting topic that is developing a significant following. I think Art's comment on Jack LaLanne was more off the cuff and perhaps more of a tribute of his achievement. Jack was 96 and I think he lived much of his later years in the type of health that others can only dream of. I am sure there would be plenty that would love to have had Jack's run on longevity. Peter Cundill certainly had a run in his value investing career; however, I am sure he would have liked to tack on the extra years Jack got out of it. Incidentally, I seem to recall that Peter Cundill was once a marathoner -- anyone know for sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2S Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Take a look at the bodies of track and field athletes. Sprinters look far more healthy than long distance runners. I'm afraid we are now entering the realm of personal opinions: far more healthy, according to whom? Society's standard of beauty is anything but static. Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF), American Eagle Outfitters (AEO) et al made a killing between 04-08 when the bulky, masculine "country boy" look was all the rage among young male. The torch has since been passed to retailers such as Urban Outfitters (URBN) or J Crew Group (JCG) which sell close fitting shirts and slim jeans that are in vogue with the thinner urbanites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Hipsters may be trendy but no one thinks they are healthy or hot (though we would have to ask the females). I am getting old, I find myself muttering Kids these day..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncommonprofits Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Take a look at the bodies of track and field athletes. Sprinters look far more healthy than long distance runners. I'm afraid we are now entering the realm of personal opinions: far more healthy, according to whom? Society's standard of beauty is anything but static. Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF), American Eagle Outfitters (AEO) et al made a killing between 04-08 when the bulky, masculine "country boy" look was all the rage among young male. The torch has since been passed to retailers such as Urban Outfitters (URBN) or J Crew Group (JCG) which sell close fitting shirts and slim jeans that are in vogue with the thinner urbanites. I think you are taking this way out of context. I wasn't talking about some advertising campaign targeted at youths or who-ever. I was talking about comparing two types of elite athletes. Long distance runners look skinny and frail, even bony in appearance (for some you could almost say they are sick looking). On the other hand, sprinters have well developed muscles, they look strong, fit and healthy. It's not a subjective matter of 'according to who?', this is just the way they are. An athletes physical stature might dictate what athletic career path to chose - but their fitness regime has a lot to do with sculpting their physical appearance. And before it is brought up - I don't question either athletes grit and determination at all - both work tremendously hard to achieve the ultimate goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest broxburnboy Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 "The only place in the body where fructose is used (outside of the liver) is by cancer cells. Cancer cells use fructose to propagate. Without fructose, no cancer propagation." This is the dirty little secret the processed food and drink industry don't want you to hear: Sugar feeds cancerous cells, after all they are fast growing and require constant feeding. They also require a growing flow of blood and secrete hormones that stimulate the growth of new blood vessels. One way to counteract tumour growth is to take vascular inhibitors for certain tumours, like Thalidomide, previously famous for inhibiting the natural growth of blood vessels in fetuses. Unfortunately neither of these therapies are popular with the dispensers-for-profit. Unfortunately diseases like Type II diabetes are a major profit center for the medical industry whose interest is in selling therapies to maintain the patient's health for as long as they can pay. Prevention and remediation by diet and lifestyle changes are not profit generating. That's a major strike against the privatization of basic scientific research. The studies that get done are the studies that get funding. Would the drug and food companies willingly fund studies where the thesis is based on something that would put them out of business? If one remembers the fight against tobacco use, corporate interests (the tobacco lobby) fought tooth and nail against public funded research and goverments which eventually triumphed (partially). The lesson has not been lost on other corporate miscreants - get the government out of the research and prevention business.. hence the current howl against public health and prevention funding. What's good for Coca-Cola (the leading grocery item in America) is to silence the "lefties", lest refined added sugar become the new tobacco on the public health agenda. Monopoly capitalism in action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bronco Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I heard you can avoid many more health risks by simply avoiding share buybacks and voting Republican. Also, support the Flyers. Sugar, tobacco, alcohol and carbs are ok. (just thought I would contradict and piss off everyone with one swooping email). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now