The Metabolic Model of Cancer has recently been resurrected after lying dormant for slightly less than a century. This 1924 model is predicated upon the work of a physiologist, medical doctor and Nobel Laureate by the name of Otto Warburg who espoused the eponymous Warburg Effect. What has re-ignited interest in this theory is that contemporaneously with the rise in sugar/carbohydrate consumption since the 1970s, the rate of cancers has increased in tandem. Unknown in traditional and primitive societies such as the Inuits some 100 years ago, with the change in their diet to a western style diet, cancer has become one of the leading causes of death in these societies. In the light of this correlation, does the Metabolic Model of Cancer deserve another investigation?
The rate at which the prevalence of cancer is affecting society – already one in every two men and one in every three women will suffer from it. With the current rate of increase being 3%, shortly almost everybody will be afflicted.
Main picture: Dr Otto Warburg, the Nobel Laureate who discovered aerobic glycolysis
For some apparently unfathomable reason, in the Western world since the 1970s the average BMI of the population has spiralled upwards while simultaneously the level of dieting, consumption of diet food and amount of exercise performed, whether in the form of gyming or running, has skyrocketed. How is this possible? Was this sheer co-incidence or happenstance or are there, within the current dieting regime, prospective candidates as the culprit.
The current suspect is sugar. Like a rabbit trapped in a car’s headlights its apologists and defenders such as the sugar water industry – read Coke – are supine but not immobile. With sugar taxes looming after New York City’s courageous imposition of this punitive measure recently, their muted rational response is quite credible.
Main picture: Will sugar take the mantle as the new tobacco over the next decade or is it being unfairly cast as the villain in the piece?
To use an overused word, human life is priceless but on the obverse side, there is the small matter of cost. Simply put: With the whole slew of new & innovative medical treatments and medicines coming onto the market where does one draw the line in providing all these potentially life-saving treatments?
Lest anyone is under the misapprehension that this conundrum is not pervasive today let us consider the dilemmas that doctors and medical aid schemes face today when confronted by such quandaries.
Amongst the most promising lines of research currently generating all the hype relates to stem cells. Stem cell research and therapies are undoubtedly at the cutting edge of science, with regular breakthroughs being announced in the field but the subject provokes fear and anticipation in equal measure. Whilst in the long term, this line of research will result in spectacular progress, what can we expect in the short term which will have an equally profound impact?
Alzheimer’s or similar senile dementias
The one area which is, in my opinion, not receiving sufficient funding – I have no bias in this viewpoint – is that relating to dementia especially those experienced in one’s dotage such as Alzheimer’s.
Main picture: Olive oil – does it prevent heart disease?
Change to deeply ingrained ideas is never like a switch. It meanders through the societal consciousness igniting controversy at it proceeds and gathers momentum. The Banting or LCHF diet is no different. From the mid-1970s when the eminent Dr Ancel Keyes convinced the US Department of Health that fats were injurious to one’s health, as fat correlated with cholesterol, the received wisdom has been that fats except in extreme moderation were to be avoided. Now scientific evidence is inexorably negating this flawed thinking.
The case of the elusive cure for ulcers is illustrative of all the prevailing forces that hobble the forces of change: these are the existing dogma, entrenched industries and supposed scientific evidence buttressing the existing ingrained ideas. This requires the abandonment of a set of well entrenched beliefs that conflict with the new ideas.
Main picture: The British Medical Journal now condones the consumption of fatty food except that the sales assistant must be sternly informed to hold the chips and the bun but to put a few dollops of cream on it.
With the eminent Professor Tim Noakes facing the wrath of the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) for advocating the LCHF diet for all people, this issue has again been dragged into the public domain. What particularly irked the Professional Board for Dietetics and Nutrition in South Africa was his assertion that his diet was suitable for infants. What is the significance of this decision and what are the long-term implications of general adoption of this diet?
A Personal Odyssey
Of the few struggles in my life which I have lost convincingly, by a knockout and not on points, has been my weight. At periodic intervals I would yet again attempt to lose 8 to 10kgs. After six months of excruciating hunger, lassitude and enervation, I would have attained my desired weight level only to regain it within one month thereafter as I resumed my normal eating habits.
Last weeks’ Time Magazine has a series of articles on how science can retard the rate of aging and possibly even halt it completely. Of more significance to me – which was unstated – was what would the social & societal consequences of such a process be? Does this even bode well for humankind in terms of the quality of those additional years? For instance would one then be senile for fifty years instead of ten?
Main picture: I bet that Bridgette Bardot has many regrets about her life but probably her main misgiving was about getting old and more importantly, looking decrepit. Continue reading
Like all generalisations, the exceptions disprove the rule. In this case does smoking, snorting cocaine or injecting heroin in moderation apply? Certainly not. It probably applies with eating and drinking but what about exercise? Is strenuous exercise good for one’s health?
This maxim is often bandied about as a justification for behaviour that is clearly suspect or injurious to one’s health. Yet those protagonists of its use would never use this saying in other contexts where they disbelieve its veracity.
A recent “discussion” between Tim Noakes and an eminent cardiologist on 702 WTT [8th August 2014] during which Noakes was accused of “being criminal” brought this issue to the forefront again. What does the latest research reveal regarding this debate?
Conventional wisdom decrees that fat is bad for one’s health and if one so much as lets a glob of fat past one’s lips, one is liable to suffer from high cholesterol and die. The eating of all forms of fat including eggs, cream and fat on meat was not only eschewed, it was verboten. If any product had .005% less fat than a standard product, it would have the words low fat emblazoned all over it as if even such a miniscule reduction in imbibing fat would be beneficial.
Main picture: Tim Noakes
Studies reveal that 95%+ of people who diet never lose weight permanently. Fat which was previously vilified is now the redeemer.
The startling headline of this weeks’ Time Magazine reads: Eat Butter. Scientists labelled Fat the Enemy. Why they were wrong.
What a volte facie? What a heresy. Two generations of medical personnel will have to unlearn their mantra: Fat is bad. Fat will kill you.
Not surprisingly, we each have our own stories of our odyssey in this saga.