When I do a Google search on "anti cancer diet," two of the top links make recommendations that are clearly against what I've read here about the Paleo diet.
The first, from Ask Doctor Sears, has this to say:
- Keep your diet low in total fat and very low in saturated fats
- Increase Your Fiber Intake
- Eat lots of raw fruits and vegetables
- Switch from red meat to seafood
- Switch from an animal-based diet to a plant-based diet
- Eat more soy products
And the second, from the website promoting the book "AntiCancer" has these recommendations:
- Go retro: Your main course should be 80 percent vegetables, 20 percent animal protein, like it was in the old days.
- Mix and match your vegetables
- Go organic
- Spice it up: Add turmeric (with black pepper) when cooking (delicious in salad dressings!).
- Skip the potato
- Go fish: Eat fish two or three times a week
- Remember not all eggs are created equal: Choose only omega-3 eggs, or don't eat the yolks.
- Change your oil: Use only olive and canola oil in cooking and salad dressings.
- Say "Brown is beautiful": Eat your grains whole and mixed (wheat with oats, barley, spelt, flax, etc.) and favor organic whole grains when possible.
- Keep sweets down to fruits
- Go green: Instead of coffee or black tea, drink three cups of green tea per day.
- Make room for exceptions. What matters is what you do on a daily basis, not the occasional treat.
To me the most glaring contradictions to Paleo were things like "low in total fat," "Eat more soy products", "don't eat the yolks", and "20 percent animal protein."
What is the typical Paleo response to these statements (from Doctors, PhD's, etc.)? Or is the Google rank simply a bad method of assuming these statements are valid?
asked byblue (50)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on March 17, 2011
at 09:42 PM
Yes, you have to understand that if you choose Paleo it is not because it agrees with mainstream science, but because it is scientifically sound, and the mainstream is not. It takes a bit of courage. You have to either be confident in your own ability to evaluate the science, or have a Paleo authority you trust, or just a conviction that the mainstream is wrong combined with a willingness to try something else.
I would recommend you break this up into individual questions. There are a lot of different points there.
on March 17, 2011
at 08:34 PM
I always assume medical advice that requires cutesy terms like "brown is beautiful" or "go retro" is invalid. If you want nutritional advice to avoid cancer, sources that are not trying to sell you something or promote their book are a good start. Reputable sources give the bulk of their information away for free.
on March 18, 2011
at 03:08 AM
Been lurking for a couple of months and this topic caught my eye.
Google favors that which is already heavily-linked, which of course can begin a cycle of links begetting more links over time, reinforcing whatever's already popular. For going outside of the mainstream, therefore, vanilla google is not always the best tool. But google has another flavor; read on.
It might be interesting if someone with the ability to update this site set up a page similar to the one at http://www.nucksmisconduct.com/2010/1/8/1239844/custom-canucks-search-on-the-fly, one which uses google's "custom search" tool. The sample page is all about hockey, and is relevant here simply as a template for what's possible.
With google's custom search (I have no affiliation w/google, btw, just like the tool) you can specify a custom list of sites to be searched. Even better, that list can be drawn from the comments section of a post. The end result is that a group of people, such as the commenters here, can group-source their own list of their favorite sites on a topic just by providing a link in the comments, and the search will then search just those sites.
(If memory serves, I think there might also be an option to search those sites first, and after that search the rest of the web, but it's been a while since I looked at it, so I'm not 100% on that non-critical detail).
Anyway, it'd only take a few minutes to set up, and it might be interesting for a contrarian (at present) idea such as paleo to try such an approach.
on March 17, 2011
at 08:46 PM
I think that there is some evidence that once the tumors are malignant THEN too much protein only throws gasoline on the fire. But at the same time so do carbohydrates. For cancer management I would advocate something like a couple of good quality eggs and little fish yielding about 25g of protein, a big ol' wad of spinach and some other low-ish carb vegetables at about 20g of carbs, and then the rest of the diet should preferably be grassfed beef tallow and coconut. Omega 6 is carcinogenic and CLA and a few constituents of coconut oil are anti-carcinogenic, plus with this approach we get ketosis which starves the cells for glucose. Supplements for other nutrition and depending on the type of cancer maybe some inulin fiber for butyrate http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21283757
Essentially what we want to do is stop the cancer in its tracks and then rebuild health to the point where it won't come back. That of course has to do with fixing the gut, inflammation, improving nutrient status and all of this to decrease insulin levels and enable efficient apoptosis.
This whole "plant-based" thing is a little myopic. Do you want to eat less protein? Yes, but beef tallow and fish fat are going to be very important. How effective is macrobiotic diet? More than donuts and slim-jims I gather. Could we be doing better? Could it be that canola oil and grains are not optimal for a cancer patient? I know I'm preaching to the choir on that one.
Someone let me know if I made any unsubstantiated claims. That protein doesn't cause cancer but exacerbates it if it is malignant comes from Masterjohn's post here http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/cmasterjohn/2010/09/22/the-curious-case-of-campbells-rats-does-protein-deficiency-prevent-cancer/
And it makes sense because runaway proliferation would be dependent upon amino acids. But otherwise protein will actually aide in apoptosis.
Granted it was casein in the study, but if the IGF-1 from casein was so bad there wouldn't have been such a protective effect in the high-protein rats in the feeding period. I probably wouldn't advise dairy for a cancer patient anyway, although it is highly debatable how bad some pastured butter would be in the non-cancerous.
on March 17, 2011
at 08:29 PM
Nice first question for you.
All of your most 'glaring contradictions' make sense to me. These are just common mainstream misconceptions. Some of the things in the list are good, but many are not. Eating Paleo means a high animal fat (preferably ruminant), moderate protein, moderate to lower carb diet from pure foods. So when I see people teaching exactly the opposite like that, I know that they are gonna be more aligned with the mainstream notion that a low fat diet filled with grains is healthy.
Dr Sears is idiotic, and teaching all the wrong stuff. That's me being nice, cordial, and polite.
Doctors and PhDs are not the only people qualified to answer this. "Google rank" is almost completely worthless in all regards. It is a terrible method of assuming validity of anything.
Have a look around at PaleoHacks, and welcome!
on March 17, 2011
at 10:10 PM
i think there is also something to be learnt from listening to the other side too. Most of it can be paleo-compatible, if you want, although "Avoid the yolks", that just sounds silly - does any animal do that when they find a nest?... Forget the canola oil suggestion, eat shoe polish if you want...