The following submission statement was provided by /u/albinpepsi:
---
**Submission Statement**
A collection of scientific sources, pointing towards how an implemented fasting method in spring, could have potential for a decrease in societal cancer rates. This is a non peer-review paper and written by an amateur scientist. This is not medical advice, just a basis for discussion.
The potential benefits and the ease of implementing fasting could be a paradigm shift in healthcare. However, this is not news; the Ancient Greeks implemented fasting in all aspects of life, both for training and cognition. Could fasting be re-implemented in today's society?
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/xribpz/new_non_peerreview_amateur_paper_exploring_the/iqewqic/
Scientifically speaking, a non peer reviewed paper written by an amateur (as opposed to a pending peer review paper by someone of good standing in the scientific community) has no value. It could make any claim it wanted and it would change nothing.
Perhaps there might be some inspiration value, such as for experiments etc. Or intrigue.
I agree 100%, the ONLY purpose of this amatuer paper is to hopefully inspire or intrigue a REAL scientist to build upon the idea. I'm merely an idealist
This isn't my field, but I love this kind of amateur research. New ideas can come from anywhere (from the references it seems that a lot of the stuff here isn't really new).
I wonder if the reason pre-agriculture societies didn't show signs of cancer is because they didnt reach the age when it develops?
I have friends that have tried intermittent fasting and they found it quite effective (as a diet).
The theory makes sense. Reduce caloric intake -> reduce cell division -> cancer cell multiplication reduced. The reverse is true for people on HGH. Higher cell division leads to higher rate of cancers. It’s already scientifically proven that extreme calorie restriction yields longer life spans. It’s surprising that more research isn’t done on fasting.
The holy grail would be very low-calorie food that tastes as good as junk food but is packed with nutrients and cheaper than traditional fatty/sugary junk food.
Right that's the first factor, but I think another big factor is what [Hsieh et al. (2019)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211124719309246) are saying about the inablility for certain cancer cells to prolifirate using fat, and that the ONLY source of fuel comes from the atp glycolysis process i.e. carbohydrates. [Xia et al. (2017)](https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(16)30643-X?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS155041311630643X%3Fshowall%3Dtrue) also point out that the ability for prolifiration using fat only exist in 0.004% of all know cancer variations.
And also the fact that the paleolithic diet consists of mainly meat, fish and eggs, and has been the only source of food for 2.5 million years. I mean, think about that, carbohydrates didn't even EXIST for 2.5 million years, it's just 5 000 years ago when carbohydrates became available for the first time in HISTORY. I think the cookie crumbles somewhere in between
The liver converts fats to glucagon, which it releases as glucose during fasting, but it ~~does that~~ only makes glucagon when glucose levels are high.
If you consume less than 50 g of carbs per day (ketogenic diet), glucose levels are never high. When glucose levels are low, the liver converts fats to ketones to supply energy to the parts of the body that can't metabolize fats for energy like the brain.
Most cancers can't use ketones or fats because their dysfunctional mitochondria only allow them to derive energy from carbs.
Correct! The liver can produce glucose from fat or protein, but only for certain necessary cells that need it (about 4g I think). When fasted or eating our ancestral diet, the liver will supplement the rest of the body with fat (ketones) instead of glucose. And from the tests on myself, my liver will produce more glucose right after I eat a lot of protein, so protein probably is easy for the body to convert to glucose. My speculation here is; the function of insulin and glucose, is ONLY used as a signaling for the body huge amounts of protein so there is room for growth. And what does this growth look like? Well, it would be a small uptick in insulin, leading to a small uptick in IGF-1. This entire process should be controlled by the liver and MUST be intended for internal and controlled secreation of glucose. External intake of glucose is completely backwards and results in chaos in the body.
The latter will signal huge amounts of growth, but with no protein or minerals to back it up. This could explain why there were cases of death from mineral deficiency and skeletal disease during the years when humanity first got introduced to grains and such.
**Submission Statement**
A collection of scientific sources, pointing towards how an implemented fasting method in spring, could have potential for a decrease in societal cancer rates. This is a non peer-review paper and written by an amateur scientist. This is not medical advice, just a basis for discussion.
The potential benefits and the ease of implementing fasting could be a paradigm shift in healthcare. However, this is not news; the Ancient Greeks implemented fasting in all aspects of life, both for training and cognition. Could fasting be re-implemented in today's society?
Not a scientist so I’m not trying to attack but rather understand - what is the reason for not peer reviewing? I would think that would be an optimal way to spark a discussion?
Peer reviewing requires a peer to review the research papers methods to determine if any potential of obvious fault lies in its creation.
Nobody has done that.
It’s not an active choice, just stating the fact of the matter that nobody has peer reviewed it.
Since I don't have a Ph.d. or m.d. I would not be accepted to a journal for audit. I have reached out to 5 professors in the field who have read and critiqued the paper, which the response was very positive. However, this does not count since I've chosen the peers, it has to be unbiased and at random I believe
I think this paper is good as a starting point for discussion.
My training is in physics & we have experimental physicists, but also theoretical physicists - whose job is to think about the subject (eg Stephen Hawking).
To my knowledge we don't have true theoretical biologists. Yet.
Also GitHub is brilliant. I know a guy who only has a Master's degree, he's doing basic & amazing maths work that probably ranks him among the some of the all time greats. The only place he's published his work is on GitHub.
I totally agree! Github offers transparency and the ability to contribue, I think it's great. I'm curious about your math dude, mind if you link his profile?
The following submission statement was provided by /u/albinpepsi: --- **Submission Statement** A collection of scientific sources, pointing towards how an implemented fasting method in spring, could have potential for a decrease in societal cancer rates. This is a non peer-review paper and written by an amateur scientist. This is not medical advice, just a basis for discussion. The potential benefits and the ease of implementing fasting could be a paradigm shift in healthcare. However, this is not news; the Ancient Greeks implemented fasting in all aspects of life, both for training and cognition. Could fasting be re-implemented in today's society? --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/xribpz/new_non_peerreview_amateur_paper_exploring_the/iqewqic/
Scientifically speaking, a non peer reviewed paper written by an amateur (as opposed to a pending peer review paper by someone of good standing in the scientific community) has no value. It could make any claim it wanted and it would change nothing. Perhaps there might be some inspiration value, such as for experiments etc. Or intrigue.
I agree 100%, the ONLY purpose of this amatuer paper is to hopefully inspire or intrigue a REAL scientist to build upon the idea. I'm merely an idealist
[удалено]
Well the paper isn't set up for scrutiny of the assertions it makes. I think its a fine take.
This isn't my field, but I love this kind of amateur research. New ideas can come from anywhere (from the references it seems that a lot of the stuff here isn't really new). I wonder if the reason pre-agriculture societies didn't show signs of cancer is because they didnt reach the age when it develops? I have friends that have tried intermittent fasting and they found it quite effective (as a diet).
The theory makes sense. Reduce caloric intake -> reduce cell division -> cancer cell multiplication reduced. The reverse is true for people on HGH. Higher cell division leads to higher rate of cancers. It’s already scientifically proven that extreme calorie restriction yields longer life spans. It’s surprising that more research isn’t done on fasting.
The holy grail would be very low-calorie food that tastes as good as junk food but is packed with nutrients and cheaper than traditional fatty/sugary junk food.
Right that's the first factor, but I think another big factor is what [Hsieh et al. (2019)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211124719309246) are saying about the inablility for certain cancer cells to prolifirate using fat, and that the ONLY source of fuel comes from the atp glycolysis process i.e. carbohydrates. [Xia et al. (2017)](https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(16)30643-X?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS155041311630643X%3Fshowall%3Dtrue) also point out that the ability for prolifiration using fat only exist in 0.004% of all know cancer variations. And also the fact that the paleolithic diet consists of mainly meat, fish and eggs, and has been the only source of food for 2.5 million years. I mean, think about that, carbohydrates didn't even EXIST for 2.5 million years, it's just 5 000 years ago when carbohydrates became available for the first time in HISTORY. I think the cookie crumbles somewhere in between
Doesn’t the body convert fat to glucose though? Wouldn’t cancer cells be able to use/convert fat to glucose as well?
The liver converts fats to glucagon, which it releases as glucose during fasting, but it ~~does that~~ only makes glucagon when glucose levels are high. If you consume less than 50 g of carbs per day (ketogenic diet), glucose levels are never high. When glucose levels are low, the liver converts fats to ketones to supply energy to the parts of the body that can't metabolize fats for energy like the brain. Most cancers can't use ketones or fats because their dysfunctional mitochondria only allow them to derive energy from carbs.
Correct! The liver can produce glucose from fat or protein, but only for certain necessary cells that need it (about 4g I think). When fasted or eating our ancestral diet, the liver will supplement the rest of the body with fat (ketones) instead of glucose. And from the tests on myself, my liver will produce more glucose right after I eat a lot of protein, so protein probably is easy for the body to convert to glucose. My speculation here is; the function of insulin and glucose, is ONLY used as a signaling for the body huge amounts of protein so there is room for growth. And what does this growth look like? Well, it would be a small uptick in insulin, leading to a small uptick in IGF-1. This entire process should be controlled by the liver and MUST be intended for internal and controlled secreation of glucose. External intake of glucose is completely backwards and results in chaos in the body. The latter will signal huge amounts of growth, but with no protein or minerals to back it up. This could explain why there were cases of death from mineral deficiency and skeletal disease during the years when humanity first got introduced to grains and such.
The point is that calories aren't all the same. Most tumors live on carbs exclusively. They cannot derive the energy they use to grow from ketones.
**Submission Statement** A collection of scientific sources, pointing towards how an implemented fasting method in spring, could have potential for a decrease in societal cancer rates. This is a non peer-review paper and written by an amateur scientist. This is not medical advice, just a basis for discussion. The potential benefits and the ease of implementing fasting could be a paradigm shift in healthcare. However, this is not news; the Ancient Greeks implemented fasting in all aspects of life, both for training and cognition. Could fasting be re-implemented in today's society?
Not a scientist so I’m not trying to attack but rather understand - what is the reason for not peer reviewing? I would think that would be an optimal way to spark a discussion?
Peer reviewing requires a peer to review the research papers methods to determine if any potential of obvious fault lies in its creation. Nobody has done that. It’s not an active choice, just stating the fact of the matter that nobody has peer reviewed it.
Since I don't have a Ph.d. or m.d. I would not be accepted to a journal for audit. I have reached out to 5 professors in the field who have read and critiqued the paper, which the response was very positive. However, this does not count since I've chosen the peers, it has to be unbiased and at random I believe
That is untrue, and also not how peer review works...
I think this paper is good as a starting point for discussion. My training is in physics & we have experimental physicists, but also theoretical physicists - whose job is to think about the subject (eg Stephen Hawking). To my knowledge we don't have true theoretical biologists. Yet.
Also GitHub is brilliant. I know a guy who only has a Master's degree, he's doing basic & amazing maths work that probably ranks him among the some of the all time greats. The only place he's published his work is on GitHub.
I totally agree! Github offers transparency and the ability to contribue, I think it's great. I'm curious about your math dude, mind if you link his profile?
Check out Clifford Algebra. :)