|
|
|
|
|
by thaumasiotes
976 days ago
|
|
> The more research articles I read, the more they seem to confirm this theory. This article is yet another one. But this article doesn't provide any support for the theory that fasting is effective against cancer. It says you can poison cancers with something that looks like an important chemical, but isn't. That general mechanism has long been known. (Not just against cancer - it's a fundamental way for poison to work. If you block receptors by binding them to molecules that don't function, whatever function those receptors served will stop.) The theory behind chemotherapy is that you take a cocktail of poisons that kills everything, but that is more damaging to the cancer (because it does more cell division) than it is to the correctly-functioning parts of you. Fasting looks like applying that theory in reverse; starvation seems likely to do more damage to you than it will to a cancer, because the cancer already draws its nutrition from you. If you stop eating, it can still do that, but you'll be getting even less than you were. |
|
So as long as one has some body fat, and the metabolic flexibility to access it, fasting should not cause wasting, as those normal cells are not starving?