Cannabis cures cancer?

[Proletar]

So I somehow bumped into the work of Rick Simpson, that claims to have a cure for cancer.

Cannabis. Apparently, since THC and other cannabinoids integrate with the human body through a system of signal-substances that is located in the immune-system, they can give the cancer-cells the command that they need to recieve to die off. Rick himself says that there is a 70% recovery-rate of those he treat.

There is a documentary about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw_kwHmvUXg


Seriously. WTF? We know that cannabis can help relieve headaches and stress, to help people relax and so on, but can it really cure cancer? Without chemo-therapy and radiation-treatment? This seems too good to be true.

On the other hand, the cancer-industry is HUGE. Why would they want a cure that cannot be pantented and grows like weed? (pun, now get on with your life.)

 

[Architect]

In general plants have been found to have enormous anti-cancer properties, in thousands of studies now. The 'die-off' command is one of the mechanisms, among others. Green tea is famous for this also, but ingesting leafy greens from the cruciferous family have a stronger effect. Another mechanism comes from cabbage family greens, they interact with the cells in the digestive tract to create an intense immune system response. Mushrooms have their own mechanism, the list goes on and on.

Fundamentally these plants commonly developed anti-oxident properties to combat the destructive nature of photosynthesis. We seem to have evolved the happy symbiosis that when eating these plants can incorporate these substances in our own body and benefit from them. Of course to the degree you are carnivorous you will enjoy the benefits less, in addition to loading your system with fat and protein which will induce other diseases.

At any rate, Pot is a plant, so ... sure, I guess smoking it could have benefits. However smoke is carcinogenic too, and it's probably debatable whether the anti-oxidents are still viable after being burned to a crisp.

Personally I suspect it's a crock with a thread of truth. You want anti-cancer benefits? Eat some Kale or Collard greens every day. Make a smoothie out of them. Smoke pot every day and it'll rot your brain, I've seen it too many times.

PS Here's a summary page on many foods

http://www.whfoods.com/foodstoc.php

The meat sections show they don't have a lot, mainly a handful of minerals, while the plants are chemical factories.

 

[TriflinThomas]

It doesn't "rot your brains." However, it does make one less interested in homework, which leads to lower scores on tests, which leads to the impression that it rots brains. This channel on the YouTube http://www.youtube.com/user/SantaCruzLabs?feature=watch explains some different components of the cannabis plant. Also, I'm pretty sure the cannabinoids give cannabis its anti-cancer properties.

 

[Architect]

Apologies, I'll amend that. All the long term pot heads I've known had rotted brains.

 

[TriflinThomas]

That is true.

 

[snafupants]

In general plants have been found to have enormous anti-cancer properties, in thousands of studies now. The 'die-off' command is one of the mechanisms, among others. Green tea is famous for this also, but ingesting leafy greens from the cruciferous family have a stronger effect. Another mechanism comes from cabbage family greens, they interact with the cells in the digestive tract to create an intense immune system response. Mushrooms have their own mechanism, the list goes on and on.

Fundamentally these plants commonly developed anti-oxident properties to combat the destructive nature of photosynthesis. We seem to have evolved the happy symbiosis that when eating these plants can incorporate these substances in our own body and benefit from them. Of course to the degree you are carnivorous you will enjoy the benefits less, in addition to loading your system with fat and protein which will induce other diseases.

At any rate, Pot is a plant, so ... sure, I guess smoking it could have benefits. However smoke is carcinogenic too, and it's probably debatable whether the anti-oxidents are still viable after being burned to a crisp.

Personally I suspect it's a crock with a thread of truth. You want anti-cancer benefits? Eat some Kale or Collard greens every day. Make a smoothie out of them. Smoke pot every day and it'll rot your brain, I've seen it too many times.

PS Here's a summary page on many foods

http://www.whfoods.com/foodstoc.php

The meat sections show they don't have a lot, mainly a handful of minerals, while the plants are chemical factories.

@Architect

Subscribing to this advice seems about as fun as talking to that ludicrously arrogant man depicted in your avatar. By the way, aren't folks basically comprised of fats and proteins? Fats, proteins, and carbohydrates are considered macronutrients necessary or at least very helpful for biological functioning. Things like maintaining cell membranes and creating hormones, you know?

 

[cghhmnrtt]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7098340.stm

http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/6/11/2921

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673842/?tool=pmcentrez

 

[Architect]

@Architect

Subscribing to this advice seems about as fun as talking to that ludicrously arrogant man depicted in your avatar.

Leaving snarky comments aside, I'm not necessarily telling you what is fun, but what is optimal for health. However once your taste buds adjust (3 weeks) it is 'fun'. At this point I can't imagine eating meat or dairy, that is 'not fun'.

By the way, aren't folks basically comprised of fats and proteins?

Yes, and so? Are you losing fats and proteins on a daily basis, and does engorging on them automatically mean replenishment?

The only thing you must have is a source of fuel, which is oxygen and food which can be converted to glucose (complex carbohydrates are the optimal source for that). Beyond that there are necessary trace elements in small quantities; of course our favorite vitamins and minerals and small amounts of a few fatty acids.

However I'm talking about the scientifically demonstrated optimal diet. Optimal means a diet which does not cause disease, and supports an immune system to prevent disease.

Fats, proteins, and carbohydrates are considered macronutrients necessary or at least very helpful for biological functioning. Things like maintaining cell membranes and creating hormones, you know?

I frequently get somebody with this kind of response, interesting how food can invoke knee jerk reactions.

Look up the enormous body of scientific evidence, it's all available. The major health corporations (Kaiser), the govt. (FDA) and epidemiological research universities (Cornell) all know this research, which are hard to spread due to the difficult of getting people to change what they eat.

 

[snafupants]

Leaving snarky comments aside, I'm not necessarily telling you what is fun, but what is optimal for health. However once your taste buds adjust (3 weeks) it is 'fun'. At this point I can't imagine eating meat or dairy, that is 'not fun'.



Yes, and so? Are you losing fats and proteins on a daily basis, and does engorging on them automatically mean replenishment?

The only thing you must have is a source of fuel, which is oxygen and food which can be converted to glucose (complex carbohydrates are the optimal source for that). Beyond that there are necessary trace elements in small quantities; of course our favorite vitamins and minerals and small amounts of a few fatty acids.

However I'm talking about the scientifically demonstrated optimal diet. Optimal means a diet which does not cause disease, and supports an immune system to prevent disease.



I frequently get somebody with this kind of response, interesting how food can invoke knee jerk reactions.

Look up the enormous body of scientific evidence, it's all available. The major health corporations (Kaiser), the govt. (FDA) and epidemiological research universities (Cornell) all know this research, which are hard to spread due to the difficult of getting people to change what they eat.

@Architect

I totally agree. Proteins and fats are irrelevant for health and vitality.

This elucidation of the optimal diet leaves something wanting. Health is more than longevity and eschewing disease. Also, I never argued against the import of trace minerals or vitamins.

Scientifically demonstrated, please. Look at how science has been intellectually astray and on the take over the last twenty five years.

 

[Architect]

@Architect

I totally agree. Proteins and fats are irrelevant for health and vitality.

Reducto ad absurdum will not win your argument.

This elucidation of the optimal diet leaves something wanting. Health is more than longevity and eschewing disease.

That's ok. I define the optimal diet and health as one that promotes physical well being.

Also, I never argued against the import of trace minerals or vitamins.

I didn't say or imply that you did. In fact however the gross micronutrients (vitamins and mineral) aren't as important as people make them out to be.

Scientifically demonstrated, please. Look at how science has been intellectually astray and on the take over the last twenty five years.

I look, but I don't see. Perhaps my decade as a physical scientists, and two decades as a measurement engineer blind me to how ... intellectually astray science must be? Vague statements about 'science' (which field? Who? When?) being led astray (by whom? For what purpose? Led astray from what, and to what?) is intellectual diet coke; no calories and too bubbly for my taste.

Don't get the impression I'm trying to get you to eat plants, by all means eat what you wish. But the argument of what is the physically optimal diet has been settled.

 

[snafupants]

@Architect



Reducto ad absurdum will not win your argument.




That's ok. I define the optimal diet and health as one that promotes physical well being.



I didn't say or imply that you did. In fact however the gross micronutrients (vitamins and mineral) aren't as important as people make them out to be.



I look, but I don't see. Perhaps my decade as a physical scientists, and two decades as a measurement engineer blind me to how ... intellectually astray science must be? Vague statements about 'science' (which field? Who? When?) being led astray (by whom? For what purpose? Led astray from what, and to what?) is intellectual diet coke; no calories and too bubbly for my taste.

Don't get the impression I'm trying to get you to eat plants, by all means eat what you wish. But the argument of what is the physically optimal diet has been settled.

@Architect

Did you mean reductio ad absurdum? Anyway, I consider my argument already won. Proteins and fats are necessary for optimal biological functioning. Are your bona fides supposed to impress me or something?

 

[Architect]

@Architect

Did you mean reductio ad absurdum?

obviously

Anyway, I consider my argument already won.

Not very INTP of you. INTJ's typically jump this quickly to the conclusion - often erroneous - that they've won an argument when I'm just getting my pants off (hat tip to Hitchens). INTP's are usually too aware of how easy it is to be wrong. The Perception part of the psyche causes continual doubt, which is a benefit as in the end an INTP will often find the truth. It certainly isn't a quick process however.

Proteins and fats are necessary for optimal biological functioning.

Obviously and I never said otherwise. Another reductio.

Are your bona fides supposed to impress me or something?

No.

The debate has deteriorated to pointless bantering, well rather it never got off the ground. Checking out.

 

[snafupants]

@Architect



obviously



Not very INTP of you. INTJ's typically jump this quickly to the conclusion - often erroneous - that they've won an argument when I'm just getting my pants off (hat tip to Hitchens)


Obviously and I never said otherwise. Another reductio.



No.

The debate has deteriorated to pointless bantering, well rather it never got off the ground. Checking out.

@Architect

Agreed. I also concur with the failure to launch crack, although I repudiate any blame. Anyway, all pledge allegiance to Hitchens.

 

[Proletar]

So did any of you actually watch the documentary?

 

[Architect]

lol ... no. I'm a loser /admitted

 

[Proletar]

That's funny.


You are all off topic. Watch the documentary. OR ELSE!

 

[scorpiomover]

@Architect

I totally agree. Proteins and fats are irrelevant for health and vitality.

This elucidation of the optimal diet leaves something wanting. Health is more than longevity and eschewing disease. Also, I never argued against the import of trace minerals or vitamins.

Scientifically demonstrated, please. Look at how science has been intellectually astray and on the take over the last twenty five years.

Architect is right, to an extent.

Proteins can be broken down by the body into their constituent amino acids, and potentially re-used. So could fats, potentially.

Scientists have found that eating a diet high in fruit and vegetables massively increase one's state of health, even on a diet low in proteins. They are not that high in proteins or fats, all that much. They are high in vitamins and minerals, which tend to support enzyme production. Enzymes speed up many processes in the body.

It is likely that proteins and fats could be recycled by the body, but at a very slow rate, unless accompanied by high levels of enzymes to speed up the rate. If so, then a diet high in fruits and vegetables, would also make the body high in enzymes, and thus the proteins, and likely fats too, would be mostly recycled.

However, in a diet very low in fruits and vegetables, those vitamins and minerals would be largely missing, and so the enzymes would not be present in that large quantities to speed up recycling, and possibly to slow the process to such an extent, that recycling could not support the extra protein and fat needed by the body. Thus, with such a diet, one would need to consume a lot of protein, and possibly fat too, to compensate.

 

[snafupants]

Architect is right, to an extent.

Proteins can be broken down by the body into their constituent amino acids, and potentially re-used. So could fats, potentially.

Scientists have found that eating a diet high in fruit and vegetables massively increase one's state of health, even on a diet low in proteins. They are not that high in proteins or fats, all that much. They are high in vitamins and minerals, which tend to support enzyme production. Enzymes speed up many processes in the body.

It is likely that proteins and fats could be recycled by the body, but at a very slow rate, unless accompanied by high levels of enzymes to speed up the rate. If so, then a diet high in fruits and vegetables, would also make the body high in enzymes, and thus the proteins, and likely fats too, would be mostly recycled.

However, in a diet very low in fruits and vegetables, those vitamins and minerals would be largely missing, and so the enzymes would not be present in that large quantities to speed up recycling, and possibly to slow the process to such an extent, that recycling could not support the extra protein and fat needed by the body. Thus, with such a diet, one would need to consume a lot of protein, and possibly fat too, to compensate.

@scorpiomover

Spoiler

Snafu is right, to an extent. I never disputed many of the points adumbrated above.

Technically a vegan diet could sustain itself but one would need to be vigilant about acquiring and assimilating adequate amounts of trace minerals like zinc and magnesium, essential amino acids, nitrogen, and fat-soluble vitamins. There are also anti-nutrients like phytic acid or inositol present in poorly fermented grains (i.e., almost all modern grains) which might be something to avoid as phytic acid blocks minerals like zinc. Another thing to bear in mind is that all proteins were not created equal. I'd be cagey about the blood sugar spikes with so much fruit. Blood sugar levels are affected up to five hours after consuming even mildly saccharine fruits. Insulin resistance is no fun at all.

 

[Architect]

Technically a vegan diet could sustain itself but one would need to be vigilant about acquiring and assimilating adequate amounts of trace minerals like zinc and magnesium, essential amino acids, nitrogen, and fat-soluble vitamins.

No these ideas are a decade or two out of date. The research overwhelming demonstrates that a vegan diet is optimal for health, providing everything you need. The one exception is B12, which in our modern world is harder to come by than previously. A couple of points about this

• Vitamins and minerals are not the primary mechanism for health, that is 1970's thinking. Overwhelmingly we find it's due to what are called micronutrients, antioxidants, or (older term) catechins, such as EGCG, EGC, ECG, etc.
• You are incorrect about being vigilant, that is definitely 1970's thinking. For example, checking my daily diet against the USDA database (using Cron-O-Meter for example) shows that I'm receiving far more vits and minerals than I would be on a animal diet, such as in the 3000% RDA quantities across the board.
• Major health foundations, such as Kaiser in California, advocate a vegan diet. At my local Kaiser the heart surgeons are almost all vegan and are served vegan meals at the hospital.
• Elite athletes are progressively going vegan, particularly in the biking community.

There are also anti-nutrients like phytic acid or inositol present in poorly fermented grains (i.e., almost all modern grains) which might be something to avoid as phytic acid blocks minerals like zinc.

Don't know what to make of this, mountains out of mole hills at the very least least.

Another thing to bear in mind is that all proteins were not created equal.

Diet for a Small Planet - that has been completely discredited for decades. All proteins are created equal - in the sense you mean (in reality they are not, as plant proteans are more beneficial than animal (c.f. The China Study T. Colin Campbell on the results of the China-Cornell epidemiological study)

I'd be cagey about the blood sugar spikes with so much fruit.

How much fruit? As in a banana, orange and part of an apple per day? Who says vegans eat nothing but fruit. As a point of interest, our closest primate relatives either either leafy greens or are pure frutarians. Meat is opportunistic, about 5% of their diet at best. Which doesn't prove a point, but you have to consider how much our digestion has evolved from the primates.

Blood sugar levels are affected up to five hours after consuming even mildly saccharine fruits.

Oh my god! (just kidding)

Insulin resistance is no fun at all.

You have read Atkins.

That man sowed more ignorance, if he didn't die of being a fat, sick old man we should have him jailed.

Don't take my discussion personally.

 

[snafupants]

No these ideas are a decade or two out of date. The research overwhelming demonstrates that a vegan diet is optimal for health, providing everything you need. The one exception is B12, which in our modern world is harder to come by than previously. A couple of points about this

• Vitamins and minerals are not the primary mechanism for health, that is 1970's thinking. Overwhelmingly we find it's due to what are called micronutrients, antioxidants, or (older term) catechins, such as EGCG, EGC, ECG, etc.
• You are incorrect about being vigilant, that is definitely 1970's thinking. For example, checking my daily diet against the USDA database (using Cron-O-Meter for example) shows that I'm receiving far more vits and minerals than I would be on a animal diet, such as in the 3000% RDA quantities across the board.
• Major health foundations, such as Kaiser in California, advocate a vegan diet. At my local Kaiser the heart surgeons are almost all vegan and are served vegan meals at the hospital.
• Elite athletes are progressively going vegan, particularly in the biking community.

Don't know what to make of this, mountains out of mole hills at the very least least.



Diet for a Small Planet - that has been completely discredited for decades. All proteins are created equal - in the sense you mean (in reality they are not, as plant proteans are more beneficial than animal (c.f. The China Study T. Colin Campbell on the results of the China-Cornell epidemiological study)



How much fruit? As in a banana, orange and part of an apple per day? Who says vegans eat nothing but fruit. As a point of interest, our closest primate relatives either either leafy greens or are pure frutarians. Meat is opportunistic, about 5% of their diet at best. Which doesn't prove a point, but you have to consider how much our digestion has evolved from the primates.



Oh my god! (just kidding)



You have read Atkins.

That man sowed more ignorance, if he didn't die of being a fat, sick old man we should have him jailed.

Don't take my discussion personally.

@Architect

I haven't taken these feeble rejoinders and vague ad hominem attempts personally. How could I? You haven't convinced me you've any real notion about health or nutrition. There were some squealings about bona fides a few posts back but based purely on the information you have presented, I certainly wouldn't deem you an expert. For all of the adverbial hyperbole and exclamation points your post is basically bereft of any substance. There seems to be some abounding confusion regarding the nuances between fitness and health. Anyway, proteins vary on their degree of absorbability and nutritional content; any proteins that aren't absorbable or which come with anti-nutrients like inositol are granted lower scores. Finally I've noticed on this forum that some folks like to take a reductionist approach and slice up my posts into discrete sections, perhaps in the hopes that one point is easier to effectively tackle and attempt to assail than all of the points taken collectively. Look give me the exact diet you'd like to see everyone on and I'll show you the problems with that diet. With this fruitarian/vegan diet and enough time I could demonstrate how these nutritional conditions will lead to stress, tooth decay, premature aging, and lethargy. Why should I listen to the scientific health community? Some studies in the seventies and eighties posited that coffee caused cancer, then whoops it turned out to be the cigarettes that often accompanied coffee were where the bad stuff resided. Coffee was maligned as causing everything from heart disease to pancreatic/bladder cancer. That wasn't true but it felt right at the time.

 

[Proletar]

Well, this thread is dead off topic anyway, so...


The low carb diet RULES, and Architect is wrong.


I recommend you study the ketogenic system and the advances of using it.

Spoiler

In short, without an intake of carbohydrates, the glucose in the body (a base of around 2-3000 calories) gets consumed in a matter of days along with some fluids. After that, the body resetts into a ketogenic mode - from the base of body fat instead. Without glucose, there is little need for insulin, and the blood sugar is steady.

Insulin not just only turns glucose into fat, but also stores fat instead of consuming it. My favourite analogy is the one about the chicken and the egg, and it fits in great in this place. Are people gaining weight because they are over-eating or are they over-eating because they are gaining weight? I point towards the latter one. It seems absurd at first glance, but look at children growing. They eat the right amount to not just only stay the way they are, but also to gain weight, height and width. Growth-hormones do this to them, and hormones make people fat. Hormones like insulin. You see, if you have an intake of 2 500 calories each day and store 1 200 of them, you only run on 1 300 - which means that you are starving, and retrieving those stored ones costs you, which means you are starving even more. You then try to compensate this starvation by eating more, and voilá - you are gaining weight.

If we are to get in the right shape, we should eat what makes us healthy. That is to say, no sugar - no (little) insulin. The agricultural revolution happened about 10 000 years ago in china, and around 5 000 in europe. That is NOTHING in the evolution of humankind. For hundreds of thousands of years, the only source of carbohydrates we had were in a few fruits, in a few weeks around this time of the year; fall. Like bears, we ate it to store up fat for the winter, and the rest of the year - animal products. Sidenote: We wouldn't even need all these vitamins if it wasn't for the inflammatory qualities of sugar and starch.


I started this diet around four years ago, and it worked just like I thought it would. I could eat a steady breakfast and then not eat at all in school, getting hungry at the end of the day and having a lunch/dinner at around 4, and then not eating for the rest of the day. Not hungry or frustrated at all, just content and focused on other things. Like in The Sims when you get 'steel bladder', never having to go to the bathroom again, only never having to think about food again. I lost A LOT of weight and my mind got a lot sharper after the two week detox.

 

[snafupants]

Well, this thread is dead off topic anyway, so...


The low carb diet RULES, and Architect is wrong.


I recommend you study the ketogenic system and the advances of using it.

Spoiler

In short, without an intake of carbohydrates, the glucose in the body (a base of around 2-3000 calories) gets consumed in a matter of days along with some fluids. After that, the body resetts into a ketogenic mode - from the base of body fat instead. Without glucose, there is little need for insulin, and the blood sugar is steady.

Insulin not just only turns glucose into fat, but also stores fat instead of consuming it. My favourite analogy is the one about the chicken and the egg, and it fits in great in this place. Are people gaining weight because they are over-eating or are they over-eating because they are gaining weight? I point towards the latter one. It seems absurd at first glance, but look at children growing. They eat the right amount to not just only stay the way they are, but also to gain weight, height and width. Growth-hormones do this to them, and hormones make people fat. Hormones like insulin. You see, if you have an intake of 2 500 calories each day and store 1 200 of them, you only run on 1 300 - which means that you are starving, and retrieving those stored ones costs you, which means you are starving even more. You then try to compensate this starvation by eating more, and voilá - you are gaining weight.

If we are to get in the right shape, we should eat what makes us healthy. That is to say, no sugar - no (little) insulin. The agricultural revolution happened about 10 000 years ago in china, and around 5 000 in europe. That is NOTHING in the evolution of humankind. For hundreds of thousands of years, the only source of carbohydrates we had were in a few fruits, in a few weeks around this time of the year; fall. Like bears, we ate it to store up fat for the winter, and the rest of the year - animal products. Sidenote: We wouldn't even need all these vitamins if it wasn't for the inflammatory qualities of sugar and starch.


I started this diet around four years ago, and it worked just like I thought it would. I could eat a steady breakfast and then not eat at all in school, getting hungry at the end of the day and having a lunch/dinner at around 4, and then not eating for the rest of the day. Not hungry or frustrated at all, just content and focused on other things. Like in The Sims when you get 'steel bladder', never having to go to the bathroom again, only never having to think about food again. I lost A LOT of weight and my mind got a lot sharper after the two week detox.

I can accept ignorance in the other party but wrongness and self-righteous dogmatism is a tough combination to tolerate.

 

[Architect]

I recommend you study the ketogenic system and the advances of using it.

Ketosis is a good way to damage your health. It evolved for emergency use only - starvation basically, when the body has to eat muscle tissue to stay alive.

For all of the adverbial hyperbole and exclamation points

'Adverbial hyperbole?' WTF?

I think I had one exclamation point, and immediately had a caveat that I was making a joke. Lighten up.

your post is basically bereft of any substance ... blah blah blah

attack me instead of specific points

Why should I listen to the scientific health community?

This summarizes your position. You know it all, You can prove it all, fuck science. I can give you references with summaries and citations for the hard data (The China Study, any book from Dr Joel Fuhrman), but why bother? You won't read it, your mind is made up, because in the 70's the initial research wrongly accused coffee instead of the accompanying tobacco.

I'll put this gently, do you actually have any idea of how science works? Research is conducted, and because the truth is hard to find and research is difficult, that most of the time (in the non physical sciences especially) we get it wrong at first? That is why we keep doing research, again and again, until the truth is found. Nutrition wasn't first seriously studied until the 70's, and we got it mostly wrong. Now it's 40 years later, and we've got it mostly right. We do know beyond any doubt what the truth is, which is why major health foundations are putting their effort into one diet. Research has been done with population sizes in the millions, there is zero doubt now.

You know it's sad about Weston Price - he was a remarkable man, but somehow a group of 'food fundamentalists' have taken over, and they see it as their duty to fight against this dangerous talk about eating plants. Militant about food, it puzzles me. The only thing I can think is that some people look back to their childhood of barbecues and can't stand the idea that it could be wrong. I see many parallels with fundamental religion.

At any rate I'm really done, please stop 'mentioning' me on this thread. You may or may not be WP, if you aren't I encourage you to join as it will give your food nuttiness a purpose. However the focus on dental health is a giveaway (I've been vegan for decades, and my dental health is the best its ever been, and I look decades younger compared to my meat eating peers which they always comment on). Anyhow if you know better than peer reviewed science there is no discussion.

Cheers -

 

[Proletar]

Ketosis is a good way to damage your health. It evolved for emergency use only - starvation basically, when the body has to eat muscle tissue to stay alive.

The relation between the glucogenic and the ketogenic system has little to do with protein. Rather it's about either having glucose as the main source of energy, or fat.

Why the hell would the body eat it's own muscle-cells when there is a vast amount of fat on it? Muscle-cells that have about 2 000 usable calories worth of energy per kilo when fat has 7 000? That is just ridiculous. If the body burns muscles instead of fat when starving, why not start off with the heart, and then maybe the lungs? No, ketosis is not a state of emergency or a last resort, it's the biological standard for human beings. It burns fat, not protein. Ketone bodies are converted from fat.

 

[Vrecknidj]

I haven't watched it, so, I'm shooting from the hip, and I'm uninformed.

But, if pot could cure cancer, then, given the tens of millions of cancer sufferers, all that would have to happen is word-of-mouth anecdotes would "go viral" and then all the cancer sufferers would start using pot and then they'd all get cured and then we'd know.

That hasn't happened. When it does, I'll be convinced.

Until then, I'll assume it's another in a long line of bogus claims about curing cancer.

 

[snafupants]

Ketosis is a good way to damage your health. It evolved for emergency use only - starvation basically, when the body has to eat muscle tissue to stay alive.



'Adverbial hyperbole?' WTF?

I think I had one exclamation point, and immediately had a caveat that I was making a joke. Lighten up.



attack me instead of specific points



This summarizes your position. You know it all, You can prove it all, fuck science. I can give you references with summaries and citations for the hard data (The China Study, any book from Dr Joel Fuhrman), but why bother? You won't read it, your mind is made up, because in the 70's the initial research wrongly accused coffee instead of the accompanying tobacco.

I'll put this gently, do you actually have any idea of how science works? Research is conducted, and because the truth is hard to find and research is difficult, that most of the time (in the non physical sciences especially) we get it wrong at first? That is why we keep doing research, again and again, until the truth is found. Nutrition wasn't first seriously studied until the 70's, and we got it mostly wrong. Now it's 40 years later, and we've got it mostly right. We do know beyond any doubt what the truth is, which is why major health foundations are putting their effort into one diet. Research has been done with population sizes in the millions, there is zero doubt now.

You know it's sad about Weston Price - he was a remarkable man, but somehow a group of 'food fundamentalists' have taken over, and they see it as their duty to fight against this dangerous talk about eating plants. Militant about food, it puzzles me. The only thing I can think is that some people look back to their childhood of barbecues and can't stand the idea that it could be wrong. I see many parallels with fundamental religion.

At any rate I'm really done, please stop 'mentioning' me on this thread. You may or may not be WP, if you aren't I encourage you to join as it will give your food nuttiness a purpose. However the focus on dental health is a giveaway (I've been vegan for decades, and my dental health is the best its ever been, and I look decades younger compared to my meat eating peers which they always comment on). Anyhow if you know better than peer reviewed science there is no discussion.

Cheers -

@Architect

That exegesis of the mechanisms and functionality of science has truly marked a profoundly personal, almost spiritual, watershed moment. I appreciate the fact that you went at a pace which was comfortable for me. Thank you Architect. Before you mentioned it I thought that nutrition had been seriously studied for more than forty years but you've really opened my eyes. At first I also imagined that this scientific justification of your views was vindicating science, but I was wrong on that score too. Boy do I need to reexamine things. My achingly sincere thanks to Architect.

 

[Proletar]

I haven't watched it, so, I'm shooting from the hip, and I'm uninformed.

But, if pot could cure cancer, then, given the tens of millions of cancer sufferers, all that would have to happen is word-of-mouth anecdotes would "go viral" and then all the cancer sufferers would start using pot and then they'd all get cured and then we'd know.

That hasn't happened. When it does, I'll be convinced.

Until then, I'll assume it's another in a long line of bogus claims about curing cancer.

The thing is this:

The medicine is not just cannabis, but cannabis oil - a rare and expensive extract that is not common on the streets. Regular cannabis have however been shown to reduce risk of cancer and/or cancer growth, but not actually reversing the process. A cure of 60 grams of pure cannabis oil over a 1-3 month period however seems to be enough to reach that quality.

 

[scorpiomover]

Technically a vegan diet could sustain itself but one would need to be vigilant about acquiring and assimilating adequate amounts of trace minerals like zinc and magnesium, essential amino acids, nitrogen, and fat-soluble vitamins. There are also anti-nutrients like phytic acid or inositol present in poorly fermented grains (i.e., almost all modern grains) which might be something to avoid as phytic acid blocks minerals like zinc. Another thing to bear in mind is that all proteins were not created equal. I'd be cagey about the blood sugar spikes with so much fruit. Blood sugar levels are affected up to five hours after consuming even mildly saccharine fruits. Insulin resistance is no fun at all.

True. Technically, you are right. It then follows that if someone just ate lots of fruit and vegetables, without being that specific about precisely the right amounts of each, one would probably have all the problems you found. However, Professor Regan pointed out who thousands of studies have been done on the benefits of fruit and vegetables, including on those who simply have a diet very high in fruit and vegetables, and their health levels spike. So it turns out in reality, that such concerns are not as necessary as one might imagine.

On the other hand, vegan diets have often shown in the past, certain deficiencies, such as B12 deficiency, which Architect pointed out below. However, in the past, vegans were not people who chose to eat lots of fruit and vegetables, but simply people who avoided meat, fish, and anything from them, such as milk, cheese and eggs. They still tende to eat diets very high in grains, and very high in processed foods.

The older Okinawan generation, for instance, had a rule about eating lots of brightly coloured fruits and vegetables. Their incidence of insulin resistance was practically nil, as were their cases of heart disease, stomach cancer, bowel cancer, a whole host of other cancers. They on average would live to over 100, and would work until their 90s.

 

[Jah]

drugs are bad...

mkay,
(oh and for the irony-deficient; anything you put into your body can be viewed as a drug. High protein diet, coffee and cocaine are about the same when it comes to untethering our rationalization (I'm guessing you should see this in the medial prefrontal and the posterior cingulate -cortices, probably also just a general upsurge in the entire prefrontal.) )




When it comes to diet, as I said high-protein has it's uses. Especially if you're going below BMR.

I'll probably vouch for that for a long time. (according to some evolutionary biologists (no I don't have the sources here, but you could easily check it for yourself, it's a prevalent statement) the introduction of meat and protein to our diet is likely a reason for the evolution of higher intelligence. Might be fish, might be smaller apes of monkeys, like we see in chimpanzees, point being: Protein seems to have a direct influence on the evolution of cognitive skills. )


Coming to Vegan vs. non-vegan, There are definitely conflicting views on this.
I see support for Vegan (though the strictest Vegans I know seem to get sick much more often than me.) vegetarian, pescetarian, pastafarian, primal etc. etc.

The only Diet I haven't seen much evidence for is the "Standard" diet, toted by mostly outdated doctors and MD's without specialization.


Most of all, I'll bet it has to do more with your level of consciousness in regards to what you eat.

In the fitness communities there's a growing support for the IIFYM ( if it fits your macros. )




The only thing I'm sure of is that Diet is a topic that fits in with Religion, Politics and such.
People have strong beliefs connected to it, and if you disagree with people, they'll think you're a bucketload of insanity for not agreeing.



Your body adapts to most anything, even cereal (which might have been one of the worst things you could eat about 5000 - 10000 years ago, but which we now seem to be doing alright with.) or milk if you're northern-european (From memory, people of Northern Europe seems to be the ones who handle milk best.).



Every body has it's own kinks which you as a person should figure out.
Try different diets, and if something doesn't agree with you; don't use it. (this goes with anything from food to "drugs" to influences from other people. )



Concern yourself with living, not according to other people's rules and moral values, but your own.

 

[Teohrn]

I would add this documentary to this thread: [FLV]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM72D3X55Ms&feature=related[/FLV]

It goes a little deeper into what's behind the positive health effects of Cannabis rather than just giving examples of people that were cured and such - which it also does.

 

[kamari rised]

It may not be the anti-oxidants in marijuana that have any effect on the body, but when burned and inhaled it does have effect on the mind. Perhaps the effects they have on the mind connect to a response on how the immune system operates which in this case may cause the cell to die off. I heard many theories on how meditation can have an effect on the human body which can kill off cancer.

who knows we (ourselves) are the ones who actually created cancer.

 

[reddie]

Maybe.
I couldnt watch the video but if it was medically approved then yes.
Drugs are only forbidden because they are expected to cause damage to people unintentionally and by that cost governments money (the word amongst a lot of people is that they are wrong because of religion but thats really more personal now).
Beside I am pretty sure if it was proven to benefit man kind drug companies would make it in doses and pack it.
And that might reduce its consumption because it will subject them to more supervision.

 

[kamari rised]

maybe its illegal because when people who never even tried marijuanna collect everyone elses thoughts and emotions towards it. which mostly only negative aspects about it.
They always hear simple words like:
It kills brain cells (which is opinion). and there like oh ok its bad. (which in there-case fact)
but than again when you lift weights your killing all types of cells, but only to regrow even bigger or endured.
They never think of that kind of stuff.

 

[Proletar]

@Teohrn: Couldn't watch it in this thread. What's the name of it?

 

[Proletar]

It may not be the anti-oxidants in marijuana that have any effect on the body, but when burned and inhaled it does have effect on the mind. Perhaps the effects they have on the mind connect to a response on how the immune system operates which in this case may cause the cell to die off. I heard many theories on how meditation can have an effect on the human body which can kill off cancer.

That is a possibility as well, although I don't find it very probable. In case it's true, then wouldn't smoking the oil be more effective in shrinking and killing of tumors then eating it?

The thing with smoking cannabis is that oxygen goes straight from the lungs and into the brain firsthand. Cannabinoids take the same journey in the blood-stream and then sort of sticks to the brain, since it's loaded with receptors.

When injesting cannabinoids orally (eating it) they instead go through the intestents and reach the bloodstream via the liver, and personally I think that should be better for curing cancers in the body.

+ You can have larger amounts
+ Smoking burns away a lot of the THC.

who knows we (ourselves) are the ones who actually created cancer.

I think so too. With all the chemicals in our environment, especially in our food along with all the sugar we are eating, it's no wonder. Cancer is an abnormality in the animal kingdom, as well as diabetes.

 

[Jah]

this may be me exposing ignorance, so feel free to debate it; but isn't burning an extreme form of oxidation (basically oxidizing the anti-oxidants.) as well as a source of free radicals (e.g. variants of CO- or CO2- ) ?

wouldn't that leave any speculation of anti-oxidant effects Void ?

 

[Teohrn]

@Proletar and @reddie

The name of the documentary is "Clearing the Smoke: The Science of Cannabis". Speaking of documentaries, you should check out "The Union: The Business Behind Getting High". It's not about the health effects of Cannabis specifically, but it's great anyway. It superbly gives the large picture of the case of Cannabis.

 

[Proletar]

this may be me exposing ignorance, so feel free to debate it; but isn't burning an extreme form of oxidation (basically oxidizing the anti-oxidants.) as well as a source of free radicals (e.g. variants of CO- or CO2- ) ?

wouldn't that leave any speculation of anti-oxidant effects Void ?

FFS. Read my last post again.

Eating it is preferred, and no one has said anything about smoking being anti-oxidating.


@Teohrn.

I just watched it, and it was a good documentary. The one I missed, I suppose. The case with the federally supported medical smoker is interesting; he has been going on for 27 years with tumors that could at any time become malignant, and with ten joints a day, they havent. This is hardly scientific, but it might be an additional hint. Also, oppression fucking sucks.

The Union, I think, is greatly informative from a more general perspective, but kind of lacks a purpose. It states that the prohibition is wrong and that society would make money from legalization, but that's kind of old news for people like us (or me?). Great for introducing the general public to the subject though.

 

[deconspire]

It's been fairly well documented that the cannabinoid compounds in marijuana attack certain cancer cells. However, THC has been shown to stimulate certain types of cancer growth as well. So it doesn't really matter, it's a contradicting effect.

But I wish it was true, I'd never have to worry about getting cancer.

 

[snafupants]

It's been fairly well documented that the cannabinoid compounds in marijuana attack certain cancer cells. However, THC has been shown to stimulate certain types of cancer growth as well. So it doesn't really matter, it's a contradicting effect.

But I wish it was true, I'd never have to worry about getting cancer.

Smoke enough dope and even reasonable worries will be a thing of the (perhaps hazy) past.

 

[TriflinThomas]

IT'S THE CANNABINOIDS, NOT THE "ANTIOXIDANTS" that give marijuana all those fun/helpful effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid

 

[Teohrn]

@Proletar

I'm glad you liked the documentary and that it was new to you. His disease is very rare and it's difficult to make any conclusion on the basis of one person, but there is indeed a correlation. I also like how it shows the hypocrisy of the US government and the pharmaceutical industry.

The Union is great, it gives most of the big picture. However, as the guy says himself, 'it only scratches the surface of the issue'. It's awesome for initiating one's research into this issue. I guess I should have assumed that you probably knew of it. Everyone who hasn't seen it and is interested might have learned of it just now thanks to me though.