Stop experimenting on animals to obtain data that we don't need to know! We already know that a whole foods plant based diet is the healthiest, full stop. At this point the only reason to fund research is to keep the status quo rich in search for more and more pills. Live naturally and everything falls in its place 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary]💖
Stop experimenting on animals to obtain data that we don't need to know! We already know that a whole foods plant based diet is the healthiest, full stop. At this point the only reason to fund research is to keep the status quo rich in search for more and more pills. Live naturally and everything falls in its place 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary]💖
I find many people where I live say “Carbs are bad” when in reality they mean “Hyperpalatable junk food is bad”. If you ask them what carbs they avoid, it’s never sweet potato and mango. It’s always cookies and potato chips, which can contain as many calories from fat as calories from carbs.
@@Hertz2laugh Definitely this. The body doesn't differentiate ''natural'' or refined sugar, it's metabolized all the same, but like you said, what the sugar comes together with it, be it fiber, fat, etc. will determine everything.
Well great research as usual. Thanks for the effort that you put in. As a strict 62 year old vegan, My takeaway is just eat lots of fruits and vegetables and whole grains and good stuff. But And occasional treat isn't too bad.😊
Stop experimenting on animals to obtain data that we don't need to know! We already know that a whole foods plant based diet is the healthiest, full stop. At this point the only reason to fund research is to keep the status quo rich in search for more and more pills. Live naturally and everything falls in its place 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary]💖
Being a tongue cancer survivor, i can say definitively that it’s not the sugar that fuel the cancer growth. I lived w/ my cancer for a year while waiting for a proper diagnosis and eaten my share of sugar in my drinks. I noticed that whenever i refrained from eating cakes, cookies & pastries, my tongue didn’t hurt. I dropped all fried food, ultra processed craps, dairy & meat at some point and my cancer wasn’t growing. The moment i hung out w/ my friends and smoking & drinking socially, my cancer grew. So it was definitely not the sugar. It is more of the fat, oil & animal protein. Plant protein in grain was ok too. Now i live with no tongue and no cancer for 8,5yrs. I eat mostly rice+veggies. I would occasionally eat cake on family members’s birthdays and definitely stayed away from dairy and oil. Been back to my middle school days of health & weight.
Interesting! You mentioned you noticed improvement with not eating dessert pastries. Do you think that was because reduced inflammation rather than feeling like a cancer cell growth?
@@jessabeauty917 basically most of my symptoms went away. When i eat them, they’re back and i noticed the bump on my tongue spread. So yes i could practically feel my cancer growth within days of consumption.
So if cancer cells are connected to Amino acids compared to glucose, it could make sense, that it could be the reason why animal protein is shown to increase the possibility of cancer, and would make sense as Plant based diets have lower instances of cancer with the consumption of lower amounts of certain amino acids through a plant based diet, which may be the reason why instances of cancer is lower in plant based eaters. As well as, plant based eaters likely getting glucose from healthier sources, may be what is aiding in fighting possible cancer cells. Just a string of thoughts. Always enjoy these videos of health with scientific support.
Yes, that makes sense. Countries with lowest cancer incidence and cancer mortality, are countries from the middle east and india, wich consume little amounts of fats, especially little amounts of fat from meat, fish or dairy. On the other side, countries like denmark, new zealand, greenland, uk, iceland, germany, sweden, norway, etc are the countries with the highest cancer incidence and cancer mortality in the world. And also they consume the highest amounts of fat in diet, especially from meat fish and dairy
And actually greenland is number 1 in cancer incidence and cancer mortality, and we all know what they've always eaten there. But greenland isn't legally a country, so most of the times they don't show it in the top lists. And btw greenland is also number 1(by far) in suicides in the world. To those that say carnivore diet cures depression, well...
That's what I like about vegan "influencers" I have come across. They back up their arguments with scientific studies, high quality scientific studies, or they are honest about contradictory or ambivalent studies and the need for more study.
No they aren't all these crap studies are completely, and aroneously debunked by professor thomas seyfrieds experimental work. Go look up his publications (higher quality research than anyone in the field) which shows cancer uses fermentation metabolism on glucose and glutamine instead of oxidative phosphorylation. Cancer doesn't consume fatty acids and ketones as direct fuels to cancer, they only act as uncouplers for further fermentation of glucose and glutamine. Take away those 2 fermentable fuel sources, and even with the presence of ketones and fatty acids, cancer of ALL types die outright. Shown time and time again, over and over in his vast amounts of quality data. Go search thomas seyfried publications, and look up his published data, even some on humans, dogs and mice. Mic's captions of cancer and its origin is begs the question fallacy and completely false in its context
Stop experimenting on animals to obtain data that we don't need to know! We already know that a whole foods plant based diet is the healthiest, full stop. At this point the only reason to fund research is to keep the status quo rich in search for more and more pills. Live naturally and everything falls in its place 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary]💖
The way i understand dr. Peter Roger's teachings on Otto Warburg (nobel prize 1931) is that cancer needs a lot more nutrients, so naturally as glucose is the preferred nutrient for our cells they also want more glucose. Things that are essential for cancer to grow though isn't glucose, it's methionine, leucine, heme iron and saturated fats if available in abundance.
@@11235Aodh Good summary, thank you. And saturated fats are not essential for humans, so it's good to avoid them as much as possible. Because sugar from fruits with antioxidants and amino acids shouldn't be avoided and are essential.
@@11235Aodh This is completely incorrect and 100% debunked by professor thomas seyfrieds experimental research. cancer ferments on glucose and glutamine 100%
What are the “health benefits of dodging refined sugar” then Mike? You didn’t cite any so I’d be interested to know what you or anyone else reading this thinks they are.
I always knew that cancer cells thrive on amino acids and fatty acids. Everything that weakens the immune system helps the cancer cells to grow. Sugar, better in its natural package, supports the immune system.
@@blsenterprise1 No one is "spouting" here. Just do some research. "Amino acids are essential for protein synthesis, cell signaling, and maintaining cellular homeostasis. Cancer cells consume amino acids to produce proteins, nucleotides, and other substances needed for their rapid proliferation. Glutamine, in particular, is a key amino acid that fuels cancer cell growth and survival." First quick Google search online.'
It's recognised that 'amino acids contribute to tumorigenesis and tumor immunity by acting as nutrients, signaling molecules, and could also regulate gene transcription and epigenetic modification.'. Also ' fatty acid metabolism supports tumorigenesis and disease progression through a range of processes including membrane biosynthesis, energy storage and production, and generation of signaling intermediates. '
For the carpentry link to cancer, I'm guessing it's the formaldehyde that occurs naturally in the wood + the formaldehyde used in adhesives and other wood working products + other common chemicals used in the trade like the ones in coatings and the root-proofing techniques... A good old coctail of chemicals that probably doesn't even need sawdust entering your eyes, nose and lungs to start causing harm. At least the formaldehyde is constantly evaporating from the wood.
[cringes at Mic's Spanish] This "sugar causes cancer" assertion--instead of other foods or in concert with them--has lately started up again in YT comments posted by meater trolls. The research on this continues to suggest it's not that simple, and that you cannot "starve" cancer by withholding everything that metabolizes into sugar. Thanks for posting!
Stop experimenting on animals to obtain data that we don't need to know! We already know that a whole foods plant based diet is the healthiest, full stop. At this point the only reason to fund research is to keep the status quo rich in search for more and more pills. Live naturally and everything falls in its place 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary]💖
Thanks Mic! Would you do a video on sugar and inflammation? I have multiple sclerosis and it is an inflammatory disease. Eating whole food plant based is one of the ways I love well with my MS. Wondering about the sugar connection.
I am commenting before listening to what you uncovered. Looking forward to it. But…As glucose is the main sugar that provides energy and nutrients to our body's organs, muscles and nervous system and is the primary source of energy for our brains, how exactly is eating sugar killing us?
Mic clarified that this pertains to processed sugar. Meaning not the sugars in fruits for example. Aside from what calorie counters and labels say, sugar in fruit is not the same impact to your body as sugar in a packet.
It's not "how is eating sugar killing us?", it should be "how is eating sugar causing or fueling cancer?" The answer is in how cancer grows or spreads. Sugar being the main source of energy and sugar fueling cancer are not mutually exclusive characteristics of sugar, unfortunately.
"how exactly is eating sugar killing us?" Our body makes exactly the amount of glucose we need on a zero carb diet through gluconeogenesis. Low to zero carb diets effectively reverse diabetes. Diabetes/metabolic illness/pathologically high blood glucose levels are associated with all sorts of deadly diseases.
So glad to be back. For some reason I lost touch with your channel Mic. Got unsubscribed for some reason ? 😮 resubbed immediately and now catching up on the latest videos I missed (over a years worth!). You helped me thru my masters degree in Nutrition Just saying I’m still vegan…..
Regardless of the results, I'd still add a bit of maple syrup to my oats once in a while. This makes me feel less guilty, but I won't be adding any extra. I think it's good to still be wary of sugar and just get sugars from unrefined carbs.
Sugar feeds the immune system too! Sustained elevated insulin levels is the biggest effect on cancer growth due to the lack of oxygen that is often associated with this, dietary fat causes the most amount of insulin resistance more then any thing else!! Carbs FTW!! 💪💪💪
AI Timestamps: Introduction and Context - 0:00 Refined Sugar vs. Whole Carbs - 1:00 WHO Carcinogen Classifications - 1:48 Causation vs. Association - 2:32 The "Sugar Feeds Cancer" Myth - 3:11 Research on Sugar and Tumors - 3:55 Glucose Homeostasis and Cancer - 4:40 Ketogenic Diet and Cancer - 5:30 Blood Glucose and Cancer Risk - 5:57 Review of Sugar Intake Studies - 7:37 Breast Cancer and Sugar - 8:20 Indirect Causation of Cancer - 10:28 Conclusion and Final Thoughts - 12:00 Call to Action - 14:46 Summary: In this video, Mike explores whether refined sugar should be considered a carcinogen and examines the connection between sugar and cancer. He begins by differentiating refined sugar from whole carbohydrates and discussing the potential health impacts of low-carb diets. Mike explains the WHO classification of carcinogens and emphasizes the distinction between causation and association in scientific research. Mike then addresses the common belief that sugar feeds tumors, presenting newer research that challenges this idea. He highlights a study from Vanderbilt University, which found that immune cells, rather than cancer cells, consume the majority of glucose in tumor environments. Additionally, Mike discusses how the body's glucose homeostasis complicates the theory that sugar directly fuels cancer. The video reviews various studies on sugar intake and cancer risk, noting that most do not find a strong connection. However, Mike points out that there is a more significant association between sugar intake and breast cancer, especially in younger women. He introduces the concept of indirect causation, suggesting that factors like obesity might link sugar consumption to cancer. Ultimately, Mike concludes that while there isn't a strong direct link between sugar and most cancers, there are enough concerns, particularly with breast cancer, to warrant further research. He suggests that refined sugar might eventually be classified as a possible carcinogen for breast cancer.
perfect timing for this video. The ‘sugar is evil’ just seems like body shaming on a molecular level since our bodies are fueled by glucose. That said, I think dates are the way to go for sweetener. 🌿💚✨
Love these videos and the depth of information here! Rarely is there a direct causal relationship between any one food and one disease that is universally true. Yet that is often how pop culture presents information. Keep on spreading the good word!
The Noto et al study which showed increased mortality for low carb diets did not study low carbs. The lowest percentage carb group was 35%. It is generally agreed that diets are not considered low carbs unless 25% or below. This study, which did not assess low carb diets, is often used to ‘prove’ that low carb diets are harmful.
Interesting. I did have a hunch that sugar gets a bad rap out of turn even when it comes to refined sugar. We've seen the converse manifestation of this attitude in both keto and carnivore spaces. And as a diabetic (type 1) I have become starkly aware of how sorely misunderstood glucose metabolism is in general (even though I'm by no means an authority on the subject). Turns out, humans need carbohydrates to be healthy, but as with all foods there is a more or less optimal way of preparing them and for a simplification the more processed the worse it tends to be. It's almost like the human body didn't evolve to eat "food" out of factories! And neither probably 75% fat or only meat!!
I'm truly shocked at how many people are being misled here and are thankful for it... you guys need to find an expert in human metabolism, applied science and statistics to think for you instead of settling for a Vegan with a lack of understanding (intentional ignorance), strong bias and obvious agenda. You need an expert in the relevant fields to break down the presented findings if you are unwilling to do it for yourself, not an ideologue isolating and presenting the parts that fit his narrative. 😟
You didn't cover the Randle Cycle effect in which free fatty acids (esp seed oils) are released and compete for glucose oxidation. The real culprit for blood excess sugar levels may well be these highly unsaturated fats; namely the polyunsaturated fats. (ref Ray Peat PhD)
I love the objectivity of this video. I must say, it’s gratifying to hear that sugar isn’t the villain it’s often painted out to be. Not to say soda and candy are healthy, but I get so sick of people going on about how bad all sugar is - including fruit - whilst slamming down bacon, butter and eggs.
Here is a super concerning webinar for farmers that was definitely not made for the consumer gaze. It is a long one, but to summarize, the industry is completely aware that the Bovine Leukemia Virus found in commercial milk causes breast cancer, but their main concern is keeping this out of the public’s awareness. ua-cam.com/video/hxAYxvPdQFY/v-deo.htmlsi=Kswc9Ipx-KINmDX3
08:57 I almost overlooked. fructose is shown to reduce risk of cancer by 12%? I think it is worth mentioning. and here is why: not all sugar is made equally! why does refined sugar promote cancer while fruit sugar reduces it? because refined sugar, which is unnatural sugar, is a concentrated substance. anything highly concentrated like sugar causes a "stimulating" effect on the body, a mild or a severe immune response. refined sugar needs insulin to be transported into the cells. this causes an acidifying of the body. the blood also becomes thicker and the heart has to pump harder. in the end the blood cannot transport enugh oxygen into the cells and in the long run causing inflammation and cancer. cancer (any disease) can only thrive in an oxygen-poor environment. fruit sugar does not need insulin to be transported into the cells. it is the number one energy source for the human body. the differentiation between these sugars should have been pointed out in this video. please do more research on sugars and how they are metabolized so more people can benefit from clear information and not be confused by half truth and deprive themselves of fruit sugars because "sugar is bad".
What option is healtier to eat.. 2 whole Eggs or 50-70g Hu cookies And im really intrested if it is better to eat 2 eggs compared to one pack of or peanut puffs snacks...i really love peanut puffs... Thanks :)
It seems that activity vs being sedentary is an obvious mechanism, ie., the uptake of glucose influencing the serum level floating around rather than being turned into ATP.
Hi Mic. What about Honey (sucrose)?… I have Honey everyday with 5 dates before my run.. Is this a Cancer risk.?Keep up the work..Empirical ruth is everything.🎉
if you exercise you need extra fuel. athletes like pro/experienced cyclist eat thousands extra calories and have very low bmi unless they are sprint specialist then they are bigger but not fat or unhealthy so yeah 5 dates and a spoon of honey should be fine if you go exercise. but some pro athletes did get cancer later in their lives but the risks exists no matter what you will do. some very healthy people got very unlucky and developped cancers too. some times in young ages. thats why we need to keep doing as much research as we can to understand it better and better
❤❤❤ I know that science isn't very established yet in the area of emotional effects but if anyone were brave enough to venture an epic study, I would like to one on how our emotional state affects nutrient absorption. I bet we would be blown away by what is found. I bet cancers are effected by frequency (the wave form of emotion) and if we could see the frequency spectrum of what we consume, breath, and how we release energy (exercise), we may find patterns. Peace.
It's probably best to just remove the "doesn't" and keep the rest with "¿Azuca causa Cancer?" along with the standard questioning tone that's used in English. Spanish doesn't usually use "doesn't" or "does" in stating questions. Before anyone responds, yes I know it was a joke, but I was bored so I responded to it.
Sometimes when I eat a particular food, it causes me retain water around the middle for about three days. I suspect this inflammation leads to a lot of diseases. Not eating any more of the offending food is key.
It's about the levels of these substances being taken. Sugar intake is linked to cancer but just like estrogen in food the different forms can either cause cancer or prohibit it. I feel it might increase chance of breast cancer not because of hypothesized obesity but because excess sugar consumption turns on genes within the breast that cause mutation.
Pretty difficult to separate refined sugar from all the grease and animal protein it's normally accompanied by. That said, it's clearly not a health food.
Take a look on stroma cells, tumour microenvironment and Regulatory T cell (T regs) and Warburg effect. Indeed, not all cells withing the tumour are cancer cells; however, the non-cancer cells often support the development and progression of the tumour. Even some types of lymphocytes such as T regs can help the tumour by inhibiting anti-tumor effector CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. In other words, yeah, there are many lymphocytes there, many that stopped working and some that promote the tumour. Warburg effect, tumour prefer glucose as energy and releases lactate that reduce the pH. This more acid environment can inhibit T lymphocytes and make it harder to kill cancer. How were these studies performed? Asking people about their diet is not quite precise. Besides that, when those studies mention the people ate low carb, high carb, etc what are they considering as such type of food. As example when the studies say people eat meat when they actually are eating McDonalds hamburgers. Another point to consider is what about other habits rather than food? Smoking, exercising, stress, obesity. Many data often lack in those studies. Other point to consider when talking about tumours. Cancer is not a single disease. Tumour is the result of a disfunction in cell leading to the uncontrolled grow of cells and invasion of nearby tissues. In development, behaviour and genetic terms there are more than 200 types of cancer and withing the groups each tumour behaves in a different way. No tumour is equal. You can read a study suggesting that one type of tumours behaves in a way and extrapolate that all tumours will do the same. Some depend more on glucose; some may develop way to use ketogenic bodies and others may use both. In general sugar is preferred by the majority of tumours but some may use more fat. Disclaimer: Not defending low carb diets nor high carb diets, just pointing out the failure in the argument and many studies used to promote one of the other bias. Anyway, thank for the video and promoting the discussion of this interesting topic.
Work by cancer researcher Lewis Cantley indicates that low insulin is what is needed. So it maybe that keeping glucose spikes low will help keep insulin low.
"Processed" is such an imprecise and unquantifiable term. Largely, the problem is Advanced Glycation End-products (AGEs)...in my opinion, and should simply replace the term: Processed. This is what processing makes. These are associated with every major disease of aging. AGEs are made through raising the temperature of foods (especially browning), high speed or long duration blending, and through fermentation. But they are also made in the body by elevated blood glucose and fructose processing in the liver. There are also foods that even when raw have more to start with, like pine nuts, and to a lesser extent some other nuts. AGEs are often at a higher level in oils. And the oils with less are not the ones you would guess. Cold pressing oil extraction is almost certainly better, though. I believe the level of AGEs in foods should be listed on the packaging. Then consumers can come face to face with the numbers and pick the best of the bad, which is still progress, and motivates manufacturers to reduce their levels, to be more attractive. This is far from the whole story of cancer. Nutrient deficiencies (carotenoids, antioxidants, mineral deficiencies...), viruses (oncoviruses), weakened immunity (which can be caused by latent viruses, poor sleep, stress, poor dental health and such), genetics (though, I think this is mostly exaggerated or limited to certain cancers), and exposures to a wide variety of toxins is certainly in play. Some as ubiquitous as chlorinated water. If my cats have a choice, they will drink dirty rain water in filthy random things in the yard rather than pristine chlorinated water, in a freshly and thoroughly cleaned dish. So, they now get reverse osmosis water. Maybe that is not the best argument in the world, but even though I already use reverse osmosis water, I am much less likely to eat out, because I have no idea if restaurants are using the city water in food prep. Even if they said they were not, how could I believe them?
I think there's more to it than that. The circadian rhythm is messed up and I think sleep quality is negatively impacted which causes all sorts of downstream health issues.
Sugar requires minerals to metabolize. If you consume refined sugar that has the minerals stripped out, then it will require your own minerals. If you are low in minerals, then you may be prone to disease and/or infection. Just look at molasses. Full of iron and other minerals and is known to be 'good' for you. Molasses is the stuff left over after all the refining of sugar cane. You know, the stuff that was stripped out, much like how salt is refined.
Cancer cells are your cells, they're just mutated. Every cell in your body needs glucose to function. Cancer cells are not special in that regard. Now there actually are some interesting studies on the effects of fasting on cancer treatment. Some studies do suggest that fasting can improve the efficacy of chemo therapy, for example.
Great video Mic! But then i watch Thomas Seyfried and he's done a lot of research indicating glucose and glutamine fuel cancer. I'm not sure what to make of it but i'd love to see you do a video on him. Is he a fraud or a modern day Copernicus (as he claims)?
People that work nights smoke like crazy and it wouldn't be a surprised that people working those hours have higher rates of cancer. I work nights and almost everyone I work with smokes like mad. I real don't like the smell of cigarettes and I keep my distance.
Also If you work nights you don't get to have much of a social life outside of work and that could stress you out. I have DID and it doesn't effect me as much to work those hours but it effects my ability to go out and do things in my personal life.
I thought that it was the fructose in sugar that was the bad stuff. We need glucose for our brain and it seems to be a fact that if we don't get glucose from our diet our body would make it ???
@@GarudaLegends That is the most incorrect claim that anyone has ever made in the history of the world. Vegan ice-cream is COMPLETELY indistinguishable from dairy ice-cream. Same applies to vegan mayonnaise. Vegan mayo is, like vegan ice-cream, utterly indistinguishable from the non-vegan equivalent. Try them and you'll see I'm right.
Cancers differ. With organ cancers like brain cancer it is widely accepted at this point that sugar activates the cells and their reproductive systems. Not just fringe doctors or just certain institutions. It may not be the cancer cells eating it specifically, but the overall impact is not what we want. Sugar to cancer cells is similar to coffee to humans.
1:37 BUT “low carb” in this study also includes “high protein”. So the study doesn’t cover a Phinney and Volek style “well-formulated ketogenic diet.” Or my diet- which is about 70% of calories from fatty fish (sardines, salmon, lots of cod and cod liver, and all kinds of red meat, pork, chicken, from farmers markets). You’re not intentionally being deceptive, but worth being nuanced here and looking into the fine print before making sweeping generalizations (or citing studies that make sweeping generalizations) on so-called “low carb” diets in relation to all-cause mortality.
It’s really interesting because some of the first so-called modern diseases like diabetes and heart disease were only found or primarily found in the wealthy.. The aristocracies of Europe were the only people who had access to excesses of sugar. The other thing you have to like at which sugar. Is it paralyzes or weakened the immune system. Cancer is basically an immune disease. So may have a double negative effect on cancer.
They also ate a very animal-heavy diet. Refined sugar was not a food until the Early Modern era. Diabetes and heart disease appear in autopsies of paleolithic and early neolithic people's remains, well before the age of European aristocracies
Yeah, the wealthy ate far more animal products as well. Refined sugar isn't good but it isn't the only bad thing those people ate and as the other person mentioned going back even further before sugar was a thing we still see those diseases among populations that ate animals but not sugar.
It would be great if you did the cancer link to linoleic acid. Research has shown a minimum amount of linoleic acid is required to promote growth of artificially induced tumours in rodents.
hmm. yeah it should be at least a "2b" if it disrupts hormone levels, it's directly a bad actor, not just as a contributor to obesity, or offsetting healthier calories. I'm just thinking of all the sugar US kids are eating- developing a palette in later years- for over sweetened products 😑
Let me note, that the Vanderbilt study that claims it found the FDG-PET scans show crazy amounts of glucose are due to macrophages, not the cancer, is certainly not the last word. There are plenty of other studies and other good reasons to believe it's actually the cancer sucking up all the glucose. This is all hypothesis generating and question begging. Replicate more studies and come forth with new models to test whether it's the macrophages or cancer that's responsible for the 20-40 times, plus amount of glucose that cancer cells apparently ferment for energy via the Warburg Effect. I can make a similar point with the studies that purport to show that cancer can ferment fatty acids or ketones for energy. There is certainly no preferring or craving those sources as energy as we see with glucose, if we assume it's actually the glucose that cancer is metabolizing via the Warburg Effect, or glutamine, which we all seem to agree that cancer likes to use as a fuel.
I have been watching your UA-cam videos for the last two weeks. Yours was the most value-added video I found today. Thank you. I have created a better and attractive thumbnail for you. I am a thumbnail designer. Do you want to see it?
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I come here for my Spanish lessons.... flawless... I mean, El flawlesso
🤣🤣🤣
Si 👍
Bueno madre *#%#*'s
Stop experimenting on animals to obtain data that we don't need to know! We already know that a whole foods plant based diet is the healthiest, full stop. At this point the only reason to fund research is to keep the status quo rich in search for more and more pills. Live naturally and everything falls in its place 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary]💖
Good to see Mic reaching out to the Spanish speaking population with his muyo buenito contento
😂😂😂
It's been a muy long time coming, a lot of language classes.
Stop experimenting on animals to obtain data that we don't need to know! We already know that a whole foods plant based diet is the healthiest, full stop. At this point the only reason to fund research is to keep the status quo rich in search for more and more pills. Live naturally and everything falls in its place 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary]💖
Haha!
They blame sugar in donuts, choclate, soda, ice-cream and candies, like they blame bread and potatoes in fast food.
I think it's the combination of refined sugar and isolated fat that is cancer promoting.
Exactly. Natural sugar vs added/refined sugar are really different things.
@@Melissa.Garrett Literally not at all.
The sugar is -> *_EXACTLY THE SAME_*
I find many people where I live say “Carbs are bad” when in reality they mean “Hyperpalatable junk food is bad”.
If you ask them what carbs they avoid, it’s never sweet potato and mango. It’s always cookies and potato chips, which can contain as many calories from fat as calories from carbs.
@@Hertz2laugh Definitely this. The body doesn't differentiate ''natural'' or refined sugar, it's metabolized all the same, but like you said, what the sugar comes together with it, be it fiber, fat, etc. will determine everything.
Well great research as usual. Thanks for the effort that you put in. As a strict 62 year old vegan, My takeaway is just eat lots of fruits and vegetables and whole grains and good stuff. But And occasional treat isn't too bad.😊
Stop experimenting on animals to obtain data that we don't need to know! We already know that a whole foods plant based diet is the healthiest, full stop. At this point the only reason to fund research is to keep the status quo rich in search for more and more pills. Live naturally and everything falls in its place 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary]💖
I appreciate how much research you do to make these videos, thanks!
My mom died of oral cancer. Alcohol causes oral cancer. They should put warning labels on alcohol bottles the same way they do in cigarette packets
Being a tongue cancer survivor, i can say definitively that it’s not the sugar that fuel the cancer growth. I lived w/ my cancer for a year while waiting for a proper diagnosis and eaten my share of sugar in my drinks. I noticed that whenever i refrained from eating cakes, cookies & pastries, my tongue didn’t hurt. I dropped all fried food, ultra processed craps, dairy & meat at some point and my cancer wasn’t growing. The moment i hung out w/ my friends and smoking & drinking socially, my cancer grew. So it was definitely not the sugar. It is more of the fat, oil & animal protein. Plant protein in grain was ok too. Now i live with no tongue and no cancer for 8,5yrs. I eat mostly rice+veggies. I would occasionally eat cake on family members’s birthdays and definitely stayed away from dairy and oil. Been back to my middle school days of health & weight.
Interesting! You mentioned you noticed improvement with not eating dessert pastries. Do you think that was because reduced inflammation rather than feeling like a cancer cell growth?
My guess is your doctor didn’t tell you to look at your food for the solution?
@@jessabeauty917 basically most of my symptoms went away. When i eat them, they’re back and i noticed the bump on my tongue spread. So yes i could practically feel my cancer growth within days of consumption.
@@ima7333
But I thought you have no tongue anymore?
Sugar might not affect THIS cancer.
So if cancer cells are connected to Amino acids compared to glucose, it could make sense, that it could be the reason why animal protein is shown to increase the possibility of cancer, and would make sense as Plant based diets have lower instances of cancer with the consumption of lower amounts of certain amino acids through a plant based diet, which may be the reason why instances of cancer is lower in plant based eaters. As well as, plant based eaters likely getting glucose from healthier sources, may be what is aiding in fighting possible cancer cells. Just a string of thoughts. Always enjoy these videos of health with scientific support.
Yes, that makes sense. Countries with lowest cancer incidence and cancer mortality, are countries from the middle east and india, wich consume little amounts of fats, especially little amounts of fat from meat, fish or dairy. On the other side, countries like denmark, new zealand, greenland, uk, iceland, germany, sweden, norway, etc are the countries with the highest cancer incidence and cancer mortality in the world. And also they consume the highest amounts of fat in diet, especially from meat fish and dairy
And actually greenland is number 1 in cancer incidence and cancer mortality, and we all know what they've always eaten there. But greenland isn't legally a country, so most of the times they don't show it in the top lists. And btw greenland is also number 1(by far) in suicides in the world. To those that say carnivore diet cures depression, well...
Cancer is caused by inflammation period. Everything else is extraneous bullshit.
@@Bbjjutgghjhgf Interesting. I didn't know that about Greenland.
Or maybe its an agenda of the vegan dominated science and medical community to get people to quit eating animals.
I swear this guy looks better every video. You are THE GOAT MICHAEL 🐐
Correct!
Thanks for providing the citations /links to the referenced studies - its much appreciated.
That's what I like about vegan "influencers" I have come across. They back up their arguments with scientific studies, high quality scientific studies, or they are honest about contradictory or ambivalent studies and the need for more study.
No they aren't all these crap studies are completely, and aroneously debunked by professor thomas seyfrieds experimental work. Go look up his publications (higher quality research than anyone in the field) which shows cancer uses fermentation metabolism on glucose and glutamine instead of oxidative phosphorylation. Cancer doesn't consume fatty acids and ketones as direct fuels to cancer, they only act as uncouplers for further fermentation of glucose and glutamine. Take away those 2 fermentable fuel sources, and even with the presence of ketones and fatty acids, cancer of ALL types die outright. Shown time and time again, over and over in his vast amounts of quality data. Go search thomas seyfried publications, and look up his published data, even some on humans, dogs and mice. Mic's captions of cancer and its origin is begs the question fallacy and completely false in its context
Love the break down of the videos. We should share strategies on how to swap out highly processed sugars and foods with more natural foods.
Saying a doughnut has too much sugar when like 75% of the calories come from animal fat! Lmao 🤣
Go watch md chaffee
Haven't been on this channel in 7 years. Aging isn't happening to you
Facts. He's crazy healthy looking. Clear eyes, lovely skin. Health cannot be faked.
That's the only evidence y'all need to believe this guy...anti-ageing
Are you saying he is a vegan vampire? Drinking the blood of plants?
@@josepl7639 Wow I could have had a V-8!
he’s literally a science communicator. so no. it’s not anti ageing. it’s the science. the literal only content of his videos.
Love the objectivity, it's interesting to hear that the whole sugar feeding cancer cells thing was just a myth it seems
Stop experimenting on animals to obtain data that we don't need to know! We already know that a whole foods plant based diet is the healthiest, full stop. At this point the only reason to fund research is to keep the status quo rich in search for more and more pills. Live naturally and everything falls in its place 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary]💖
The way i understand dr. Peter Roger's teachings on Otto Warburg (nobel prize 1931) is that cancer needs a lot more nutrients, so naturally as glucose is the preferred nutrient for our cells they also want more glucose. Things that are essential for cancer to grow though isn't glucose, it's methionine, leucine, heme iron and saturated fats if available in abundance.
@@11235Aodh Good summary, thank you. And saturated fats are not essential for humans, so it's good to avoid them as much as possible. Because sugar from fruits with antioxidants and amino acids shouldn't be avoided and are essential.
@@bluu389 Correct :).
@@11235Aodh This is completely incorrect and 100% debunked by professor thomas seyfrieds experimental research. cancer ferments on glucose and glutamine 100%
What are the “health benefits of dodging refined sugar” then Mike? You didn’t cite any so I’d be interested to know what you or anyone else reading this thinks they are.
I always knew that cancer cells thrive on amino acids and fatty acids. Everything that weakens the immune system helps the cancer cells to grow. Sugar, better in its natural package, supports the immune system.
How do amino acids and fatty acids decrease immunity exactly?
How does this mechanism work to cause cancer? Exactly! Don't spout information you heard regurgitated from someone else.
@@blsenterprise1 No one is "spouting" here. Just do some research. "Amino acids are essential for protein synthesis, cell signaling, and maintaining cellular homeostasis.
Cancer cells consume amino acids to produce proteins, nucleotides, and other substances needed for their rapid proliferation.
Glutamine, in particular, is a key amino acid that fuels cancer cell growth and survival." First quick Google search online.'
It's recognised that 'amino acids contribute to tumorigenesis and tumor immunity by acting as nutrients, signaling molecules, and could also regulate gene transcription and epigenetic modification.'. Also ' fatty acid metabolism supports tumorigenesis and disease progression through a range of processes including membrane biosynthesis, energy storage and production, and generation of signaling intermediates. '
@tomgoff7887 ok, but a) this has nothing to do with immunity and b) carbs also promote tumour growth.
For the carpentry link to cancer, I'm guessing it's the formaldehyde that occurs naturally in the wood + the formaldehyde used in adhesives and other wood working products + other common chemicals used in the trade like the ones in coatings and the root-proofing techniques... A good old coctail of chemicals that probably doesn't even need sawdust entering your eyes, nose and lungs to start causing harm. At least the formaldehyde is constantly evaporating from the wood.
My ‘guess’ is it would be good to stay away from refined sugars and any food that offers a huge sugar-dose in a single serving (Coke, Pepsi etc.)
I think anything that has been processed or modified definitely feeds cancer.
[cringes at Mic's Spanish] This "sugar causes cancer" assertion--instead of other foods or in concert with them--has lately started up again in YT comments posted by meater trolls. The research on this continues to suggest it's not that simple, and that you cannot "starve" cancer by withholding everything that metabolizes into sugar. Thanks for posting!
Stop experimenting on animals to obtain data that we don't need to know! We already know that a whole foods plant based diet is the healthiest, full stop. At this point the only reason to fund research is to keep the status quo rich in search for more and more pills. Live naturally and everything falls in its place 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary]💖
Thanks Mic! Would you do a video on sugar and inflammation? I have multiple sclerosis and it is an inflammatory disease. Eating whole food plant based is one of the ways I love well with my MS. Wondering about the sugar connection.
I am commenting before listening to what you uncovered. Looking forward to it.
But…As glucose is the main sugar that provides energy and nutrients to our body's organs, muscles and nervous system and is the primary source of energy for our brains, how exactly is eating sugar killing us?
Ketones
@@johndoex3x3 This isn't answering the question.
Mic clarified that this pertains to processed sugar. Meaning not the sugars in fruits for example. Aside from what calorie counters and labels say, sugar in fruit is not the same impact to your body as sugar in a packet.
It's not "how is eating sugar killing us?", it should be "how is eating sugar causing or fueling cancer?" The answer is in how cancer grows or spreads. Sugar being the main source of energy and sugar fueling cancer are not mutually exclusive characteristics of sugar, unfortunately.
"how exactly is eating sugar killing us?"
Our body makes exactly the amount of glucose we need on a zero carb diet through gluconeogenesis. Low to zero carb diets effectively reverse diabetes. Diabetes/metabolic illness/pathologically high blood glucose levels are associated with all sorts of deadly diseases.
So glad to be back. For some reason I lost touch with your channel Mic. Got unsubscribed for some reason ? 😮 resubbed immediately and now catching up on the latest videos I missed (over a years worth!). You helped me thru my masters degree in Nutrition
Just saying I’m still vegan…..
What do u think of Thomas seyfried.... Cancer as a metabolic disease.
Regardless of the results, I'd still add a bit of maple syrup to my oats once in a while. This makes me feel less guilty, but I won't be adding any extra. I think it's good to still be wary of sugar and just get sugars from unrefined carbs.
I LIVE on maple syrup and I'm 68 next year and running around like a kid.
Sugar feeds the immune system too! Sustained elevated insulin levels is the biggest effect on cancer growth due to the lack of oxygen that is often associated with this, dietary fat causes the most amount of insulin resistance more then any thing else!! Carbs FTW!! 💪💪💪
AI Timestamps:
Introduction and Context - 0:00
Refined Sugar vs. Whole Carbs - 1:00
WHO Carcinogen Classifications - 1:48
Causation vs. Association - 2:32
The "Sugar Feeds Cancer" Myth - 3:11
Research on Sugar and Tumors - 3:55
Glucose Homeostasis and Cancer - 4:40
Ketogenic Diet and Cancer - 5:30
Blood Glucose and Cancer Risk - 5:57
Review of Sugar Intake Studies - 7:37
Breast Cancer and Sugar - 8:20
Indirect Causation of Cancer - 10:28
Conclusion and Final Thoughts - 12:00
Call to Action - 14:46
Summary:
In this video, Mike explores whether refined sugar should be considered a carcinogen and examines the connection between sugar and cancer. He begins by differentiating refined sugar from whole carbohydrates and discussing the potential health impacts of low-carb diets. Mike explains the WHO classification of carcinogens and emphasizes the distinction between causation and association in scientific research.
Mike then addresses the common belief that sugar feeds tumors, presenting newer research that challenges this idea. He highlights a study from Vanderbilt University, which found that immune cells, rather than cancer cells, consume the majority of glucose in tumor environments. Additionally, Mike discusses how the body's glucose homeostasis complicates the theory that sugar directly fuels cancer.
The video reviews various studies on sugar intake and cancer risk, noting that most do not find a strong connection. However, Mike points out that there is a more significant association between sugar intake and breast cancer, especially in younger women. He introduces the concept of indirect causation, suggesting that factors like obesity might link sugar consumption to cancer.
Ultimately, Mike concludes that while there isn't a strong direct link between sugar and most cancers, there are enough concerns, particularly with breast cancer, to warrant further research. He suggests that refined sugar might eventually be classified as a possible carcinogen for breast cancer.
perfect timing for this video. The ‘sugar is evil’ just seems like body shaming on a molecular level since our bodies are fueled by glucose. That said, I think dates are the way to go for sweetener. 🌿💚✨
Medjools!
True! And so many people will just hear „any sugar is bad“ and stay away from the fruits aswell! I hear it all the time from people. 🙃
Love these videos and the depth of information here! Rarely is there a direct causal relationship between any one food and one disease that is universally true. Yet that is often how pop culture presents information.
Keep on spreading the good word!
The Noto et al study which showed increased mortality for low carb diets did not study low carbs. The lowest percentage carb group was 35%. It is generally agreed that diets are not considered low carbs unless 25% or below. This study, which did not assess low carb diets, is often used to ‘prove’ that low carb diets are harmful.
Cool bro. All "low fat studies" have more than 15% of the calories come from fat, not making them low fat.
Best to avoid refined sugars and salt no matter what your diet is.
Interesting. I did have a hunch that sugar gets a bad rap out of turn even when it comes to refined sugar. We've seen the converse manifestation of this attitude in both keto and carnivore spaces. And as a diabetic (type 1) I have become starkly aware of how sorely misunderstood glucose metabolism is in general (even though I'm by no means an authority on the subject). Turns out, humans need carbohydrates to be healthy, but as with all foods there is a more or less optimal way of preparing them and for a simplification the more processed the worse it tends to be. It's almost like the human body didn't evolve to eat "food" out of factories! And neither probably 75% fat or only meat!!
Sugar is fine and our bodies need it big time. What it doesn't need is sugar mixed with fat, like donuts, ice cream, chocolate bars etc...
This
@@THeSID432hz vegans eat them anyways.
Our body does not need table sugar.
I'm truly shocked at how many people are being misled here and are thankful for it... you guys need to find an expert in human metabolism, applied science and statistics to think for you instead of settling for a Vegan with a lack of understanding (intentional ignorance), strong bias and obvious agenda.
You need an expert in the relevant fields to break down the presented findings if you are unwilling to do it for yourself, not an ideologue isolating and presenting the parts that fit his narrative. 😟
💯 what is this zhiat =S
Fantastic prediction ability! You're really good at helping me understand the research. I can't read these documents and understand like you.❤
8:40 200% increase is 3x the original value, not 2x. Unless I'm misunderstanding, sorry
You didn't cover the Randle Cycle effect in which free fatty acids (esp seed oils) are released and compete for glucose oxidation. The real culprit for blood excess sugar levels may well be these highly unsaturated fats; namely the polyunsaturated fats. (ref Ray Peat PhD)
I love the objectivity of this video. I must say, it’s gratifying to hear that sugar isn’t the villain it’s often painted out to be. Not to say soda and candy are healthy, but I get so sick of people going on about how bad all sugar is - including fruit - whilst slamming down bacon, butter and eggs.
Brainwashed ,butter and eggs are fantastic for us fact
@@lightninggornall fantastic at clogging our arteries yes. Very true.
Dr Mindy Peltz just did a video on this topic quoting, I believe, a 2022 study. She recommends coconut sugar.
I realy thought about this some while ago, can't wait to see the video and (maybe) find an answer
The breast cancer ... you mentioned sugar affecting hormones. My cancer was hormone-negative. Would you say sugar still played a part in that?
I worry they failed to factor in exposure to BLV in the research on breast cancer. Great video as always
Here is a super concerning webinar for farmers that was definitely not made for the consumer gaze. It is a long one, but to summarize, the industry is completely aware that the Bovine Leukemia Virus found in commercial milk causes breast cancer, but their main concern is keeping this out of the public’s awareness. ua-cam.com/video/hxAYxvPdQFY/v-deo.htmlsi=Kswc9Ipx-KINmDX3
08:57 I almost overlooked. fructose is shown to reduce risk of cancer by 12%? I think it is worth mentioning. and here is why:
not all sugar is made equally! why does refined sugar promote cancer while fruit sugar reduces it? because refined sugar, which is unnatural sugar, is a concentrated substance. anything highly concentrated like sugar causes a "stimulating" effect on the body, a mild or a severe immune response. refined sugar needs insulin to be transported into the cells. this causes an acidifying of the body. the blood also becomes thicker and the heart has to pump harder. in the end the blood cannot transport enugh oxygen into the cells and in the long run causing inflammation and cancer. cancer (any disease) can only thrive in an oxygen-poor environment.
fruit sugar does not need insulin to be transported into the cells. it is the number one energy source for the human body. the differentiation between these sugars should have been pointed out in this video. please do more research on sugars and how they are metabolized so more people can benefit from clear information and not be confused by half truth and deprive themselves of fruit sugars because "sugar is bad".
What option is healtier to eat..
2 whole Eggs or 50-70g Hu cookies
And im really intrested if it is better to eat 2 eggs compared to one pack of or peanut puffs snacks...i really love peanut puffs...
Thanks :)
Is this a serious question?
@@lightninggornall yee...
Unrelated but Mike have you looked into taurine as a supplement?
It seems that activity vs being sedentary is an obvious mechanism, ie., the uptake of glucose influencing the serum level floating around rather than being turned into ATP.
Hello, have a look to the studies and podcast from Thomas Seyfried or Paul Mason, about the causes of cancer, what feed cancer
Hi Mic. What about Honey (sucrose)?… I have Honey everyday with 5 dates before my run.. Is this a Cancer risk.?Keep up the work..Empirical ruth is everything.🎉
if you exercise you need extra fuel.
athletes like pro/experienced cyclist eat thousands extra calories and have very low bmi unless they are sprint specialist then they are bigger but not fat or unhealthy
so yeah 5 dates and a spoon of honey should be fine if you go exercise. but some pro athletes did get cancer later in their lives but the risks exists no matter what you will do. some very healthy people got very unlucky and developped cancers too. some times in young ages. thats why we need to keep doing as much research as we can to understand it better and better
❤❤❤ I know that science isn't very established yet in the area of emotional effects but if anyone were brave enough to venture an epic study, I would like to one on how our emotional state affects nutrient absorption. I bet we would be blown away by what is found. I bet cancers are effected by frequency (the wave form of emotion) and if we could see the frequency spectrum of what we consume, breath, and how we release energy (exercise), we may find patterns. Peace.
I guess you’re going to ignore Dr Thomas Seyfried work on cancer or Dr. Benjamin Bikman work on insulin.
yeh, id rather listen to an expert.. this guys a pseudo-scientist
It's probably best to just remove the "doesn't" and keep the rest with "¿Azuca causa Cancer?" along with the standard questioning tone that's used in English. Spanish doesn't usually use "doesn't" or "does" in stating questions.
Before anyone responds, yes I know it was a joke, but I was bored so I responded to it.
Wine a class 1 carcinogen?!? Oh noooooo. (But good to know.)
Sometimes when I eat a particular food, it causes me retain water around the middle for about three days. I suspect this inflammation leads to a lot of diseases. Not eating any more of the offending food is key.
It's about the levels of these substances being taken. Sugar intake is linked to cancer but just like estrogen in food the different forms can either cause cancer or prohibit it. I feel it might increase chance of breast cancer not because of hypothesized obesity but because excess sugar consumption turns on genes within the breast that cause mutation.
Pretty difficult to separate refined sugar from all the grease and animal protein it's normally accompanied by. That said, it's clearly not a health food.
Mikey boy it's always amateur night went it comes to your interpretation of the science
Lookin sharp!🙂
Always a pleasure listening to your videos, Mike! I wish Joe Rogan would have you on!
Mike's awesome, isn't he? Incredible channel.
Take a look on stroma cells, tumour microenvironment and Regulatory T cell (T regs) and Warburg effect.
Indeed, not all cells withing the tumour are cancer cells; however, the non-cancer cells often support the development and progression of the tumour. Even some types of lymphocytes such as T regs can help the tumour by inhibiting anti-tumor effector CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. In other words, yeah, there are many lymphocytes there, many that stopped working and some that promote the tumour.
Warburg effect, tumour prefer glucose as energy and releases lactate that reduce the pH. This more acid environment can inhibit T lymphocytes and make it harder to kill cancer.
How were these studies performed? Asking people about their diet is not quite precise. Besides that, when those studies mention the people ate low carb, high carb, etc what are they considering as such type of food. As example when the studies say people eat meat when they actually are eating McDonalds hamburgers. Another point to consider is what about other habits rather than food? Smoking, exercising, stress, obesity. Many data often lack in those studies.
Other point to consider when talking about tumours. Cancer is not a single disease. Tumour is the result of a disfunction in cell leading to the uncontrolled grow of cells and invasion of nearby tissues. In development, behaviour and genetic terms there are more than 200 types of cancer and withing the groups each tumour behaves in a different way. No tumour is equal. You can read a study suggesting that one type of tumours behaves in a way and extrapolate that all tumours will do the same. Some depend more on glucose; some may develop way to use ketogenic bodies and others may use both. In general sugar is preferred by the majority of tumours but some may use more fat.
Disclaimer: Not defending low carb diets nor high carb diets, just pointing out the failure in the argument and many studies used to promote one of the other bias. Anyway, thank for the video and promoting the discussion of this interesting topic.
Work by cancer researcher Lewis Cantley indicates that low insulin is what is needed. So it maybe that keeping glucose spikes low will help keep insulin low.
yeah agree with you!
"Processed" is such an imprecise and unquantifiable term. Largely, the problem is Advanced Glycation End-products (AGEs)...in my opinion, and should simply replace the term: Processed. This is what processing makes. These are associated with every major disease of aging. AGEs are made through raising the temperature of foods (especially browning), high speed or long duration blending, and through fermentation. But they are also made in the body by elevated blood glucose and fructose processing in the liver. There are also foods that even when raw have more to start with, like pine nuts, and to a lesser extent some other nuts. AGEs are often at a higher level in oils. And the oils with less are not the ones you would guess. Cold pressing oil extraction is almost certainly better, though.
I believe the level of AGEs in foods should be listed on the packaging. Then consumers can come face to face with the numbers and pick the best of the bad, which is still progress, and motivates manufacturers to reduce their levels, to be more attractive.
This is far from the whole story of cancer. Nutrient deficiencies (carotenoids, antioxidants, mineral deficiencies...), viruses (oncoviruses), weakened immunity (which can be caused by latent viruses, poor sleep, stress, poor dental health and such), genetics (though, I think this is mostly exaggerated or limited to certain cancers), and exposures to a wide variety of toxins is certainly in play. Some as ubiquitous as chlorinated water. If my cats have a choice, they will drink dirty rain water in filthy random things in the yard rather than pristine chlorinated water, in a freshly and thoroughly cleaned dish. So, they now get reverse osmosis water. Maybe that is not the best argument in the world, but even though I already use reverse osmosis water, I am much less likely to eat out, because I have no idea if restaurants are using the city water in food prep. Even if they said they were not, how could I believe them?
Nightshift work might be lack of sunlight. Vit D?
I think there's more to it than that. The circadian rhythm is messed up and I think sleep quality is negatively impacted which causes all sorts of downstream health issues.
Sugar requires minerals to metabolize. If you consume refined sugar that has the minerals stripped out, then it will require your own minerals. If you are low in minerals, then you may be prone to disease and/or infection. Just look at molasses. Full of iron and other minerals and is known to be 'good' for you. Molasses is the stuff left over after all the refining of sugar cane. You know, the stuff that was stripped out, much like how salt is refined.
prreaach!! great subject for a video thank you!
In a talk from Dana Farber, they said excess sugar means excess insulin and insulin is a growth factor. Not sure where the evidence for that came….
I think it was Dr. Carvhalo (Nutrition Made Simple) who said that it wasn't sugar that helped cancer growth, it was extra calories.
Cancer doesnt feed on triglycerides it feeds on glucose.
Sounded like "Where is the sugar causing cancer"?
Cancer cells are your cells, they're just mutated. Every cell in your body needs glucose to function. Cancer cells are not special in that regard.
Now there actually are some interesting studies on the effects of fasting on cancer treatment. Some studies do suggest that fasting can improve the efficacy of chemo therapy, for example.
Great video Mic! But then i watch Thomas Seyfried and he's done a lot of research indicating glucose and glutamine fuel cancer. I'm not sure what to make of it but i'd love to see you do a video on him. Is he a fraud or a modern day Copernicus (as he claims)?
Great Video!
Obviously it DOES NOT cause cancer... unlike dead rotting animal flesh, for example. What a stupid question.
The blood glucose is an 🤦♀️moment for me!
People that work nights smoke like crazy and it wouldn't be a surprised that people working those hours have higher rates of cancer. I work nights and almost everyone I work with smokes like mad. I real don't like the smell of cigarettes and I keep my distance.
Also If you work nights you don't get to have much of a social life outside of work and that could stress you out. I have DID and it doesn't effect me as much to work those hours but it effects my ability to go out and do things in my personal life.
I thought that it was the fructose in sugar that was the bad stuff. We need glucose for our brain and it seems to be a fact that if we don't get glucose from our diet our body would make it ???
Yes,it’s made from essential fatty acids. Nucleogenesis.
@@janedough6575 : It's called gluconeogenesis and comes mainly from protein, but can make glucose from other non-carb substrates as well.
Arguably both exogenous glucose and fructose are bad. Fructose eventually gets converted to glucose in the body.
pls tell me i can keep eating 6 ice creams a day, im begging u
It’s the insulin.
Low garb is not the answer to weight loss. Carbohydrates are the best source of energy for humans by far
Here is my tldr without bias : Too many variables
WHO cares about the trend. We shouldn't.
So should i stop eating vegan ice cream or nah?
Vegan icecream is an oxymoron. It is just a frozen smoothie.
@@GarudaLegends That is the most incorrect claim that anyone has ever made in the history of the world. Vegan ice-cream is COMPLETELY indistinguishable from dairy ice-cream. Same applies to vegan mayonnaise. Vegan mayo is, like vegan ice-cream, utterly indistinguishable from the non-vegan equivalent. Try them and you'll see I'm right.
@@JohnDoe-s3v2v false. Your taste buds are just garbage.
Limit the junk food,
and limit to high saturated food
That's all you need to do
Love me some pure maple syrup :) I make popsicles with that and spring water. Simple 2 ingredient snack
Sugar in the raw is better than the extremely boiled stuff.
This brings to mind Dr McDougalls teachings 🤔
You gained a curly hair from 40-41secs 🤣
But is the sugar fattening the liver?
Excess
No.
Big agras send their love
Cancers differ. With organ cancers like brain cancer it is widely accepted at this point that sugar activates the cells and their reproductive systems. Not just fringe doctors or just certain institutions. It may not be the cancer cells eating it specifically, but the overall impact is not what we want. Sugar to cancer cells is similar to coffee to humans.
Please watch the video before commenting.
@ScienceNow- meat isn’t an activator, caffeine is.
@ScienceNow- coffee is a great example because it stimulates. The OP was saying that sugar stimulates cancer cells like coffee, see?
Not me surprised about night shift work🤦
1:37 BUT “low carb” in this study also includes “high protein”. So the study doesn’t cover a Phinney and Volek style “well-formulated ketogenic diet.” Or my diet- which is about 70% of calories from fatty fish (sardines, salmon, lots of cod and cod liver, and all kinds of red meat, pork, chicken, from farmers markets). You’re not intentionally being deceptive, but worth being nuanced here and looking into the fine print before making sweeping generalizations (or citing studies that make sweeping generalizations) on so-called “low carb” diets in relation to all-cause mortality.
Who pays for those studies? Thanks for the video…
It's the sugar industry!! No wait, it's the meat industry!! Ahhhh
It’s really interesting because some of the first so-called modern diseases like diabetes and heart disease were only found or primarily found in the wealthy.. The aristocracies of Europe were the only people who had access to excesses of sugar. The other thing you have to like at which sugar. Is it paralyzes or weakened the immune system. Cancer is basically an immune disease. So may have a double negative effect on cancer.
They also ate a very animal-heavy diet. Refined sugar was not a food until the Early Modern era. Diabetes and heart disease appear in autopsies of paleolithic and early neolithic people's remains, well before the age of European aristocracies
@@tamcon72, so true. Don't listen to lies and liars.
Yeah, the wealthy ate far more animal products as well. Refined sugar isn't good but it isn't the only bad thing those people ate and as the other person mentioned going back even further before sugar was a thing we still see those diseases among populations that ate animals but not sugar.
Dairy is also a cause of lungs and breasts cancer.
Dairy isn’t “calcium” or “protein” it’s sugar in the form of lactose with lots of saturated fat. A dessert we could say for those not vegan.
@@jessabeauty917, it has a lot of hard to digest protein. It's acid forming as well.
@@jessabeauty917the casein in dairy is carcinogenic
There are some studies suggesting that but the majority of studies overall don't support that. Perhaps prostate cancer at high intakes.
Some of the oldest ppl to live ate dairy.
It would be great if you did the cancer link to linoleic acid. Research has shown a minimum amount of linoleic acid is required to promote growth of artificially induced tumours in rodents.
Cool video. I'm a sugar addict though, lol. Good luck to me? Lol.
Nobody eats plain table sugar lol. The majority are eating carbs.
hmm. yeah it should be at least a "2b" if it disrupts hormone levels, it's directly a bad actor, not just as a contributor to obesity, or offsetting healthier calories. I'm just thinking of all the sugar US kids are eating- developing a palette in later years- for over sweetened products 😑
Let me note, that the Vanderbilt study that claims it found the FDG-PET scans show crazy amounts of glucose are due to macrophages, not the cancer, is certainly not the last word. There are plenty of other studies and other good reasons to believe it's actually the cancer sucking up all the glucose.
This is all hypothesis generating and question begging. Replicate more studies and come forth with new models to test whether it's the macrophages or cancer that's responsible for the 20-40 times, plus amount of glucose that cancer cells apparently ferment for energy via the Warburg Effect.
I can make a similar point with the studies that purport to show that cancer can ferment fatty acids or ketones for energy. There is certainly no preferring or craving those sources as energy as we see with glucose, if we assume it's actually the glucose that cancer is metabolizing via the Warburg Effect, or glutamine, which we all seem to agree that cancer likes to use as a fuel.
Read cancer is not a disease. Cancer is a name for various symptoms that differ from person to person.
I have been watching your UA-cam videos for the last two weeks. Yours was the most value-added video I found today. Thank you.
I have created a better and attractive thumbnail for you. I am a thumbnail designer.
Do you want to see it?