
Effects of short-term fasting on cancer treatment - JPLeRouzic
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6530042/
======
joshgel
Can I just throw a big dose of caution here? This is a review study, looking
at the available literature of this technique on cancer. They found a total of
FIVE studies with 88 total human participants across all 5 studies. We, the
medical community, still has no idea whether this is effective or not. The
only thing we can say is that initial trials don't show it to be particularly
harmful. That could change with more data.

They review a lot of mice studies and theory, which is great.

But all this adds together to indicate that we should study this more before
drawing any conclusions. With limited funding for cancer research, its not
even clear to me from this what priority it should take

~~~
wavepruner
I really don't get the excessive warnings of caution for fasting. It's not
hard to try. It's not very dangerous (unless doing prolonged fasts). In the
case of prolonged fasts, if the patient is monitored by qualified people then
there is little risk as well.

I'm battling a crippling illness. Fortunately I've found the cure and the
recovery is nothing short of miraculous. But it's a huge HUGE uphill battle
because the medical community works incredibly hard to throw road blocks in my
way.

Why does the medical community work so hard to throw up as many road blocks as
possible to experimental treatments that are low risk? Why do you insist on
being the only group of people who can say what is and isn't tried? Why do
doctors and public health officials ignore the work of biochemists? Why do you
ignore millions of people battling crippling illness that say your treatments
are ineffective, and that other approaches are more effective?

Seriously. I don't get it. I don't believe you're a bad person, but the only
explanations I can come up with are arrogance, ego, cowardice, or greed.

~~~
sn9
Fasting is low risk in healthy populations.

Let's assume you're talking about fasting as a treatment for cancer patients
for the sake of argument.

Let's say that studies have examined the effect in 100 patients and it seems
moderately effective.

What's the problem? Why shouldn't everyone do it?

Well the very real concern is that when they do a more rigorous study with a
much greater number of patients, maybe they find that fasting actually
_increases_ the negative outcomes. The result that was found in the weaker
study was only a statistical fluke.

So the thing they're trying to avoid is doing more harm than the status quo.
This is a very real danger and it would be irresponsible for them to not do
the due diligence.

Of course, that's not to say that there aren't valid criticisms of how medical
treatments get validated and how quickly they can get to patients they can
help.

~~~
pdonis
These are all arguments against the medical community _advising_ people in
cancer treatment to fast.

But what if the patient just fasts? Without asking the doctor's advice, and
just politely saying "Yes, I hear you, but it's my decision and I think the
risk is worth it" when the doctor explains the pros and cons.

~~~
snowwrestler
Patients gonna do what patients gonna do; the doctor's role is to advise and
treat, not control the patient's life. Doesn't mean patient has a good idea,
though.

I take the context of these warning comments to be a hypothetical patient who
may not have been planning to fast on their own, but having read this paper,
now wants to try it--i.e. a patient who may be tempted to treat this paper as
medical advice. I think it's valid to point out that a single research paper
does not necessarily constitute sound medical advice.

------
dharma1
Fasting was extensively researched in Soviet Russia as a potential cure for
many ailments, from auto-immune diseases to mental illness. Tens of thousands
of people were treated with 14-40 day water fasts (under constant supervision
and testing), roughly 2/3rds reported various levels of success. I don't think
much of the studies have ever been translated into English.

~~~
beagle3
Do you maybe have a link to original russian sources?

~~~
dharma1
There's an excellent documentary, "Science of Fasting", which covers some of
the Russian studies about midway through -
[https://youtu.be/t1b08X-GvRs](https://youtu.be/t1b08X-GvRs)

~~~
mehrdadn
Watched 25 minutes of it so far and it's absolutely fascinating, thanks so
much for sharing.

One key point so far for anyone who hasn't watched yet: the fasts involved
here are long (multiple weeks) and treatment that you do under medical
supervision, and it needs to happen properly, meaning _along with it_ you need
proper exercise, getting your blood tested, and various other things, in some
cases even including classical medication (possibly even larger doses)... so
in general it's not merely "just don't eat for N days and you'll get cured".

~~~
pazimzadeh
It is fascinating, but around 18 mins 45 seconds "cancer" is noted as a
contraindication for fasting! Unfortunately there was no mention of what the
cancer type, metastatic status, etc..

------
mickel
I'd like to share my findings from a sample size of one...

I've been fasting for about 2 years now. I've done a couple of 5-days water
fasts, and a few 7-days water fasts. The past 250 days I've been consistently
following 16:8 and adding in a few 23:1's in there for good measure. I was
healthy before I started, but have since then felt even better. My stomach
feels calm, I sleep better, I feel stronger (even though I exercise less) and
my overall focus has improved. This results in a better mental state, somehow
calming my mind. I've been a practitioner of meditation before, but have not
felt the need for it the past year. My body is calm and well-rested => my mind
is mindful.

But the number 1 benefit of fasting (and all other non-conventional habits,
such as cold showers in the morning), is mental resilience. Every time you
realize that you perform well, if not even better, without food, you get a
confidence boost. This effect compounds with time. I've found out that this in
turn makes it easier to take on other habits as well, because your habit
muscles are stronger now than before. Eating 5 meals a day is easy... eating 1
is hard => you grow a little if you manage to do it.

~~~
georgeburdell
No offense but self-reported results aren't scientifically worth much. There
are too many crackpots in health. Now, if you had some sort of external
objective measure, like "I was able to stop taking X maintenance medicine
after starting my fasting routine" that would be much more compelling.

~~~
arcturus17
Yea, counter-point: IF makes me more anxious and irritable, and no way it
makes me stronger as someone who lifts regularly (5x week)...

IIRC some studies I’ve read say that IF increases cortisol levels which would
explain the anxiety and which I believe is bad for muscle-building.

~~~
mickel
I haven't replaced exercise with fasting, I think you still need both! Of
course you wouldn't be as strong as someone who lifts 5 times/week if you
didn't. I'm speaking of strength relative to body weight here... I see no
benefit in being able to bench press 200kg, I rather do 15-30 chins with no
effort. Sleep, exercise, a good diet and relationships are all required for
good long-term benefits in any endevour.

------
gnode
The article explains that fasting is often prohibited by malnutrition and low
body weight. Obviously fasting cannot be undertaken long-term, as it results
in starvation. I wonder whether there is any benefit to caloric restriction /
fasting, versus maintenance calorie intake with a ketogenic diet. The crucial
thing seems to be the elimination of insulin promoting carbohydrate, and
depletion of glycogen which forces metabolism into ketogenesis, reduces growth
factors, and promotes catabolism and autophagy.

~~~
shadykiller
There sure is according to Dr. Thomas Seyfried and Dominic D'Agostino -

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28250801](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28250801)

~~~
abecedarius
Personal note: when a family member was recently diagnosed with cancer, the
ketogenic diet was the one promising idea I found to supplement her standard
treatment. It's... depressing... how my suggestion just to _talk to her doctor
about it_ probably wasn't followed even that far. Can anyone suggest a source
to point to for non-nerds, such as a talk by a prestigious doctor? Considering
the fate of my suggestion above, a paper or a book are not going to fly.

~~~
chiefgeek
There's a documentary called "The Science of Fasting" that I found very
interesting. Apparently, they've been studying it for health benefits going
back decades in the former USSR. [https://www.amazon.com/Science-Fasting-
Sylvie-Gilman/dp/B075...](https://www.amazon.com/Science-Fasting-Sylvie-
Gilman/dp/B075824XCB)

~~~
jhncls
This documentary is also available at Youtube:

[https://youtu.be/t1b08X-GvRs](https://youtu.be/t1b08X-GvRs)

~~~
abecedarius
Thank you both.

------
icu
I had a wake-up call when my Doctor said my Body Mass Index (BMI) was 29.7
(obese is 30). So I made a total lifestyle change to a 16/8 intermittent fast
(16 hours water only, 8-hour feeding window), and a plant-based diet
(basically vegan plus a fish once a week for Omegas).

It was life-changing. I lost 22kg in two months, with no exercise. I am now
back to a healthy BMI, but I no longer use BMI as a measure, I use the
Relative Fat Mass Index (RFM) because my research indicates that this is a
more accurate measure for tall people (I'm 6'3").

Besides looking great after shedding all that weight, I never expected the
mental benefits to be so pronounced. Indeed it is fair to say it has had a
nootropic effect. I no longer 'need' coffee, and the persistent brain fog has
lifted and my default state is calm mental clarity.

Of course, I can only speak from my own personal experience here... I haven't
done extensive blood tests pre and post this lifestyle change, but the change
has been so shocking that friends and family cannot believe it.

You might think going 16 hours with no food is going to be hard but if you get
the timings right, it's easy (and you get used to it). I start my fast at 8
pm, and I break the fast at noon. This way I can have business lunches and
early-ish business dinners (as long as I finish eating by 8 pm). Most
restaurants cater for vegans or at least have a vegetarian option. If not, I
go for a fish option.

When I break the fast I do it with an avocado/cucumber/kale/spinach smoothie
which blasts my body with super nutrients. I avoid all processed carbs (no
bread or pasta), I avoid all processed sugar (no cola or any refined sugar
products), I avoid all dairy, and of course, avoid meat. Also, there is no
calorie reduction... I eat as much as I like in my 8-hour feeding window
(which controls Ghrelin and therefore doesn't mess up my metabolism).

Always consult a medical professional before you do any drastic changes like
what I've done, and do your own research on this stuff so you have the
confidence that it's the right choice for you, and that you'll stick with it.

~~~
ordinaryperson
Glad you lost weight but kale smoothies and fasting are not magic--it's just
reduced caloric intake conferring most of the benefits you're seeing.

The biggest problem people have is overeating, bottom line. I honestly have
several strict vegan friends who are obese -- at the end of the day a calorie
is a calorie.

My only issue when people recount stories like yours, as inspiring as they
are, is they associate non-scientifically-provable properties to their eating.
As if fasting or kale give you more energy (they don't). Or carbs are
automatically evil by themselves and cause weight gain (also wrong). There is
no such thing as "super nutrients" \-- there are only nutrients. It's like
when people talk about going on a "cleanse" from "toxins" in their body, it's
just nonsense.

I wish high schools would teach everyone how to track their calories, it's a
super useful skill that would help many in understanding how much a penalty
there is in eating those Five Guys fries. But "I lost weight from [insert
special diet here] wow now I have [amazing qualities]" just exaggerates the
basic underlying process of reducing caloric intake.

And for the record I'm 6'2" & 168 lbs / 76 kg with 5% body fat (measured via
calipers), training for multiple athletic events, so I'm not saying this as
someone who struggles with following strict diets.

~~~
jonwinstanley
> at the end of the day a calorie is a calorie

No, calories vary massively. If someone ate 2000 calories of vegetables each
day and someone else ate 2000 calories of sugar there would be a huge amount
of difference between their nutrition.

> The biggest problem people have is overeating, bottom line

Sorry to say that I disagree with this too. The body does a great job of
negating over-eating provided the food eaten is of the right types, it is just
pushed back out as waste.

Going back to the vegetable example, you could eat several kg of green
vegetables every day and continue to lose weight.

~~~
didibus
From all I've seen, the only scientific assumptions derived from current
experimental data are:

1\. Calories in/out control weight

2\. Not everyone's digestive system is exactly the same, thus some small
variance exists in how many calories we each absorb from various foods. This
variance is very small, but maybe some exceptional outliers exist with very
strange conditions here that could dramatically affect digestion. Don't
justify your weight on this, you are most likely not the outlier and are just
eating too much :p

3\. Insulin levels and other hormonal conditions could affect the ability to
lose fat. Again, this assumes major imbalance, most likely due to medical
conditions like diabetes or hashimoto, etc.

4\. The body needs what it needs. So a diet is more than just weight loss. You
need a balanced diet, not necessarily balanced in foods, but you do in
nutrients. It doesn't take much of anything though.

5\. Certain foods have extra curricular effects that can be good or bad. It
really depends in the food and your body. Intolerance, allergies, carcinogens,
antioxidants, and many others. You can think of food as medication that is
micro dosed, and with possibly immeasurable long term effects.

Also, it does seem that trans fat affect heart disease, as well as sugars. And
it is the interaction between both which creates a high risk scenario. That's
why both diets work. Ideally, you even cut out both, which is what Keto often
does, it favour healthy fats and cut out sugars.

P.S.: Sorry, I wish I could put down my sources, but I wasn't keeping track.
This is the current synthesis from memory of the many studies I read over time
for fun in the last 3/4 years.

~~~
MegaDeKay
Please take my upvote. I don't understand why some on HN keep trying to equate
"a calorie is a calorie" with nutrition and satiety. The first is a unit of
energy and the other two are not. It is that simple.

I do 16:8 Intermittent Fasting. Are there health benefits to it? Maybe. But I
know for sure that if I want to drop a bit of weight, this style of eating
makes it a lot easier for me for reasons of hunger more than anything: I'm not
that hungry until I eat. I also know for sure that I like eating big. If I
have a couple small meals early on, I can have a great big meal near the end
of my window as if I were a lion taking down a zebra.

~~~
ordinaryperson
Who's equating caloric intake with nutrition and satiety?

My point is people who have successfully adopted a particular technique for
reducing their caloric intake (fasting, kale, smoothies, veganism, omega 3
acids, etc) are disguising the underlying process that's conferring most of
the health benefits they're seeing: which is weight loss.

How many stories have you read out there about Secret Diet X that does all
sorts of allegedly amazing things for you? Paleo diet. Veganism. Atkins diet.
The Zone diet. The Dukan diet. And on and on.

There are many strategies for reducing caloric intake and if 16:8 fasting
works for you: fantastic. But at the end of the day most people will improve
their health through weight loss, not some special ritual or ingredient, and I
think we should be cautious before crowning specific calorie reduction
techniques as having special or more beneficial properties unless there is
clear scientific evidence for them.

~~~
MegaDeKay
> Who's equating caloric intake with nutrition and satiety?

Well, jonwinstanley above, for one. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

> No, calories vary massively. If someone ate 2000 calories of vegetables each
> day and someone else ate 2000 calories of sugar there would be a huge amount
> of difference between their nutrition.

~~~
jonwinstanley
I think one thing we can take from this discussion is that people's opinions
on diet, calories, fat, carbs, health etc varies wildly!

------
mogadsheu
I really like practical, simple solutions like this.

Older generations/civilizations have practiced fasting for general health.

Based on modern advances in science, I would love to see more research done on
the applications efficacy of old cultural practices to modern problems.

Who know, maybe we’ll start flash mobs to dance for rain in 10 years.

~~~
GistNoesis
>Who know, maybe we’ll start flash mobs to dance for rain in 10 years.

I don't know the feasibility of it, but if we could predict with enough
accuracy some local weather patterns, it would be a total awesome app. Get a
notification to gather round to summon a tornado. Or chanting together for an
unusual fall of evening tropical rain.

------
waffle_ss
I didn’t see it mentioned in the study but it’s interesting that from what I
know, the current clinical approach is the exact opposite - many patients on
chemo are given appetite-inducing drugs and Ensure shakes as the oncologists
are very concerned that the patient not lose any weight

~~~
johnpowell
I just finished chemo eight months ago. I lost 35 pounds. I'm 6' and went from
140 pounds to 105. So yeah, my nutritionist gave me shit for putting water in
my feeding tube because it doesn't have any calories. Ensure, juice, gatorade,
anything was better than water. I had neck/mouth cancer and for about month I
wasn't able to swallow anything (including water).

I was doing about 3K calories of formula a day and still dropping weight.
Everything hurt. My joints were a wreck and getting out of bed was a chore. I
started doing 8oz of formula (TwoCal HN) and mixing that with 8oz of vitamin D
milk. In a few days my joint pain went away.

But yes, infusion rooms have little cafeterias and are stocked with soda, ice
cream, juice, candy, and so on. Anything to get calories in people.

~~~
waffle_ss
Thanks for sharing your personal experience and best of luck with your
continued recovery. Hopefully I didn't come across as being critical of the
doctors in my comment - clearly there are reasons to cram calories as your
personal experience attests - I just find it an interesting juxtaposition.

------
Spearchucker
Reading through these comments is scary. And I'm lucky. I've never put on
weight in my life but always been active. 50 now and still snowboard, scuba
dive and martial arts three times a week. Only ever ate two meals a day (lunch
and dinner) and have never paid attention to sugar. Drink fewer sodas than I
used to but still average about one a day. I eat a lot of meat but also a lot
of vegetables and bananas. Maybe 50/50 meat/veg. Guessing metabolism has a lot
to do with it. Nobody in my family ever got obese either.

The upshot is that what works for Peter may not work for Paul. And somehow I
fell into a healthy lifestyle...

~~~
dcolkitt
Most people don't realize just how small a lifestyle change it takes to affect
weight into middle age. When habits are amplified by the fulcrum of
consistency over decades it makes a huge difference.

Just consider that all it takes to become 100 lbs overweight by age 50 is an
extra 38 calories a day starting at age 25. The difference between morbid
obesity and healthy weight can literally come down to one donut a week or
walking an extra quarter mile a day.

~~~
toasterlovin
It's way more complicated that that. The body is not a stupid mechanical
device where you make a change in one place and then the rest of the system
reacts in a straightforward and predictable way. There is a brain in the
middle of everything. And that brain affects motivation. Good luck doing
something when you're not feeling motivated.

------
chimen
I know there are certain countries/religions (Turkey comes to mind) where
fasting is practiced...sometimes to the extreme. Did anyone thought of doing a
research for cancer numbers in those countries vs others?

~~~
ghostbrainalpha
This study follows your line of thinking.

(Ramadan Fasting and Patients with Cancer: State-of-the-Art and Future
Prospects)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4748028/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4748028/)

Unfortunately this is in the abstract.

"Our main findings are that (1) very few studies have been carried out,
addressing this issue, (2) evidence concerning quality of life and compliance
to treatment is contrasting and scarce, and (3) generally speaking, few
patients ask their physicians whether they can safely fast or not. For these
reasons, further research should be performed, given the relevance and
importance of this topic."

------
neves
Short Term Fasting helps the treatment of cancer, but what is the official
definition of STF? 1 day? 2? Or is it in hours?

~~~
el_cujo
The text says 24-60 hours, but then in the table where they talk about the
other studies being considered, a lot of them did 48 hour minimum and as much
as 96 hours for some. When I saw the headline I was excited because a 16-18
hour fast really isn't very hard for most people, but 48 hours sounds a little
rough. I guess if it's just a one-off event while you're doing chemo it's not
that bad, but I'm not about to fast 48 hours once a week for the rest of my
life.

~~~
coldtea
> _but I 'm not about to fast 48 hours once a week for the rest of my life_

Why not? I mean why reject it a priori?

Who said it will be difficult after the first few months? And what if it has
beneficial properties?

~~~
randcraw
Most people have trouble even taking a pill regularly. And that's painless.
Regularly self-inflicting pain like hunger for 40+ hours at a time has
absolutely no hope of becoming a standard therapy in medicine. The percentage
of patient compliance would be in the single digits.

~~~
jplayer01
I don't even know how people fast for that long. I start getting head-aches
and feel awful long before that. So just deciding to fast for 48 hours/week
seems untenable to me.

~~~
coldtea
> _I start getting head-aches and feel awful long before that._

Well, people often also get cramps when they first start working out. After
keeping at it though...

------
Phylter
From what I understand cancer grows based on what it feeds on. It can eat
sugar, hormones, and maybe other stuff. Some types of cancer can be killed by
simply removing it's source of food.

I've had a lot of friends/relatives with cancer lately. Most recently I had a
friend diagnosed with breast cancer and the treatment was simply to reduce the
amount of estrogen in her system. She's doing well. They've done some
preventative radiation but other than that not much of anything else.

~~~
SN76477
A lot of psuedo medicine talks about eliminating sugar to kill cancer.

I always felt that they were on the right track somehow.

Thanks for the tidbit

~~~
dankai
You might want to check out this
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_hypothesis)

~~~
agumonkey
A med student on reddit was part of a research team on various strategies
around WH. He said something in the lines of "cancer has a few layered tricks
in its bag to stay alive even when starved, and these tricks make cancerous
cells the last to die if you starve a population of healthy/sick cells"

Made me realize how odd cancer was.. how oddly efficient it is in its chaos.

~~~
bob_theslob646
May you please provide the link to the thread?

~~~
agumonkey
I may try to dig but it was a few years ago and I have no precise recollection
of which sub nor which user answered me.

Unless you know a quick tool to fetch my comment history so I can grep it.

------
chvid
I am not a doctor so I don't have the skills to evaluate this paper.

But it strikes me that this area must be very hard to scientifically evaluate.
There are number of 'big' ideas out there on health and each person seem to
have their own preference. Cold showers, hot baths, meditation, that food
should be vegetarian, organic, mostly meat and high on protein, vitamin c,
extreme exercise and so on. These are very cultural and some times even
religious.

This "culturalness" affects the authors too. We want certain things to be true
because it agrees with our values. For example that organic farmed food is
healthier than non-organic.

This is a meta study that cites a lot of other studies. Some of them have very
small sample size; in particular the ones dealing with humans. And I wonder
how was the control done? People cannot help noticing that they do not get
food. What was the effect size? Were subjects excluded from the experiment
because they were too weak not to eat (or just didn't want to)? Would the
study be published had it not shown an effect? And so on ...

Just because you sum up accross multiple studies; it does not necessary give
better a signal because the noise may not be random.

~~~
randcraw
Agreed. I think the purpose of papers like this is not to advocate for the
therapy today, but to encourage scientists and research funding figures to
more seriously investigate the phenomenon.

As others here have noted, the past studies have been quite small, and because
the treated study participants experience hunger, adding a blinded control
group is difficult. These faults will have to be addressed before results are
actionable clinically. But if they appear promising, there may be creative
ways to address them, if the researchers do get sufficient motivation and
funding.

------
ijidak
Having recently lost an aunt to cancer, statements like this in medical
literature, disappoint:

"However, chronic caloric restriction is not a feasible clinical intervention.
Evident difficulties, such as the long period required to be effective, and
unacceptable weight loss [10, 11], hamper clinical application in cancer
patients."

Doctors will fail to offer fasting as a partial solution because it's assumed
that patients will reject this option.

It would be great for fasting to be presented to the patient as a partial
solution.

Many would absolutely fast to help survival chances.

Generally the lay advice to one who is sick is: "eat, so you can maintain your
strength".

When in fact, the rule of thumb, "eat to maintain your strength" isn't always
true.

Sometimes, NOT eating is better for certain diseases, such as cancer.

But few doctors will ever explain this because statements like the above cause
doctors to conclude, "telling the patient to fast is not practical.."

~~~
wtallis
I think you're inaccurately conflating "chronic caloric restriction" with any
and all forms of fasting, when it refers only to rather severe long-term
fasting/starvation of the sort that has been tested in mice but is borderline
unethical to test on humans even if they aren't being ravaged by cancer and
chemotherapy. That's why short-term fasting is worth investigating.

------
specialist
The progress in nutrition is very encouraging.

30 years ago, when I brought up concerns about nutrition, my doctors dismissed
such questions out of hand. Like I was advocating homeopathy or something.
Much has changed since then. FHCRC (& SCCA) now includes diet and nutrition as
part of their LTFU care plans.

Calorie restriction and eliminating HFCS seem now seem like slam dunks to me,
even if we don't yet have the science to substantiate these strategies. Even
if fructose isn't linked to cancer, I feel better without it. (Sadly, anything
touching on diet still triggers some people.)

My latest self experimentation is soluble fiber. (Beans, lentils, wild rices,
oatmeal, seeds. It all goes into the Instapot.)

Definitely has improved my gut (which has been touchy since the chemo). We'll
see in a few months if it helps lower my high LDL.

Edit: Oops. Pre coffee. Changed glucose (good) to fructose (bad). Also,
witness insta downvote. Someone out there is personally offended by my
rejection of HFCS.

~~~
RobertRoberts
I actually find the progress in nutrition surprising. The benefits of fasting
have been known for a very long time.

But I perceive because fasting can't be sold that the current medical industry
has not valued sharing it's true benefits. My personal experience with
friends/family in the medical field is that is quackery if it's not taught at
in medical school.

------
nightchalk16
Have a look at: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEE-
oU8_NSU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEE-oU8_NSU)

------
DoreenMichele
A few thoughts:

1\. Fasting may be a problem if you are so sick that you have insufficient fat
reserves.

2\. If you are seriously underfat, dropping to about 20% of your usual
consumption gets a similar reaction from the body while being easier to take.

3\. About 75-80% of your immune cells can be found in the gut. Hypothesis: One
thing fasting may do is free up immune cells from coping with food so they can
be redirected elsewhere.

------
Surgly
Interesting research. Also important to remember that many cancer patients may
also be surgical candidates. If preparing for most surgical procedures you
would want to ensure excellent protein intake, adequate Vit D and possible
immunonutrition (in drink or other form) and fast minimally. A really complex
disease with so many stages

------
chiefalchemist
I keep seeing these studies on the value of fasting. Fascinating and
intriguing. I haven't eaten all day.

That said, I'd be interested in knowing the role of diet. That is, how much of
the benefit is from fasting, and how much is from the relief the body (and
gut) gets not ingesting additives, chemical reside, etc.?

------
pknerd
Wish some health magazine or something re-write this article for the non-
technical people so that I could share with others.

------
bagong
Hy geng aim. From indonesia. Ai skides for yuo geng. Ar you choming for miey.
Cemmen likdinsen hend

------
toomuchtodo
TLDR Nutrient restriction causes healthy cells to invest in maintenance and
preservation operations (protecting against chemotherapy) while slowing tumor
growth.

Can any clinicians chime in if this is making its way into clinical protocols?

~~~
pygy_
You should have read slightly further:

 _Preliminary data show that STF_ [i.e. short term fasting] _is safe, but
challenging in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Ongoing clinical trials
need to unravel if STF can also diminish toxicity and increase efficacy of
chemotherapeutic regimes in daily practice._

~~~
toomuchtodo
I do fasting myself, so I understand the challenges of doing it (although not
while also having cancer and undergoing chemo). Have to have the physical and
emotional fortitude to handle being hungry all the time.

~~~
eloff
This seems near trivial compared to the physical and emotional fortitude to
handle having cancer and undergoing chemotherapy (taking low-dose poison in
the hope it kills the cancer before you.)

~~~
sowbug
My experience was the nausea was far worse than any hunger. It didn't help
that at the time I was encouraged to eat. I intentionally chose foods I didn't
like so that I wouldn't associate favorite foods with nausea in the future. In
retrospect I would have appreciated the option not to eat.

------
sabujp
fast for 24-60 hours when i get cancer, got it

------
chrisbennet
[https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/6-reasons-why-a-
calorie...](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-
not-a-calorie)

It just isn’t true “that a calorie is just a calorie”. A simple search show
ample evidence.

