Genetic mutations during cell reproduction cause cancer.

That is the somatic mutation theory of cancer. It has not been proven, it’s very popular. There are other theories such as the metabolic mitochondrial theory.

https://doi.org/10.3390/biom12050662 - Paradoxical Behavior of Oncogenes Undermines the Somatic Mutation Theory

If the prevailing theory has many paradoxes (i.e. the oncogenic paradox) , then the model needs to be updated. So no, we don’t know what causes cancer, we know what is associated with cancer.

Gene mutations absolutely have a role to play, it’s reasonable, but is it causal or part of the chain toward cancer? I think it’s necessary, but not sufficient. Hence not causal, hence it doesn’t “cause” cancer by itself.

No no, they will play with the formula so it doesn’t cure in a single jab but stabilizes it… So you need to take maintenance jabs every week.

Recurring revenue!

Why do those things cause cancer? Why do some smokers not die of cancer? The reason it’s so vague is because we don’t actually know what causes cancer. We know what is associated with cancer, but not what causes it.

We know that cancer is caused by genetic mutations during cell replication

That is the Somatic Mutation Theory the most popular theory, but it is not the only currently researched, and viable, theory of cancer.

So yes, we have theories on the genesis of cancer, we don’t have any causal data to make statements such as “excess weight causes cancer”

Article title: cause

Article: published in the journal BMJ Oncology, showed that increases in body mass index (BMI) alone are not sufficient to explain the overall rise in cancer incidence, pointing to additional, suspected or currently unknown causes.

Not cause, associated

This is the pr office for the university you think they would have a obligation to get cause and association correct.

We don’t know what causes cancer. It’s the oncogenic paradox. We have lots of theories…

There’s an entire subset of people who essentially create their own reality and anything that contradicts it is immediately rejected, completely at a subconscious level, so the idea of questioning doesn’t even cross their minds.

These people are all over lemmy!

Yes! Support your local regenerative farmer! Directly if you can.

That infographic doesn’t make the distinction between arable land and pastoral land. I.e. there are areas we can’t grow crops but can feed ruminates. That breakdown is like 30/70 from the agricultural section of the infographic. FAO Source

Meaning even if every cow was dead, the crop number doesn’t increase

Cardiometabolic function isn’t the same as metabolic syndrome. Cardiometabolic function would be like a spectrum or perhaps a map. Metabolic syndrome would be the section of spectrum(say red in the rainbow) or area on the map (like a swamp) that designates the “danger zone.”

Here the term “optimal” is used and that’s around 7 percent as having optimal cardiometabolic function. That doesn’t instantly mean 93 percent are impaired. The other classes are **intermediate, which is half of people, ** and lastly poor which was ~44 percent.

I’m afraid your anchored on “metabolic syndrome” when I am referring to impaired metabolism, since that is driven by hyperinsulinemia - and thus demonstrates a epidemic of elevated insulin in the population at large which is driven by persistently elevated blood glucose… which is exactly the environment cancer needs to thrive… And not optimal does mean a degree of impairment by definition.

Thanks for those links, they do demonstrate cancer has a very interesting metabolic plasticity, but they do not definitively show fatty acid ATP synthesis, your Shilpa review even indicates FAO is down regulated in a variety of known cancer types… However, I hope when you read my references you just missed the section in the above paper, which addresses your rebuttal:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10863-025-10059-w - Questionable Assumption 5: Fatty acid oxidation can provide sufficient ATP production through OxPhos in cancer cells

Regardless if Fatty Acids have some role to play, can we agree that glucose is very much the favored fuel? So even if we disagree on metabolic mitochondrial dysfunction as the basis of cancer, can we agree there is no benefit to feeding EXTRA glucose into a cancer patient?

After everything runs through the Krebs cycle and electron transport chain, you end up with roughly 106 ATP. Which is a huge amount compared with glucose(1 glucose is about 30 ATP.)

Yes, this is addressed in the Seyfried paper above, the problem is in dysfunctional mitochondria glucose pathways while less efficient are massively upgraded… i.e. why the PET scan works.

Weight gain is typically merely about CICO, barring rare genetic disorders. With an unimpaired metabolism, if you eat excess calories you will gain weight. No hormonal imbalance necessary. This is basic energy expenditure(Calories Out) to calories consumed(Calories In, thus CICO.)

CICO is technically accurate, but really describes what happened after the fact, not why it happened. Plus humans are not closed systems, have many inputs and outputs not accounted for in human level CICO, nutrition labels can be off by as much as 20% for calories. Humans are NOT bom calorimeters, we don’t burn our inputs to heat water (how calories are measured). Please have a look at the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity https://lemmy.world/post/33254443 - Basically We are hormonal machines, elevated insulin drives obesity.

Actual metabolic syndrome afflicts 30-40 percent of Americans. Not anywhere near 96 percent.

I’m sorry, I misremembered the number, its actually 93% with impaired metabolic health - https://hackertalks.com/post/7340607 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.04.046 - I’m using impaired metabolic health and not metabolic syndrome, because the key problem is hyperinsulinemia not necessarily the cluster of clinical signs used for metabolic syndrome that can take years to manifest. Impaired metabolism indicates elevated insulin.

Some people are just fat and diet and exercise will absolutely work metabolically to control their weight. Some people lack of willpower.

They are fat because of the hyperinsulinemia, without the elevated insulin they wouldn’t be fat (See the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity above).

Gastric bypass again proves that with caloric reduction their metabolism, in most cases, is fully capable of sustaining weight loss.

50% bypass patients regain the weight in 2ish years https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-007-9265-1 , because just restricting calories didn’t teach those people how to eat, and how to fix their insulin. If your only eating junk food, a gastric bypass by itself can’t fix your insulin (which is the core problem of obesity)

Cancer metabolism is also flexible. It does not exclusively depend on glucose and is not “starved” by removing carbs. Fats and amino acids are fair game for many cancers.

Glucose, glutamate. By the cancer as mitochondrial dysfunction model - https://hackertalks.com/post/13010967 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s10863-025-10059-w TLDR here is the energy consumption and fermentation of cancer cells and show that only glucose and glutamine can produce ATP in cancer cells. we see that cancer cells are NOT flexible and can not metabolize fat.

Gluconeogenesis alone creates sufficient glucose to feed cancer.

100% Correct, but no need to feed cancer with exogenous glucose that is not nutritionally essential. You can’t STARVE cancer by removing carbs from food, but you can stop helping it accelerate.

4x is quite an exaggeration…

3.42x, but writing 4x is just easier. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-017-0966-1

This makes sense at many levels -

Weight gain is a symptom of impaired metabolism, of which 96% of western adults have some degree of impairment. Most metabolism issues are driven by excessive carbohydrate load, which drives elevated blood glucose, which drives elevated insulin, which drives hormonal imbalances (i.e. weight gain).

Cancer cannot metabolize fat. Adults with impaired metabolism, with excessive carbohydrate intake, with elevated glucose levels are filling their blood stream with the very fuel cancer cells need to thrive and out compete their bodies immune system.

T2D is another 4x risk factor for cancer (i believe for the some logic as above)

I have to avoid many of the most common food crops specifically because of inflammation. Wheat, soy, and nuts.

How do you measure your inflammation? periodic blood draw lab tests? What diet did you end up with for the lowest inflammation?

Yeah, so I took a quick read of it… It’s even better, it’s not plant based vs omnivore… it’s actually Whole food (plant or animal) plus exercise vs standard processed diet and no exercise.

Direct link to the paper: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2026.104631

Due to the limited number of RCTs with a pure diet only intervention, we decided to include studies with mixed interventions, for example, PBDPs paired with exercise prescriptions.

mixed variables - so its not just PBDP’s its PBDP’s plus exercise.

Studies were excluded if they were…an inappropriate control was used not an omnivorous diet

That was a interesting exclusion - So a non-plant based non-omnivorous diet, a zero-carb carnivore RCT? I wonder why that exclusion specifically

in PBDP (Plant Based Dietary Pattern) they include : Vegan, lacto-ovo-vegetarian, and “wholefood, plant-based” – which includes meats and seafoods.

… So this study is saying a whole food (plant or animal) eating pattern PLUS exercise shows lower inflammation markers then a standard processed food eating pattern & no-exercise… I mean, sure, yeah… no big shock there.

Significant differences between groups at baseline; median CRP was 10 mg/l lower in those on vegan diet than those on the reference diet.

Wait? What? How can a RCT have significantly different CRP levels at baseline? That means it wasn’t a RCT… Because if there was a vegan group before the trail, then they couldn’t get randomized into different interventions… Yet this paper says its a meta-analysis of RCTs…

Indeed. May also means May Not.

Bonus: Anything compared to the standard western diet (heavily processed, lots of carbs) - does better. The base line is so low any intervention actually appears beneficial.

So is the PBDP better then eating fast food and gunk every day? Sure. Is it optimal compared to other potential eating patterns - May… be?

One problem lots of papers have is confusing a inflammatory response with anti-inflammatory. i.e. a hormetic effect of consuming a inflammatory compound that elicits a anti-inflammatory response… it’s still inflammatory, and the net effect is anti-inflammatory in the context of a healthy person with a large “inflammation budget”, but someone sick who is battling systemic inflammation already wouldn’t see any benefit since their body is already on red alert, and the inflammatory compound would just inflame them more.

Portable phone: GOS

Desk phone (wifi only): opionated apps that won’t run on GoS… so basically banking

Rooting a phone: it changes your security model, so it’s really about the risk reward payoff. Your risk surface area expands greatly.

In general look at something like qubes, even if you won’t run it, it’s a good thought experiment to see how you would segment things into indivisible risk domains and workflows

Sandbox google in a profile you can turn off, use it to install your app through the play store then copy that app to another profile. You can turn off the sandbox profile until you want to update.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changan_Lumin

It exists (50 hp though). I drove it yesterday

Sure, but keto says it totally fine to eat a steak and a stick of butter and nothing else. That doesn’t seem sustainable.

Yet it is, we only need to look at the documented human populations that only had access to animal food before westernization. They sustained, even thrived.

Also I’ve never met anyone that does keto that allows any carbs.

Keto is just metabolic ketosis, any biological state while the body is producing detectable levels of blood ketones. Anyone can achieve it <20g carbs per day, and many people have higher tolerances (age, muscle mass, resting metabolic rate etc).

Just trying to offer insight into the down votes. I don’t think it’s the IF crew doing it. It’s probably people who are anti-keto.

Which includes you… https://lemvotes.org/comment/sh.itjust.works/comment/23819049

Keto (the actual dietary principle) is just based on a different distribution of macronutrients when achieving your caloric deficit.

Keto is any diet that maintains the metabolic state of ketosis. This can be done with overfeeding, underfeeding, fasting… and doesn’t even require complete nutrition (though that is always a good idea).