Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Can Sugar Cause Cancer
Options
Replies
-
anothermfpuser wrote: »
Last I knew, lifetime risk of breast cancer was somewhere in the range of 1 in 8 women in the US, plus or minus, just looking at population-wide risk. 20% would be 1 in 5, so substantially higher.
(Men can get breast cancer, too, BTW: It's just that it's fairly rare.)1 -
As a long-term (17 year) stage III breast cancer survivor, I've learned that regular moderate-to-vigorous exercise appears to be helpful in reducing odds of metastatic recurrence, and (according to the American Cancer Society, among others) it also improves odds of avoiding breast cancer in the first place.
In my understanding, healthy body weight is an odds-improver for avoiding breast cancer, as is light to no alcohol consumption, and overall healthy eating (lean protein, healthy fats, lots of veggies & fruits).
As you're discovering, no reasonable, expert, evidence-supported authority suggests that a daily cookie is Doom.
Best wishes!
11 -
Wrong, glucose doesn't feed cancer. It's a myth. Sure, glucose is used by rapidly growing and dividing cancer cells, but amino acids and fats are also used by those same cells. Bet your favorite keto or pseudoscienctific quack website didn't tell you that.Glucose does feed most cancers.
Still doesn't mean glucose feeds cancerIn fact PET scans basically just shows where there is very high glucose which is where cancer will be found.
You should actually read about it yourself before you tell others to, it's clear you haven't or if you have, you didn't understand it.If you want the science, look into the Warburg effect.
You understand wrong. I'm not sure what this even means. How is cancer normally eliminated?As I understand, highers insulin and glucose levels does tend to make it a bit easier for cancer to get a hold rather than being eliminated as it normally is.
I'm guessing your insinuating these foods "feed" cancer. Cancer cells also use amino acids and fats, so I guess we should avoid the the keto diet also.Glucose is the main building block of all carbs like flours, sugars, veggies and fruits.
Fixed it for ya.Researchers are looking into using very low carb diets as a complimentary to cancer therapy.
This article doesn't say what you think it says
Diet can reverse cancer? Nope. Wrong again. But I'm open to looking at your misinterpreted studies that say differently.It makes sense to me that if the diet can be used to help reverse cancer, it could also be used to prevent it.
You should really stop posting about anything relating to human biology, disease, and science in general. You consistently get it wrong.25 -
There's a lot of opinions being thrown around here, and I don't know how many are from qualified experts. I know I am not an expert, so I will just say that I try to eat as healthy as I can with lots of veggies and keep my weight in check. I know that I feel better when I avoid junk food. Good luck figuring out what works best for you 3
-
Wrong, glucose doesn't feed cancer. It's a myth. Sure, glucose is used by rapidly growing and dividing cancer cells, but amino acids and fats are also used by those same cells. Bet your favorite keto or pseudoscienctific quack website didn't tell you that.Glucose does feed most cancers.
Still doesn't mean glucose feeds cancerIn fact PET scans basically just shows where there is very high glucose which is where cancer will be found.
That sentence does not mean that just glucose feeds cancer, but glucose does provide the primary fuel for most cancers. Cancer usually uses glucose to grow.
You should actually read about it yourself before you tell others to, it's clear you haven't or if you have, you didn't understand it.If you want the science, look into the Warburg effect.
I have. No need to try to belittle me
You understand wrong. I'm not sure what this even means. How is cancer normally eliminated?As I understand, highers insulin and glucose levels does tend to make it a bit easier for cancer to get a hold rather than being eliminated as it normally is.
The immune system usually eliminates cancerous growths before they get to be a problem.
I'm guessing your insinuating these foods "feed" cancer. Cancer cells also use amino acids and fats, so I guess we should avoid the the keto diet also.Glucose is the main building block of all carbs like flours, sugars, veggies and fruits.
Fasting actually has been shown to be complimentary to cancer therapies...
But in all seriousness, are you saying that cancer cells tend to use fat and protein, just as much as glucose, in order to grow and spread?
Fixed it for ya.Researchers are looking into using very low carb diets as a complimentary to cancer therapy.
You said basically the same thing I did...
This article doesn't say what you think it says
Okay... ?
Diet can reverse cancer? Nope. Wrong again. But I'm open to looking at your misinterpreted studies that say differently.It makes sense to me that if the diet can be used to help reverse cancer, it could also be used to prevent it.
By reverse, I meant to treat, to slow and hopefully shrink, cancer. Hopefully to eradicate it. Some cancers are successfully treatable. Diet can help with cancer treatment.
Treating cancers with diet is not well researched yet. There are some animal trials that can work with some cancers to slow their growth. I don't want to go looking for them.You should really stop posting about anything relating to human biology, disease, and science in general. You consistently get it wrong.
LOL Friendly!21 -
My grip on this is, where sugar/glucose is high in the diet there is a tendency in a body which is under stress eliminating them the oxygenation of cells is greatly reduced. Oxygen keeps the bodies cells thriving.6
-
Glucose does feed most cancers. In fact PET scans basically just shows where there is very high glucose which is where cancer will be found. If you want the science, look into the Warburg effect.
As I understand, highers insulin and glucose levels does tend to make it a bit easier for cancer to get a hold rather than being eliminated as it normally is. Glucose is the main building block of all carbs like flours, sugars, veggies and fruits.
Researchers are looking into using very low carb diets as complimentary cancer therapy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4215472/ It makes sense to me that if the diet can be used to help reverse cancer, it could also be used to prevent it.
Could you look into low carb cookies? I've had peanut butter cookies made without any grains or sugars - was quite good.
Thank you for responding. Sadly, these are very specific cookies to which I have become addicted. One option that I am planning to try is protein balls made with oatmeal, nut butter, dark chocolate chips, and protein powder. They might give me the "decadent jolt" that I get from my current treat, without some of the problems associated with processed junk food.
0 -
I have made these protein balls many times! They are rich and in my opinion, will satisfy the craving!! I have mine with hot tea or iced coffee and enjoy!
1 -
What does your doctor recommend? I wouldn't suggest you take medical advice from your coworker or internet blogs or forums.
I don't think there is much substance behind the popular internet claim that sugar somehow causes or potentiates cancer. I think like most falsehoods there is a basis of truth in that glucose would feed cancer cells...but exactly in the same way it would feed any of your other cells so it isn't a meaningful point. Also how much glucose is in circulation is tightly homeostatically regulated so eating a cookie doesn't actually have that much meaningful effect anyways unless you have regulatory issues like diabetes.12 -
Cancer cells also use amino acids and fats to grow also.
Wrong, glucose doesn't feed cancer. It's a myth. Sure, glucose is used by rapidly growing and dividing cancer cells, but amino acids and fats are also used by those same cells. Bet your favorite keto or pseudoscienctific quack website didn't tell you that.Glucose does feed most cancers.
Still doesn't mean glucose feeds cancerIn fact PET scans basically just shows where there is very high glucose which is where cancer will be found.
That sentence does not mean that just glucose feeds cancer, but glucose does provide the primary fuel for most cancers. Cancer usually uses glucose to grow.
https://www.cell.com/cell-chemical-biology/fulltext/S2451-9456(16)30083-6
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161207133427.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4380238/
This is the problem when someone who has zero knowledge about a very complex issue and tries to simplfy it by just regurgitating a few keto propaganda talking points.
Just to be clear, there is no evidence that going on a low carb, low sugar, no sugar, atkins, keto or any type of special diet will in shink, reverse, or cure cancer. Zero.
And the immune system also protects cancer cells so they can get a hold.
You should actually read about it yourself before you tell others to, it's clear you haven't or if you have, you didn't understand it.If you want the science, look into the Warburg effect.
I have. No need to try to belittle me
You understand wrong. I'm not sure what this even means. How is cancer normally eliminated?As I understand, highers insulin and glucose levels does tend to make it a bit easier for cancer to get a hold rather than being eliminated as it normally is.
The immune system usually eliminates cancerous growths before they get to be a problem.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090807091437.htm
Also, would love to see the evidence for this little nugget of info:As I understand, highers insulin and glucose levels does tend to make it a bit easier for cancer to get a hold
Nice strawman. Please point out where I said this. I'll wait.But in all seriousness, are you saying that cancer cells tend to use fat and protein, just as much as glucose, in order to grow and spread?
with chemotherapy and/or radiation and/or surgery. But not by diet.By reverse, I meant to treat, to slow and hopefully shrink, cancer. Hopefully to eradicate it. Some cancers are successfully treatable.
These 2 statements kind of contradict each other. if its not well researched then how do you know diet can help with cancer treatment?Diet can help with cancer treatment.
Treating cancers with diet is not well researched yet.
13 -
Cancer cells also use amino acids and fats to grow also.
Wrong, glucose doesn't feed cancer. It's a myth. Sure, glucose is used by rapidly growing and dividing cancer cells, but amino acids and fats are also used by those same cells. Bet your favorite keto or pseudoscienctific quack website didn't tell you that.Glucose does feed most cancers.
Still doesn't mean glucose feeds cancerIn fact PET scans basically just shows where there is very high glucose which is where cancer will be found.
That sentence does not mean that just glucose feeds cancer, but glucose does provide the primary fuel for most cancers. Cancer usually uses glucose to grow.
https://www.cell.com/cell-chemical-biology/fulltext/S2451-9456(16)30083-6
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161207133427.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4380238/
This is the problem when someone who has zero knowledge about a very complex issue and tries to simplfy it by just regurgitating a few keto propaganda talking points.
Just to be clear, there is no evidence that going on a low carb, low sugar, no sugar, atkins, keto or any type of special diet will in shink, reverse, or cure cancer. Zero.
You're projecting. I never said that cancer does not use protein or fats. I said glucose is the primary fuel for most cancers. Are you saying that is wrong (I guess I don't understand in my zero knowledge fueled by keto propaganda...)
As I said, there is really not many human trials testing ketogenic or low carb diets in complimenting a cancer therapy yet. There's dogs and other animals but I'm not sure if anyone is willing to look at that.
This is an interesting lecture on the topic and how they are working towards early clinical trials:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpiyQ_2EbF0
You should actually read about it yourself before you tell others to, it's clear you haven't or if you have, you didn't understand it.If you want the science, look into the Warburg effect.
I have. No need to try to belittle me
And the immune system also protects cancer cells so they can get a hold.
You understand wrong. I'm not sure what this even means. How is cancer normally eliminated?As I understand, highers insulin and glucose levels does tend to make it a bit easier for cancer to get a hold rather than being eliminated as it normally is.
The immune system usually eliminates cancerous growths before they get to be a problem.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090807091437.htm
I don't know what you want me to say to this. My first response was "Duh". I was asked about how cancer is eliminated before it really gets a hold and grows. I answered. I don't believe I was incorrect.As I understand, highers insulin and glucose levels does tend to make it a bit easier for cancer to get a hold
Nice strawman. Please point out where I said this. I'll wait.But in all seriousness, are you saying that cancer cells tend to use fat and protein, just as much as glucose, in order to grow and spread?
I didn't. I asked what you meant by writing this:I'm guessing your insinuating these foods "feed" cancer. Cancer cells also use amino acids and fats, so I guess we should avoid the the keto diet also.
Are you saying cancer uses fat and protein, just as much as glucose, in order to grow (rapidly) and spread?
with chemotherapy and/or radiation and/or surgery. But not by diet.By reverse, I meant to treat, to slow and hopefully shrink, cancer. Hopefully to eradicate it. Some cancers are successfully treatable.
I know of some people who are using diet (whole foods, low carb) to treat cancer with the supervision and blessing of doctors.
I guess when or if you get cancer (I think for men it's sadly close to a 50% risk) then you go with that. I may put more into trying lifestyle changes...I've already put into effect a few things I believe could help prevent or treat cancer.
These 2 statements kind of contradict each other. if its not well researched then how do you know diet can help with cancer treatment?Diet can help with cancer treatment.
Treating cancers with diet is not well researched yet.
I don't think so. There is some research and there are some promising outcomes. We can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that dietary changes will help treat or prevent cancer, but there is some evidence and proof.
Like any therapy, it won't work for all cancer or all people.9 -
@nvmomketo Glucose is used by cancer cells for fuel because glucose is used by all cells in the body as fuel. It's not like that sets cancer cells apart from healthy cells, which I think is what your post made it sound like.
All I will add is what I think is imperative to add, which is that NO ONE should rely solely on diet to treat cancer. And that is necessary to say because there are people who are so afraid of chemo and radiation that they refuse them for more "natural" treatment. And while there are folks who claim they cured their own cancer, there are also people who die of cancer while eating a special diet or drinking green juice. Diet should be used as a complimentary treatment under the care of a board certified oncologist. There is a burgeoning industry of anti-oncology woo peddlers taking advantage of sick people and it's reprehensible.
Sorry, but that is personally one of my easy to push buttons, I'll step down off my soapbox now!17 -
@nvmomketo Glucose is used by cancer cells for fuel because glucose is used by all cells in the body as fuel. It's not like that sets cancer cells apart from healthy cells, which I think is what your post made it sound like.
All I will add is what I think is imperative to add, which is that NO ONE should rely solely on diet to treat cancer. And that is necessary to say because there are people who are so afraid of chemo and radiation that they refuse them for more "natural" treatment. And while there are folks who claim they cured their own cancer, there are also people who die of cancer while eating a special diet or drinking green juice. Diet should be used as a complimentary treatment under the care of a board certified oncologist. There is a burgeoning industry of anti-oncology woo peddlers taking advantage of sick people and it's reprehensible.
Sorry, but that is personally one of my easy to push buttons, I'll step down off my soapbox now!
Ahh. I see. Thank you. I just meant to imply that cancer uses more glucose (fuel) than most cells. They are hungry cells.
I do understand it that with mitochondrial malfunction, cancer cells are often more reliant on glucose as a fuel than the more metabolically flexible, typical body cell (beyond obligate glucose users like RBCs).
And yes. Absolutely. Diet should only be considered complimentary to all treatments. There may be the very few that can rely only on diet, but those are few and far between. For the rest, it could be fatal.6 -
@nvmomketo Glucose is used by cancer cells for fuel because glucose is used by all cells in the body as fuel. It's not like that sets cancer cells apart from healthy cells, which I think is what your post made it sound like.
All I will add is what I think is imperative to add, which is that NO ONE should rely solely on diet to treat cancer. And that is necessary to say because there are people who are so afraid of chemo and radiation that they refuse them for more "natural" treatment. And while there are folks who claim they cured their own cancer, there are also people who die of cancer while eating a special diet or drinking green juice. Diet should be used as a complimentary treatment under the care of a board certified oncologist. There is a burgeoning industry of anti-oncology woo peddlers taking advantage of sick people and it's reprehensible.
Sorry, but that is personally one of my easy to push buttons, I'll step down off my soapbox now!
Ahh. I see. Thank you. I just meant to imply that cancer uses more glucose (fuel) than most cells. They are hungry cells.
I do understand it that with mitochondrial malfunction, cancer cells are often more reliant on glucose as a fuel than the more metabolically flexible, typical body cell (beyond obligate glucose users like RBCs).
And yes. Absolutely. Diet should only be considered complimentary to all treatments. There may be the very few that can rely only on diet, but those are few and far between. For the rest, it could be fatal.
It's worth considering that cancer cells are growing/multiplying much more rapidly than normal cells, thus likely use more fuel for that reason, without even considering others.
One of the reasons for side effects from common types of chemotherapy is that the chemotherapeutic interventions target fast-growing cells, so other (healthy) fast-growing cells tend to suffer more than slow-growing ones. Thus the commonness of digestive system side effects, hair loss, mouth sores, etc., all of which depend on fast-growing healthy cells.7 -
@nvmomketo Glucose is used by cancer cells for fuel because glucose is used by all cells in the body as fuel. It's not like that sets cancer cells apart from healthy cells, which I think is what your post made it sound like.
All I will add is what I think is imperative to add, which is that NO ONE should rely solely on diet to treat cancer. And that is necessary to say because there are people who are so afraid of chemo and radiation that they refuse them for more "natural" treatment. And while there are folks who claim they cured their own cancer, there are also people who die of cancer while eating a special diet or drinking green juice. Diet should be used as a complimentary treatment under the care of a board certified oncologist. There is a burgeoning industry of anti-oncology woo peddlers taking advantage of sick people and it's reprehensible.
Sorry, but that is personally one of my easy to push buttons, I'll step down off my soapbox now!
Ahh. I see. Thank you. I just meant to imply that cancer uses more glucose (fuel) than most cells. They are hungry cells.
I do understand it that with mitochondrial malfunction, cancer cells are often more reliant on glucose as a fuel than the more metabolically flexible, typical body cell (beyond obligate glucose users like RBCs).
And yes. Absolutely. Diet should only be considered complimentary to all treatments. There may be the very few that can rely only on diet, but those are few and far between. For the rest, it could be fatal.
It's worth considering that cancer cells are growing/multiplying much more rapidly than normal cells, thus likely use more fuel for that reason, without even considering others.
One of the reasons for side effects from common types of chemotherapy is that the chemotherapeutic interventions target fast-growing cells, so other (healthy) fast-growing cells tend to suffer more than slow-growing ones. Thus the commonness of digestive system side effects, hair loss, mouth sores, etc., all of which depend on fast-growing healthy cells.
True. Agreed.
Those who think you could use low glucose diets as a complimentary therapy wonder what would happen if the fast growing cells are not given enough fuel - what if fermentation is made more difficult? Or if it slows down PARP14? https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8882
A whole foods lower carb diet usually won't hurt, unless someone is misled and told that it is all they need to recover. Low carb may even help minimize cachexia in some patients in some cancers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165433/5 -
@nvmomketo Glucose is used by cancer cells for fuel because glucose is used by all cells in the body as fuel. It's not like that sets cancer cells apart from healthy cells, which I think is what your post made it sound like.
All I will add is what I think is imperative to add, which is that NO ONE should rely solely on diet to treat cancer. And that is necessary to say because there are people who are so afraid of chemo and radiation that they refuse them for more "natural" treatment. And while there are folks who claim they cured their own cancer, there are also people who die of cancer while eating a special diet or drinking green juice. Diet should be used as a complimentary treatment under the care of a board certified oncologist. There is a burgeoning industry of anti-oncology woo peddlers taking advantage of sick people and it's reprehensible.
Sorry, but that is personally one of my easy to push buttons, I'll step down off my soapbox now!
Ahh. I see. Thank you. I just meant to imply that cancer uses more glucose (fuel) than most cells. They are hungry cells.
I do understand it that with mitochondrial malfunction, cancer cells are often more reliant on glucose as a fuel than the more metabolically flexible, typical body cell (beyond obligate glucose users like RBCs).
And yes. Absolutely. Diet should only be considered complimentary to all treatments. There may be the very few that can rely only on diet, but those are few and far between. For the rest, it could be fatal.
It's worth considering that cancer cells are growing/multiplying much more rapidly than normal cells, thus likely use more fuel for that reason, without even considering others.
One of the reasons for side effects from common types of chemotherapy is that the chemotherapeutic interventions target fast-growing cells, so other (healthy) fast-growing cells tend to suffer more than slow-growing ones. Thus the commonness of digestive system side effects, hair loss, mouth sores, etc., all of which depend on fast-growing healthy cells.
True. Agreed.
Those who think you could use low glucose diets as a complimentary therapy wonder what would happen if the fast growing cells are not given enough fuel - what if fermentation is made more difficult? Or if it slows down PARP14? https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8882
A whole foods lower carb diet usually won't hurt, unless someone is misled and told that it is all they need to recover. Low carb may even help minimize cachexia in some patients in some cancers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165433/
I'm with Kimny that cancer patients should consult with and listen to their board-certified oncologist. I know you haven't recommended otherwise, but I'm wanting to underscore it. It's common for cancer centers to have RDs on staff to consult with patients. I found the RD at my cancer center very knowledgeable and helpful.
There are a lot of nuances to dietary interventions as complementary therapies. Certain cancers, and certain mainstream treatments, can require or contraindicate certain foods, supplements, or eating strategies. I don't think people who haven't been through it really appreciate that.7 -
Wow, just wow, I'm speechless. You're doing some serious speculating here and then linking to a research article that has nothing to do with what you are speculating about.Those who think you could use low glucose diets as a complimentary therapy wonder what would happen if the fast growing cells are not given enough fuel - what if fermentation is made more difficult? Or if it slows down PARP14? https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8882
Do you think people are not going to look at your links? Your link here is about pancreatic cancer in in-vitro cell lines and in mice. How you interpret that as "some patients" and "some cancers" is beyond me.A whole foods lower carb diet usually won't hurt, unless someone is misled and told that it is all they need to recover. Low carb may even help minimize cachexia in some patients in some cancers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165433/
Seriously, quit while you're still behind.12 -
@nvmomketo Glucose is used by cancer cells for fuel because glucose is used by all cells in the body as fuel. It's not like that sets cancer cells apart from healthy cells, which I think is what your post made it sound like.
All I will add is what I think is imperative to add, which is that NO ONE should rely solely on diet to treat cancer. And that is necessary to say because there are people who are so afraid of chemo and radiation that they refuse them for more "natural" treatment. And while there are folks who claim they cured their own cancer, there are also people who die of cancer while eating a special diet or drinking green juice. Diet should be used as a complimentary treatment under the care of a board certified oncologist. There is a burgeoning industry of anti-oncology woo peddlers taking advantage of sick people and it's reprehensible.
Sorry, but that is personally one of my easy to push buttons, I'll step down off my soapbox now!
Ahh. I see. Thank you. I just meant to imply that cancer uses more glucose (fuel) than most cells. They are hungry cells.
I do understand it that with mitochondrial malfunction, cancer cells are often more reliant on glucose as a fuel than the more metabolically flexible, typical body cell (beyond obligate glucose users like RBCs).
And yes. Absolutely. Diet should only be considered complimentary to all treatments. There may be the very few that can rely only on diet, but those are few and far between. For the rest, it could be fatal.
It's worth considering that cancer cells are growing/multiplying much more rapidly than normal cells, thus likely use more fuel for that reason, without even considering others.
One of the reasons for side effects from common types of chemotherapy is that the chemotherapeutic interventions target fast-growing cells, so other (healthy) fast-growing cells tend to suffer more than slow-growing ones. Thus the commonness of digestive system side effects, hair loss, mouth sores, etc., all of which depend on fast-growing healthy cells.
True. Agreed.
Those who think you could use low glucose diets as a complimentary therapy wonder what would happen if the fast growing cells are not given enough fuel - what if fermentation is made more difficult? Or if it slows down PARP14? https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8882
A whole foods lower carb diet usually won't hurt, unless someone is misled and told that it is all they need to recover. Low carb may even help minimize cachexia in some patients in some cancers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165433/
I'm with Kimny that cancer patients should consult with and listen to their board-certified oncologist. I know you haven't recommended otherwise, but I'm wanting to underscore it. It's common for cancer centers to have RDs on staff to consult with patients. I found the RD at my cancer center very knowledgeable and helpful.
There are a lot of nuances to dietary interventions as complementary therapies. Certain cancers, and certain mainstream treatments, can require or contraindicate certain foods, supplements, or eating strategies. I don't think people who haven't been through it really appreciate that.
Absolutely.0 -
Wow, just wow, I'm speechless. You're doing some serious speculating here and then linking to a research article that has nothing to do with what you are speculating about.Those who think you could use low glucose diets as a complimentary therapy wonder what would happen if the fast growing cells are not given enough fuel - what if fermentation is made more difficult? Or if it slows down PARP14? https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8882
Do you think people are not going to look at your links? Your link here is about pancreatic cancer in in-vitro cell lines and in mice. How you interpret that as "some patients" and "some cancers" is beyond me.A whole foods lower carb diet usually won't hurt, unless someone is misled and told that it is all they need to recover. Low carb may even help minimize cachexia in some patients in some cancers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165433/
Seriously, quit while you're still behind.
Be speechless. OR actually answer a question or contribute something helpful or thought provoking beyond "wow just wow." LOL
I know what links I posted. I also know that I said there are very few human trials and did not think people would appreciate dog and animal trial links... But there isn't much more beyond that. Maybe in 10-20 years there will be. That is why my responses have been worded with lots of may's, possibly's, and could's. Nothing is certain.
I give up. My guess is that you are just trolling and trying to get a reaction from me since you are mocking my posts and not responding to questions.18 -
nvomketo, you are up where the scientist are going. There are some people here who consider they know it all and are so far behind the observations, so much so, it is frightening, terefying. The science behind cell activity is so very, very intersting I become so enthrawled, its so much more intersting to me than any novella. ncib/gov.. nature and all the other accademic science sites, so much excelent reading.20
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions