Tag Archive for: cancer

Body Fat: Location Matters

/in /by

Last week, I mentioned in passing that a hippopotamus has less body fat than most humans. Since then, I’ve wondered exactly how little body fat they had. By several estimations, it’s around 5%—about the same as elite soccer players. That’s not enough fat to cause the hippo health problems as we see in humans; they have a thick skin and a bad disposition to boot. What they also have is a lot of muscle.

I was reminded about the differences between visceral and subcutaneous fat. Subcutaneous fat is found underneath the skin and seems to be more a storage facility for fat. Visceral fat is the worst type because it’s packed in and around our organs like the liver, kidneys, and intestines. It’s also metabolically active and not in a good way. It causes the release of inflammatory hormones which contribute to all sorts of diseases such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer. But is it hazardous for every person who is obese, even morbidly obese? I’ll let you know on Saturday.

Tomorrow is the Insider Conference Call. Without realizing it, I picked a day where many readers have another important teleconference that they want to attend. The Guest Pass is still a great option because you can watch the replay at your leisure, and if you send your questions before the meeting begins at 9 p.m. Eastern Time, I’ll answer them as well. It’s an opportunity to double your education investment that can help your business and your health. I hope you’ll join me.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Zeaxanthin: More Than Eye Health

/in /by

Zeaxanthin is a carotenoid we know contributes to eye health, but recent research has shown that it may be beneficial in boosting the right immune cells that will interfere with tumor growth.

Researchers examined the effect of zeaxanthin in mice getting immunotherapy for cancer treatment. While the immunotherapy worked, its effect was enhanced in the mice getting the zeaxanthin supplements by slowing tumor growth. The researchers took it one step further. They examined the impact on human tumor cells enhanced with specific traits. The results were that the carotenoid enhanced the cancer-cell-killing ability in several forms of cancer.

This is basic science research to find the next potential beneficial treatments for disease or to enhance the current treatments so they are more effective. This is how science is supposed to work. The head researcher has been studying this topic for years before this breakthrough. There’s a lot more research to go before we may see the results of studies like I reviewed this week.

The Bottom Line

I think these two studies illustrate the benefit of nutrition for health and as a potential aid to recover from disease. Just keep in mind the concept of food first, then add supplements to enhance impact if necessary. Remember, the first study examined one amino acid, cysteine, found in healthy protein from animal and plant sources. The second used zeaxanthin as a supplement, but foods are the source of that carotenoid. I think that eating better may be the way to get healthier and beat conditions before they become a problem. If you try to eat a dark-green vegetable frequently, then add some yellow and orange fruits and veggies, you’ll get your zeaxanthin, plus lots of other good nutrients.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

References:
1. Nature (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09589-5
2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2025.102324

Cysteine for Gut Health

/in /by

The science behind the treatments of tomorrow lies with basic research today. There have been a couple of studies published recently that use building blocks of food to treat specific conditions. Let’s take a look at the first one today.

Researchers at MIT conducted a study to see if a specific amino acid could help the digestive system recover after damage due to radiation therapy for cancer. They tested 20 amino acids and found that cysteine stimulated the healing process in mice. They found that a high-cysteine diet increased the production of intestinal stem cells. While the actual biochemical process is very complex, it’s ready for human trials.

Why so quickly? Cysteine is a natural substance the body needs. Putting people on a high-cysteine diet for a time would provide no harm and may provide a boost to gut repair. In looking at the references, this approach is also being looked at for people with Crohn’s disease and irritable bowel syndrome.

How do you get a high-cysteine diet? Meat, dairy, legumes, and nuts are all high in cysteine, and it’s also available as a dietary supplement. If you have such issues, talk with your physician about giving the diet a try to see if it will help. Zeaxanthin is the next nutrient we’ll look at on Saturday.

Tomorrow night is the Insider Conference Call. I’m going to be answering Insider questions as well as discussing a couple of success stories for people who used GLP-1 RA to lose weight. Become an Insider by 8 p.m. tomorrow night and you can join us.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: Nature (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09589-5

Research Update on Walking

/in /by

Questioning prevailing thought and dogma are always a good idea in my opinion. Last week’s look at eggs put the issue of dietary cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol in perspective.

This week we’re going to look at the concept of 10,000 steps per day as the number required to get health benefits. This first came up in 2019 when a research group looked for a relationship between walking and all-cause mortality in an elderly group of subjects. There was, and they found that about 7,500 steps per day were needed to see a benefit. (The 10,000 steps as initially promoted was actually a marketing ploy, as I wrote about back then.)

This time, researchers wanted to expand the examining all-cause mortality to include the following:

  • Cardiovascular disease incidence
  • Cardiovascular disease mortality
  • Cancer incidence
  • Cancer mortality
  • Type 2 diabetes symptoms
  • Dementia
  • Depressive symptoms
  • Falls

They used meta-analyses to combine the results from over 60 studies and presented the results in hazard ratios. Every cause of mortality and morbidity decreased once they reached 4,000 steps per day. The benefits continued with additional steps; they slowed down at over 7,000 steps per day but continued to improve.

There were interesting differences between morbidity and mortality. While walking lowered the hazard ratio of cardiovascular disease mortality by 47% or more, it only reduced the hazard ratio of getting cardiovascular disease by 25%. Taken to an extreme, you might still have a heart attack, but you won’t die from it. There were similar results for cancer; the incidence was reduced by only 5%, but mortality was reduced by 34%.

Even though they weren’t randomized controlled trials, I think that’s phenomenal. But could you juice the results even more? I’ll let you know on Saturday.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

References:
1. Lancet Public Health 2025; 10: e668–81
2. JAMA Intern Med. 2019. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0899.

Is Taurine Safe?

/in /by

The title said, “Could your energy drink be fueling cancer?”

“Now what?!” was my first thought. Researchers reported in a press release that the amino acid taurine may help cancerous cells make energy to fuel their growth. Because taurine is found in energy drinks and protein supplements, I wanted to check whether this is something to be concerned about or not.

This was a complex study from the perspective of identifying what were the potential stimulators of tumor progression in bone marrow. A taurine carrier was identified. The researchers conducted tests which added taurine to specific types of leukemia cells to determine tumor progression. They concluded that further research was necessary to find something that would block taurine carriers from carrying taurine into tumor calls where they could stimulate the production of energy via glycolysis. That may be correct or not.

The methods section of the paper was over five single-spaced pages long; that doesn’t make it bad, but each unique test has to have a standard error of the method. In other words, how specific and precise does the method measure the variable?

  • Using available leukemia cell lines is a first step to test theories, but we don’t know if that’s how it would work in living human beings.
  • They did testing on rodents, but there were only a few rodents in each group.
  • On top of that, taurine is naturally produced in the body, and they specifically identified tumor sites as one of the locations where taurine is produced. How can that be differentiated from natural production and supplementation?

In my opinion, they were far too aggressive in their conclusions about energy drinks potentially fueling cancer. For now, the most conservative approach is that if you have an aggressive myeloid leukemia, consider reducing taurine intake from all sources, which would also include meats, dairy, and eggs. There’s a lot more research that has to be done before we definitively know how this information impacts the real world.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

References:
1. https://scitechdaily.com/could-your-energy-drink-be-feeding-cancer-what-scientists-just-discovered/
2. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09018-7

What Research Delays Can Cost

/in /by

In 1911, a physician named Peyton Rous discovered that a microbe, found in a tumor in chicken, was able to infect other chickens causing the same cancer. His findings were thought to be ridiculous because cancer wasn’t caused by a microbe—so his research stopped. Those microbes were called viruses in later years.

Move forward to the 1950s, when a scientist named Ludwig Gross picked up the research and established that viruses caused cancer in several species of animals. What he did not prove was how that was possible. The problem was that it went against the central dogma: DNA could result in the production of RNA, but RNA could not go backward and interfere with DNA. Without knowing how that could happen, it wasn’t possible to establish that viruses caused cancer in humans.

In the early 1970s, David Baltimore, Renato Dulbecco, and Howard Temin discovered a piece of the virus that could retroactively insert itself into the cell DNA and make it a cancer cell. They called that reverse transcriptase, and it led to the term retroviruses. In 1975, the researchers won Nobel Prizes for that discovery.

Now the science turned to finding a retrovirus in humans. Robert Gallo discovered just such a retrovirus in two different humans and submitted his paper to the Journal of Virology. It was rejected on September 15, 1980.

During the early 1980s, there was a disease that seemed to be impacting primarily gay men; at that time, catching the virus was almost always a death sentence. Dr. Gallo turned his attention to this new virus and co-discovered what became known as the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV for short, the virus that causes acquired immunodeficiency disorder, also known as AIDS. That was in 1984—four years after Gallo demonstrated that a retrovirus caused a form of blood cancer, leukemia, in humans.

Those lost years delayed the test for HIV, also discovered by Gallo. By 1995, there was a blend of drugs that could arrest HIV and today, while there is no vaccine yet, HIV is blocked by drugs that stops it from replicating itself.

Four years were lost because science stopped. More correctly stated, science didn’t stop, but those scientists who would have been attracted to the research problem didn’t take up the search because there was limited funding for that type of research. Ryan White, a teenage hemophiliac from Indiana, died on April 8, 1990, from AIDS. If you don’t remember him, you may remember Freddie Mercury who died of AIDS on November 11, 1991. Maybe they would have lived if science hadn’t slowed for four years, as would hundreds of thousands of others.

And imagine how far ahead we might be if 114 years ago, scientists had admitted they didn’t know everything and followed up on the research by Dr. Rous. How many lives could have been saved? What major diseases could have been cured?

That’s the price for delaying research. But what about research that is started based on the dogma of the person who dictates where research dollars are spent? I’ll cover that on Saturday.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: Revisionist History. Malcolm Gladwell. The Obscure Virus Club provided the basis for the HIV and AIDS timeline. Every scientific article and fact were independently verified by the Memo writer.

Research Update: Cancer and Diet

/in /by

A recent paper used an interesting approach to treat pancreatic cancer using a high-fat diet. That flies in the face of the typical approach: “If it was ever alive, don’t eat it.” In other words, a vegan diet. I’ve reviewed fasting prior to cancer treatment, which demonstrated improved outcomes for those who fasted, but this diet is radically different.

The Study

This study was all about finding the weakness in a defensive mechanism and attacking it.

Researchers were studying the mechanism that cancers use to get energy. The thought is that cancers use sugars and carbs, but cancer’s need for fuel to grow isn’t that limited. Researchers were studying how cancers switch to using fat as a fuel when there are no carbs available. Just like with the keto diets, the liver, and subsequently cancer cells if present, switch to using fat as a fuel in the form of ketone bodies. The protein that stimulates this switch is called eIF4E.

Researchers were able to find a current chemotherapy drug called eFT508 that blocked the ability of eIF4E to turn on the fat metabolism pathway. However, that didn’t stop the cancers from growing—they used other fuels such as carbs. But when they first treated the cancers with the chemotherapy drug that prevented the cancer from using fat as a fuel, then put them on a high-fat diet, the tumors all shrank.

In this study, the type of cancer was pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest. This was a rodent study, but the chemotherapy drug is already approved for use in humans. Clinical trials are surely to follow in humans.

The Bottom Line

The authors speculate that cancers have more than one weakness that can be exploited with a combination of dietary and pharmaceutical interventions. Their breakthrough came almost 15 years after discovering what blocked the fat metabolism pathway. To me, this is one of the most exciting studies I’ve read in a long time. Just remember that this was one potential treatment for one type of cancer, but it represents hope.

I’ll be back in a week with a new Memo. If you’re here in the U.S., enjoy the final holiday of the summer—but don’t forget to eat your fruits and vegetables.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

References:
1. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-08-fasting-ketogenic-diet-reveals-vulnerability.html
2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07781-7

How VILPA Can Reduce Cancer Risk

/in /by

We’re going to switch from mortality to morbidity: in this case, the objective is to reduce the risk of getting one of thirteen types of cancer. This was interesting for all kinds of reasons, but mostly because researchers specifically looked at subjects who claimed they didn’t exercise regularly. The data were part of a sub-study of subjects that included wrist accelerometry data. The participants reported no leisure time exercise and one or fewer recreational walks per week; they used a seven-day trial of wearing the accelerometer before the study to be sure.

The purpose of the study was to test the relationship of unplanned vigorous activity to the diagnosis of cancers, especially those associated with the lack of physical activity such as breast and colon cancer. The researchers wanted to determine the dose of vigorous activity required to reduce the risk by 50% compared to maximal risk. They termed the activity Vigorous Intermittent Lifestyle Physical Activity or VILPA for short.

What would count as VILPA? Walking up several flights of stairs, running to catch a bus, or fast walking through an airport to catch a flight. Even roughhousing with the kids might qualify.

Study Results

There were 22,398 participants with a mean age of 62. Over the six-plus years of follow-up, there were 2,356 new cancer events with 1,084 diagnosed physical-activity-related cancers.

They analyzed the data to find out how much VILPA per day was beneficial. One-minute bouts and two-minute bouts revealed the same dose-response curve. The more one- to two-minute bouts of VILPA, totaling at least 4.5 minutes per day, the lower the risk of developing cancer, especially a physical-activity-related cancer.

Less May Be More

We’ve looked at the amount of weight training that helps reduce blood pressure, the minimal number of steps needed to reduce mortality from CVD, and now, how to reduce the risk of some cancers by intense burst of exercise. There seems to be no doubt that some exercise, even in one-minute intervals, can be beneficial.

The Bottom Line

Nowhere in these research papers did they suggest that this was the way to train athletes—they all wanted to find the minimum to show how it could be beneficial. Even if you have little time to exercise, you can probably fit in a few one- or two-minute sessions; you could wait until it’s put into an organized program, or you could just do it right now. As long as your doctor says you can exercise, take the clothes off the exercise bike, jump on, and pedal as fast as you can for a minute. Do that a few times a day. There’s your VILPA workout.

If your only goal is to reduce the risk of disease, this is the way to begin. Based on the most recent research, you might find you like the way you feel and begin to do a little more. Who knows? But you must begin somewhere, and it all depends on one question:

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: JAMA Oncol. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.1830

Chemicals in Our Water

/in /by

Here’s one for you to mull over. We’ve been exposed to this chemical group since the 1940s. It’s not just one chemical such as TCE from Saturday’s Memo; there are thousands of forms of these chemicals. Based on samples from large groups of people, over 98% of us have them in our bodies; they’re found in rainwater all over the world. At this point, we don’t really know what diseases or conditions can result from this group of chemicals. On top of all that, it’s slow to eliminate from the body and gets worse as we get older.

The chemical group is perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, more recognizable by its acronym PFAS. This non-flammable group of chemicals is found in many products including fire retardants, stain repellents—and until recently removed—cookware covered with Teflon. You may have seen the story of how Teflon production affected West Virginians in the movie “Dark Waters.” Here in west Michigan, we’re battling PFAS released into the water supply years ago by a shoe manufacturer.

The major concern is that PFAS are in our water supply everywhere and will be there for a long time, even it were banned today. What surprised me is how little is known about the effects on our health.

There is some association with several forms of cancer such as testicular and kidney cancer. These epidemiologic studies of PFAS and cancers have been informative, but not entirely conclusive. Along with other chemicals known as hormone-disrupting chemicals, PFAS may affect fertility, contribute to miscarriages, and be a factor in early-onset puberty. It may increase non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in women. There are some associations but no overwhelming smoking gun at this point. Even with no definitive link to diseases, we don’t want them in our body. The problem is that there’s no known way of speeding up their elimination from our body. It can take years.

You may be thinking that this was less than satisfying. Yes, it was, but it doesn’t mean there’s nothing we can do; that’s how I’m going to finish up this look at chemicals on Saturday.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: Environ Res. 2021 Mar; 194: 110690.

PSA: Sharing the Decision

/in /by

PSA screening is controversial because it may or may not indicate prostate cancer without additional testing and it may or may not indicate mortality from prostate cancer. As I said, many elderly men will die with prostate cancer but not of it. How do you know what to do? A recent study may provide some guidance.

Regular PSA Testing and Mortality

The Veterans Administration can be a challenging bureaucracy, but it’s one entity that can provide medical information on millions of subjects. Researchers wanted the answer to a simple question: Do higher rates of PSA testing yield a reduction in metastatic cases of prostate cancer?

The survey population included male patients getting a PSA test at 128 U.S. Veterans Health Administration facilities across the system from 2005 to 2019. The reason those years were chosen is that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPTF) had modified guidelines for PSA screening to recommend less frequent use of the test for men over 70. Over those years, there was a decrease in annual testing by 10% to 15% in non-VA healthcare facilities, and that was matched in the VA system. The USPTF recommended against screening all men, and PSA testing again fell in all age groups.

The data showed that as PSA testing decreased, the rates of metastatic prostate cancer increased. Drilling down into the data, those VHA facilities with higher rates of PSA screening had lower rates of metastatic prostate cancer.

Shared Decision-Making

The researchers were diplomatic in their conclusions. They simply presented the findings and suggested that the physician and patient should jointly decide on the course of action. Should we test? When do we proceed with a biopsy? What do we do if it’s benign? If it’s malignant? And a whole bunch more.

The Bottom Line

The researchers easily could have recommended that everyone gets tested and everyone gets a biopsy if the PSA is too high, but PSA testing is not precise enough. Some men have prostate cancer with PSA less than 4.0 and some do not have it with PSA over 10. The best course is having a discussion with your urologist and coming to a joint decision that satisfies you both. It’s also not a bad idea to get a second opinion, of whether you agree with the plan or not.

One thing for sure: always do the screening test again, regardless of whether it’s PSA, cholesterol, or HbA1c. For the most part, tests are accurate and reliable, but there’s always the possibility of a mistake; one test does not a diagnosis make. Retest, discuss, and plan a course of action with your healthcare professional.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: JAMA Oncol. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.4319