Eat to live

Dear Reader, While I was the associate medical director at The Atkins Center--working alongside Dr. Robert Atkins himself--we treated many, many cancer patients. And with great success, too. The truth is that, contrary to what conventional "wisdom" dictates, diet does have an influence on the progression of this disease. And in this area, my mentor was truly a pioneer. Which is why I'm thrilled to see that, yet again, his work will be vindicated. This past January, the review board at North Carolina's Duke University approved a randomized, controlled trial of calorie restriction as a treatment for cancer. The veryfirst randomized clinical trial of its kind. Duke is a leader in the field when it comes to nutritional research and disease. So it comes as no surprise to me that this institution is participating in such groundbreaking work. Meanwhile, similar studies on breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, and lung cancer are in their early stages at Thomas Jefferson University and the University of Iowa, already. In fact, interest in the metabolic activity of cancer cells has spiked considerably over the last ten years. And with it, the role that exercise and diet could potentially play in the fight against cancer becomes more and more powerful. All of which must have drug companies quaking in their boots. Plenty of laboratory science supports the idea that a low-carb diet could stall cancer growth. Why? Because at the end of the day, carbohydrates are the same as sugar. And sugar is cancer's favorite food. If you've ever had a PET scan, you might know this already. Unlike healthy cells, malignant cells rely on a steady stream of glucose in the blood to thrive and grow quickly. That's why PET scans use radioactive glucose to find cancer. But these same cells can't metabolize fatty acids or ketones (which help your body break down fat)--both of which are hallmarks of low-carb diets. Which means that eliminating carbohydrates effectively starves cancer cells to death. It's a smack in the face to advocates of a low-fat lifestyle. In fact, more fat--and of course, less sugar--is what could end up saving a cancer patient's life. In order to prove this hypothesis, the upcoming Duke study will look closer at calorie restriction in men with prostate cancer. And it will focus specifically on extreme carbohydrate restriction. Researchers haven't started enrolling patients yet. But the National Cancer Institute is providing the funds--along with the Atkins Foundation, I'm proud to say. The study has a projected end date of 2016. And you can bet that I'll be at my keyboard sharing the results with you the second they come in. In the meantime, here's another glowing testament to the healing power of a low-carb lifestyle... Setting the record straight Last week, I told you all about the embarrassingly bad advice that passes for U.S. News and World Report's most recent collection of the "Best Diabetes Diets." In case you missed it, a bunch of so-called "experts" named the Biggest Loser Diet as your best bet for diabetes prevention. And even Slim-Fast made an appearance. (Not even at the bottom of the list, mind you.) The sheer ignorance of these rankings is frightening. So I'd like to settle this issue today with a little bit of real science. A team of researchers recently reviewed 20 randomized, controlled trials comparing the effects of different diets on diabetes management. The studies all lasted six months or longer, following close to 3,500 individuals in total. And surprise, surprise--the Biggest Loser Diet didn't make the cut. But it seems that low-carbohydrate, low-GI, Mediterranean, and high-protein diets do fight diabetes. And quite effectively at that. These results appeared just over a month ago in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Now here's hoping someone over at U.S. News and World Report got the memo.