Can we shrink fat by cutting off it's blood supply?

[Grindting]

Very interesting video. We are big drinkers of dr Stuarts tea and I have a natural yogurt and mixed berry fruit smoothly I make every morning and take with a cod liver oil and vitamin B complex.

I used to get a cold or worse at least 3 or 4 times a year. Even more illnesses when I was living in asia.

Now I get ZERO colds ever, and am immune when my mrs gets one and I'm sleeping with her every night. So this eating right sh1t really works.

[Jingthing]

It's good to be conscious about food choices ... every meal every day. Not the same as being perfect and living on lettuce either.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[partington]

The input from poster Partington is massively appreciated!!!!!

One can always hope for such informed input but its folly to ever expect it.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Thanks for that, but of course I now have to entirely apologise for even suggesting that Dr Li is a quack, having watched the video.

He definitely is not: I was amazed to hear he worked with Judah Folkmann, who created the field of angiogenesis in cancer (and who I mentioned before I saw the video , honest!), and he's published many research papers on the subject, so you can safely assume he knows a damn sight more about all this than I do or ever will.

So his theory that one reason why healthy (mostly vegetable rich ) diets help prevent cancer is that they may have antiangiogenic properties, is probably pretty good.

Though I will say I was uncomfortable with his presentation of lists of foods with anti-angiogenic properties based on putting extracts of those foods on cells in a dish. I accept it was not a scientific talk, but this is very different from providing evidence that the same happens in humans when they eat those foods.

If I put a teaspoon of salt in a dish of cancer cells it will kill them-this does not mean salt cures cancer!

He did emphasise that he was mostly talking about preventative effects not curative effects, even for cancer, and it still doesn't really change the message that applies to almost every health condition - 70-80% of your diet should be vegetables, and eat as many different colours as possible.

The obesity bit was brief, and he was using a genetically mutant mouse that eats uncontrollably, a model that may not be very similar to obese humans. They were injected with a powerful antioangiogenic drug , rather than eating healthy foods, and the reason their weight went down was not given- did they stop eating? or did their fat shrink away for some other reason?

But it's very interesting, and he is doing good science, not selling his own range of products.

It sounds like you think and I would agree that it is worthwhile to do further research antioangiogenic meds for obesity. Lee seems to suggest it couldn't hurt to use his food list for obesity prevention and it sounds like you are skeptical on that.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Well, a little bit sceptical, since the example he gave (of obese mice losing weight with treatment) used a powerful specific anti-angiogenic drug, not a diet, and all the marked successes in treatment of pre-existing cancers have been with drugs, too.

I have to say though that I think people who consistently take in 80%+ of their calories as vegetables, and have done so most of their lives, are rarely obese, and it's certainly possible that anti-angiogenesis may have a little to do with this.

I would guess though that it mostly results from the fact that it is simply hard to eat the physical quantity of vegetable matter that would give you as many calories as, say, a full English breakfast.

[ableguy]

Is this another Eric fahrt ranting ???

[Jingthing]

Yes I can see the prevention part with health promoting FOOD CHOICES is much more compelling at least for now and maybe forever. The trouble is a huge percentage of the population is already obese. For those not yet obese, I would certainly suggest looking into taking preventative action on both the cancer and obesity prevention as we can see here ... it might be the exact same things you should do to prevent BOTH.

We don't know everything but we do know something, and like you said, to paraphrase ... EAT YOUR BLOODY VEGETABLES.

For those already obese , I personally think that measures that others use to prevent obesity (and cancer) can be helpful even if they don't ever result in reaching so called normal weight. As we know, the vast majority of the obese do not ever go to normal weight long term ... BUT they can be HEALTHIER people regardless of what their scale says at the moment. In my view HEALTH is number one, vanity is secondary, and if you can't be not obese, almost everyone can be somewhat less obese and HEALTHIER. Yes, for that it's mostly about food choices, portion control, and exercise.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Is this another Eric fahrt ranting ???

What is that? Google did not assist.

[mrfaroukh]

Hi Jingting, thank you for sharing this wonderful video.

[fishbrando]

I know dark chocolate is good but huge quantities I would think not.

Large quantities of dark chocolate can actually kill you just like it can kill dogs. If you eat 100g of cocoa, you might get dizzy or nauseous. 1kg of cocoa and you might die.

http://www.wired.com/2013/02/the-poisonous-nature-of-chocolate/

[partington]

I know dark chocolate is good but huge quantities I would think not.

Large quantities of dark chocolate can actually kill you just like it can kill dogs. If you eat 100g of cocoa, you might get dizzy or nauseous. 1kg of cocoa and you might die.

http://www.wired.com/2013/02/the-poisonous-nature-of-chocolate/

This is mere scaremongering. Even the article you quote only says "some people may" when they talk about getting trembling, sweating or a headache from 100g of cocoa. This means most people don't feel anything at all.

The "dying" is just wrong. The article you reference says that the LD 50 for humans (the dose that would kill 50% of people ingesting it) is 1g of the "dangerous" compound in chocolate, theobromine, per kg body weight.

That means a 70kg man would need to eat 70g of theobromine to have a 50% chance of dying. From the article cocoa contains 1.5g theobromine per 100g, so to eat 70g of theobromine you would need to eat 4.7 kg , that is 10.4 pounds, of cocoa, at one sitting.

Not even a remote risk of death from chocolate in other words.

[Jingthing]

Yeah but I guess you can kill yourself by consuming too much of almost ANYTHING in too short a time. I recently heard you can even die of too much WATER done very quickly. Extreme amounts for sure ... you would probably have to want to harm yourself.

[fishbrando]

This is mere scaremongering. Even the article you quote only says "some people may" when they talk about getting trembling, sweating or a headache from 100g of cocoa. This means most people don't feel anything at all.

The "dying" is just wrong. The article you reference says that the LD 50 for humans (the dose that would kill 50% of people ingesting it) is 1g of the "dangerous" compound in chocolate, theobromine, per kg body weight.

That means a 70kg man would need to eat 70g of theobromine to have a 50% chance of dying. From the article cocoa contains 1.5g theobromine per 100g, so to eat 70g of theobromine you would need to eat 4.7 kg , that is 10.4 pounds, of cocoa, at one sitting.

Not even a remote risk of death from chocolate in other words.

I'm not really trying to scare anyone, just putting the facts out there. I understand your sentiments and agree with you in general, but your wording is a bit inaccurate.

You mention the LD50 which means eating around 10 pounds of chocolate for a 70kg man. What do you think the LD1 is? 5 pounds? 2 pounds? And what is it for a 40kg woman or a 20kg child?

Admittedly, the risks are remote, but people should know them. Personally, I love dark chocolate, but I've cut back a bit after reading the above article.

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

In general, the amount of theobromine found in chocolate is small enough such that chocolate can be safely consumed by humans. However, occasional serious side effects may result from the consumption of large quantities, especially in the elderly.^[2]

[F4UCorsair]

This sounds very much to me like somebody seeking his 15 minutes of fame....not you JT, the guy promoting it.

We've seen it all before, float a sometimes preposterous proposition, write a book, run a lecture tour, make buckets of $$, and disappear.

I recall 20 years ago that orange juice caused cancer, tomatoes, reheated rice, and on it went. One even believed that foods must be eaten in a certain order so that particular types of food didn't sit on top in your stomach and fermented!! Worse, people bought the book and followed the routine. Apparently he chose to ignore that a stomach churns constantly so nothing sits on top.

More recently, Al Gore raised the topic of 'global warming' wrote a book, lecture tours, only to have pointed out the globe wasn't warming. Oops!! Better make that 'climate change', and start the whole routine over.

Gotta keep those $$ coming in.

Edited May 8, 2014 by F4UCorsair

[Jingthing]

This sounds very much to me like somebody seeking his 15 minutes of fame....not you JT, the guy promoting it.

We've seen it all before, float a sometimes preposterous proposition, write a book, run a lecture tour, make buckets of $$, and disappear.

I recall 20 years ago that orange juice caused cancer, tomatoes, reheated rice, and on it went. One even believed that foods must be eaten in a certain order so that particular types of food didn't sit on top in your stomach and fermented!! Worse, people bought the book and followed the routine. Apparently he chose to ignore that a stomach churns constantly so nothing sits on top.

More recently, Al Gore raised the topic of 'global warming' wrote a book, lecture tours, only to have pointed out the globe wasn't warming. Oops!! Better make that 'climate change', and start the whole routine over.

Gotta keep those $$ coming in.

I don't think so.

Again, the guy has strong credibility in cancer research.

The obesity connection to his research is clearly not a major focus of his work.

If he was on some kind of personal fame crusade over a "cure" for obesity. it's clear to me his marketing approach would be different.

This has nothing to do with Al Gore ... and no, we're NOT getting into a climate change debate here! Elsewhere!

Edited May 8, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

living in barbaristan causes cancer, this is a good thing.

Not funny in the slightest.

[Stuart21]

ok mate. For the record, I do believe that there is a correlation and that by eating some foods - especially dark chocolate in huge quantities had got to be good for you

(edit - my wink is in no way meant to be flirtative)

I know dark chocolate is good but huge quantities I would think not.

The only studies I have seen re chocolate & health state "'compounds known to be good for the heart' or (insert name of organ of concern) have been found in chocolate."

None of them are double blind studies of health of chocoholics vs non chocs. Or similar.

Caveat emptor.

[F4UCorsair]

This sounds very much to me like somebody seeking his 15 minutes of fame....not you JT, the guy promoting it.

We've seen it all before, float a sometimes preposterous proposition, write a book, run a lecture tour, make buckets of $$, and disappear.

I recall 20 years ago that orange juice caused cancer, tomatoes, reheated rice, and on it went. One even believed that foods must be eaten in a certain order so that particular types of food didn't sit on top in your stomach and fermented!! Worse, people bought the book and followed the routine. Apparently he chose to ignore that a stomach churns constantly so nothing sits on top.

More recently, Al Gore raised the topic of 'global warming' wrote a book, lecture tours, only to have pointed out the globe wasn't warming. Oops!! Better make that 'climate change', and start the whole routine over.

Gotta keep those $$ coming in.

I don't think so.

Again, the guy has strong credibility in cancer research.

The obesity connection to his research is clearly not a major focus of his work.

If he was on some kind of personal fame crusade over a "cure" for obesity. it's clear to me his marketing approach would be different.

This has nothing to do with Al Gore ... and no, we're NOT getting into a climate change debate here! Elsewhere!

There were those who didn't think those doctors who promoted other ridiculous ideas such as orange juice, carrots, reheated rice, tomatoes, etc., caused cancer either JT, but once they'd cashed in, they were never heard from again. That may or may not be the case with this guy.

The Al Gore story was no more than an analogy, and I have no desire to raise the issue of global warming/climate change here, but it does show how easily one pushing a barrow can switch positions when the flow of $$ may be affected.

Edited May 9, 2014 by F4UCorsair

[Dap]

This isn't a joke topic. Responses like those above indicate people who didn't even look at the source info.

Here is a graphic of the antiangiogenic foods:

antiangiogenic.jpg

It's interesting to note that many of these are available in urban Thailand at reasonable prices. Refer to the video for more detailed info on the RELATIVE STRENGTH of the items on this list.

Thank ye' kindly for the list JT

[Jingthing]

This sounds very much to me like somebody seeking his 15 minutes of fame....not you JT, the guy promoting it.

We've seen it all before, float a sometimes preposterous proposition, write a book, run a lecture tour, make buckets of $$, and disappear.

I recall 20 years ago that orange juice caused cancer, tomatoes, reheated rice, and on it went. One even believed that foods must be eaten in a certain order so that particular types of food didn't sit on top in your stomach and fermented!! Worse, people bought the book and followed the routine. Apparently he chose to ignore that a stomach churns constantly so nothing sits on top.

More recently, Al Gore raised the topic of 'global warming' wrote a book, lecture tours, only to have pointed out the globe wasn't warming. Oops!! Better make that 'climate change', and start the whole routine over.

Gotta keep those $$ coming in.

I don't think so.

Again, the guy has strong credibility in cancer research.

The obesity connection to his research is clearly not a major focus of his work.

If he was on some kind of personal fame crusade over a "cure" for obesity. it's clear to me his marketing approach would be different.

This has nothing to do with Al Gore ... and no, we're NOT getting into a climate change debate here! Elsewhere!

There were those who didn't think those doctors who promoted other ridiculous ideas such as orange juice, carrots, reheated rice, tomatoes, etc., caused cancer either JT, but once they'd cashed in, they were never heard from again. That may or may not be the case with this guy.

The Al Gore story was no more than an analogy, and I have no desire to raise the issue of global warming/climate change here, but it does show how easily one pushing a barrow can switch positions when the flow of $$ may be affected.

There is good evidence that regularly eating COOKED tomatoes promotes prevention of certain cancers.

Your other concerns ... about the ethics of Dr. Lee are noted but I think really a diversion from the gist of this topic.

[F4UCorsair]

The very point I was making JT. Some fool was advocating cutting out tomatoes completely because they CAUSED cancer, not prevented it.

A balanced diet, bit of everything even with occasional indulgences, no smoking, and moderate alcohol consumption, plenty of exercise, and you give yourself as good a chance as there is to have in this life.

I lost a daughter to cancer, melanoma, and she never went in the sun. Talking with oncologists at the time, the view of each was that diseases are a numbers thing, a certain percentage will contract diseases no matter what precautions they take. Of course, certain diseases occur at higher rates in those that involve themselves in risky behaviour, e.g., smoking and lung/heart disease.

[Jingthing]

Of course it's a numbers game. We've all got our genetics but there is also stuff we can do to help our odds, with a lot of things. Sometimes of course it's out of a person's real control. Like a child born into a poor ghetto family in America with two massively obese parents who gets fed McDonalds daily. That child is going to be an obese child before he knows what hit him ... and highly likely to be obese for life.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Jingthing

[F4UCorsair]

I don't think it's so much doing something that decreases our chances of contracting particular diseases, but more doing something that doesn't increase our chances, and the two are very different JT.

I think if you have a predisposition to a certain disease, e.g., congenital or inherited heart disease, there's little you can do to prevent that course, but by poor eating habits, smoking, and alcohol consumption, you will without doubt increase your chances of dying prematurely from that disease.

I may be wrong.

[Jingthing]

There are always complex factors. We've got the power to do some stuff if we're educated enough to know what to do and assuming what we think is helpful is actually helpful (and can afford it). For some people their genes, environment, etc. really screw them a lot ... for others less so.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Jingthing

[partington]

This is mere scaremongering. Even the article you quote only says "some people may" when they talk about getting trembling, sweating or a headache from 100g of cocoa. This means most people don't feel anything at all.

The "dying" is just wrong. The article you reference says that the LD 50 for humans (the dose that would kill 50% of people ingesting it) is 1g of the "dangerous" compound in chocolate, theobromine, per kg body weight.

That means a 70kg man would need to eat 70g of theobromine to have a 50% chance of dying. From the article cocoa contains 1.5g theobromine per 100g, so to eat 70g of theobromine you would need to eat 4.7 kg , that is 10.4 pounds, of cocoa, at one sitting.

Not even a remote risk of death from chocolate in other words.

I'm not really trying to scare anyone, just putting the facts out there. I understand your sentiments and agree with you in general, but your wording is a bit inaccurate.

You mention the LD50 which means eating around 10 pounds of chocolate for a 70kg man. What do you think the LD1 is? 5 pounds? 2 pounds? And what is it for a 40kg woman or a 20kg child?

Admittedly, the risks are remote, but people should know them. Personally, I love dark chocolate, but I've cut back a bit after reading the above article.

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

In general, the amount of theobromine found in chocolate is small enough such that chocolate can be safely consumed by humans. However, occasional serious side effects may result from the consumption of large quantities, especially in the elderly.^[2]

I forgot that even the best chocolate has only 70% cocoa in it. This means the LD50 for a 70 kg man is actually 15 pounds of chocolate at one sitting!

The LD50 is a statistical measurement of toxicity that is determined by experiment and is standard in toxicology labs world wide.

The measure "LD1" does not exist, LD50 is measured by statistical analysis of drugged animals. To find the " LD1" for a compound, even if it were possible, would require many, many thousands of lab animals to be tested, which is why it is not a measurement that has ever been done.

I don't want to be obsessive about this, but you are not warning people about a real danger. You are reporting a clickbait article, designed to make people view advertising, which exaggerates a feeble story into a non-existent danger to attract people to the headline. This is just a journalistic trick, that provides a little income for non-scientific contributors who might get $30 an article.

The quote you give, beginning: " occasional serious side effects " links to the wiki page link to the US NIH hazardous substances database entry on theobromine.

The only relevant reference I have been able to find on this page is:

"Most poisonings have been the result of small animals ingesting large amounts of chocolate. Similar cases have not been reported in humans."

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+7332

I just have to repeat, chocolate poisoning is not a matter that anyone need worry about.

Edited May 9, 2014 by partington

[partington]

This sounds very much to me like somebody seeking his 15 minutes of fame....not you JT, the guy promoting it.

We've seen it all before, float a sometimes preposterous proposition, write a book, run a lecture tour, make buckets of $$, and disappear.

I recall 20 years ago that orange juice caused cancer, tomatoes, reheated rice, and on it went. One even believed that foods must be eaten in a certain order so that particular types of food didn't sit on top in your stomach and fermented!! Worse, people bought the book and followed the routine. Apparently he chose to ignore that a stomach churns constantly so nothing sits on top.

More recently, Al Gore raised the topic of 'global warming' wrote a book, lecture tours, only to have pointed out the globe wasn't warming. Oops!! Better make that 'climate change', and start the whole routine over.

Gotta keep those $$ coming in.

You are wrong about this, as you might be aware if you had watched the video - I didn't either, to start with, because it did sound like the sort of scam you describe. But it wasn't.

William Li is a working scientist, not one of these guys who write a catchpenny book about diets. The fad writers are ignored in the scientific community, because they do not provide research evidence for their claims. These are the people who have to sell direct to the public, because scientists already recognise their claims are unsupported. Books aren't experimental evidence, and silly diet claims in the press aren't backed up by science, they are just silly claims in the press.

90% of the video described the beneficial effects of antio-angiogenic treatment on cancers. This has been studied since the 1970's , initially in the lab of Judah Folkmann, who was world famous for pioneering this concept and proving by literally decades of research that it was correct. There are currently effective anti-cancer drugs based on this concept that are approved and prescribed. Folkmann was one of the great physician-scientists of the 20th century, and William Li, the physician in the video, was one of his research associates, and therefore has a long history of working on a therapeutic mechanism that has proven to be both true and effective.

It is well known that populations that eat high vegetable diets have a lower incidence of many types of cancers - this has been shown in so many studies now that it is not in serious doubt. William Li is suggesting one testable hypothesis why this might be so, and has written research papers in reputable scientific journals, peer reviewed by other scientists, that provide experimental and epidemiological evidence for his theories.

He also presents a suggestion that obesity might also be treated using the same pathway that has already been shown to be effective in some cancers.

As scientists he and others will test by experiment whether there is evidence that this is true. It is not a matter of fame or selling a product. This is how science works: you come up with a plausible explanation for something, then you test it in cells, and animals. Then you develop a chemical drug and test whether the compound actually does help with the condition you are trying to treat.

This is how therapies are developed. Many ideas turn out to be wrong. But you only find out by testing them!

Edited May 9, 2014 by partington

[Jingthing]

Hurrah for REAL science and scientists!

[fishbrando]

I forgot that even the best chocolate has only 70% cocoa in it. This means the LD50 for a 70 kg man is actually 15 pounds of chocolate at one sitting!

This is actually not true - you can see fine chocolate with much more cocoa in the chocolate section of Villa Market, some as high as 99%. (Personally, that is a bit too much cocoa for me!)

The LD50 is a statistical measurement of toxicity that is determined by experiment and is standard in toxicology labs world wide.

The measure "LD1" does not exist, LD50 is measured by statistical analysis of drugged animals. To find the " LD1" for a compound, even if it were possible, would require many, many thousands of lab animals to be tested, which is why it is not a measurement that has ever been done.

Agreed that LD1 is not a standard measurement, but it does exist in theory, proven by the fact that you instantly understood what it was. I brought it up to try to get people to imagine that there might be some risk even if you don't eat the full LD50 dose. A 1 in 100 chance of dying is still significant.

I admit that I don't know how wide the Gaussian curve is for the lethal dose, but given the variety of people out there, it is probably not super narrow. I can imagine the LD1 quantity being 50% or even less than 25% of the LD50 quantity, but it would be hard to test this for sure.

My basic point is that the lethal dose varies from person to person, and for some people, it might be significantly below the LD50. If you take a theoretical LD1 and calculate the dose for a fairly light person or a child, the dose might end up being not so inconceivably large.

The quote you give, beginning: " occasional serious side effects " links to the wiki page link to the US NIH hazardous substances database entry on theobromine.

The only relevant reference I have been able to find on this page is:

"Most poisonings have been the result of small animals ingesting large amounts of chocolate. Similar cases have not been reported in humans."

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+7332

Thanks for actually following the reference - Wikipedia does have its failings.

I just have to repeat, chocolate poisoning is not a matter that anyone need worry about.

Again, I should stress that I with your general sentiments - most people need not worry about eating chocolate.

My reference to the article was in response to the discussion about a diet which contains large quantities of dark chocolate. People doing this should know the facts about theobromine poisoning, just like people who consume large quantities of caffeine should know that large doses can harm you and even kill you, even though it takes about 70 cups of strong coffee to do so. The risk is low, but it is not a zero risk situation.

[fishbrando]

Apparently there is a limit for quoted blocks - maybe that's saying something about my style of post.

I don't want to be obsessive about this, but you are not warning people about a real danger. You are reporting a clickbait article, designed to make people view advertising, which exaggerates a feeble story into a non-existent danger to attract people to the headline. This is just a journalistic trick, that provides a little income for non-scientific contributors who might get $30 an article.

Agreed that it is clickbait, which I hate as much as the next guy, but it does at least have some solid facts in there, unlike most clickbait.

[partington]

Apparently there is a limit for quoted blocks - maybe that's saying something about my style of post.

I don't want to be obsessive about this, but you are not warning people about a real danger. You are reporting a clickbait article, designed to make people view advertising, which exaggerates a feeble story into a non-existent danger to attract people to the headline. This is just a journalistic trick, that provides a little income for non-scientific contributors who might get $30 an article.

Agreed that it is clickbait, which I hate as much as the next guy, but it does at least have some solid facts in there, unlike most clickbait.

Again don't want to obsess about this, so this will be my final contribution.

I worry about these nonsense articles because they are the source of misinformation. By pretending to be science (making statements that are untrue, and validating these statements by giving references that when you follow up actually give the complete opposite information) they bring science into disrepute.

We have already had in this thread someone complaining that "science says one thing, then a few years later says the opposite, so why take any notice".

Most often this results from them reading some nonsensical article in the popular press that has no scientific basis whatsoever, like the article you have quoted, and then reading some other equally daft article in the Daily Mail or somewhere equally untrustworthy that says the opposite.

Both articles claim to be what "science says" , but they are not.

What science (the US government hazardous substances database) says about the warning you have given derived from this nonsense article is :

Most poisonings have resulted from small animals ingesting large amounts of chocolate. Similar cases HAVE NOT BEEN REPORTED IN HUMANS

This is the take away message. Do not worry about non-existent dangers.