I guess “extended total lifespan by 7%” doesn’t have the same big dick marketing energy as “doubled remaining life”.

The quote is from a doctor who is a known quack.

Here’s a review of his book performed by a panel of physicians.

Red Pen Reviews: The Salt Fix, by Dr. James DiNicolantonio

This study is weak.

Even higher HDL in isolation isn't the good news it's made out to be.

I don’t find this study to be particularly compelling evidence of anything, but still— the keto crowd and “sugar = cancer fuel” zealots are going to be riled up by this study.

Not only can you still produce glucose, your body will automatically manufacture it whenever it needs.

Your body keeps a tightly controlled range of glucose in the blood at all times. If that glucose is not from coming from food, your body will easily manufacture the glucose from whatever macronutrients it has available.

Unfortunately even a basal level of glucose is enough for cancer to use as fuel. But even if glucose production could be magically shut down entirely, cancer would be able to use other fuel sources available in the cell. This is why keto alone has not been shown to halt or cure cancer.

Thanks, but if you're familiar with this topic, it is heard of. 6.8% of glioblastoma patients survive 5 years, 1% survive 8+ years. Living 8 years is far from the norm, but it is "heard of".

Here's a survey of 108 glioblastoma patients.*

Thanks for the conversation.

From: Long-term survivors of glioblastoma are a unique group of patients lacking universal characteristic features, Neuro-Oncology Advances, Vol 2, Issue 1, January-December 2020, vdz056, https://doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdz056 , 23 December 2019

I'm moderately familiar with this area of research.

You understand that if it is as simple as this (e.g., as simple as quack researcher Thomas Seyfried posits) then cancer mortality is a solved problem.

Respectfully note that cancer mortality is not solved, and deduce that the problem is significantly more complex than "starve the tumor of sugar, pulse glutamate blockers".

Good point. We have a tendency to believe that if some is good, more must be better, but the body (and biological systems in general) often do not work that way.

There's often a dose-dependent response, where a low level (or zero) is harmful/deficient, some moderate value is increasingly optimal until a point is reached where additional produces no effect and eventually becomes harmful.

A lot of people who live to be 100 merely had active lifestyles, but weren't athletes or preoccupied with fitness.

It is known that cancer cells can survive on other fuels and substrates available to it in the cell. Cancer growth might slow down with less glucose available (and there's always glucose available-- your body strictly enforces an available level in the bloodstream at all times), but that's often not enough to stop cancer.

Yes, a friend of mine was a phenomenal athlete, he won his age-group at the Iron-Man in Kona Hawaii, but died just a few years later of a brain tumor.

Sometimes even if the odds are in your favor, your luck runs out.