Pages

Saturday, 2 July 2016

W.H.O. Reverses Position on Coffee Causing Cancer


Cup of Coffee

A rare retraction of sorts among a well-respected international scientific body has caused a few raised eyebrows. The World Health Organization (WHO) has now concluded that a regular date with your favorite cup of joe may not cause cancer after all.

June 27, 2016 



Story at-a-glance

  • A World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) report has reversed a 25-year-old categorization of coffee from a “possible carcinogen” to “inadequate evidence” that it causes cancer
  • The experts reviewed more than 1,000 studies showing that coffee failed to show detriment to health, and in some cases, lowered cancer risks
  • However, IARC asserted that coffee, South American “mate” and very hot tea can do “thermal damage” and even cause cancer if it exceeds 149 degrees Fahrenheit
  • Multiple studies and reviews report that coffee may provide multiple health benefits, including lowering the risks of several types of cancer, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and neurological disorders
By Dr. Mercola
A rare retraction of sorts among a well-respected international scientific body has caused a few raised eyebrows. The World Health Organization (WHO) has now concluded that a regular date with your favorite cup of joe may not cause cancer after all.
This has been met with elation on the part of many coffee drinkers, relief on the part of guilty addicts not really sure if their obsession was necessarily good for them and complete ambivalence on the part of people who don't care; either way, they intend to have their brew, and enjoy it, too.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)1 report published in The Lancet Oncology, reads:
"After thoroughly reviewing more than 1,000 studies in humans and animals, the Working Group found that there was inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity of coffee drinking overall.
Many epidemiological studies showed that coffee drinking had no carcinogenic effects for cancers of the pancreas, female breast and prostate, and reduced risks were seen for cancers of the liver and uterine endometrium. For more than 20 other cancers, the evidence was inconclusive."2
One caveat, however, is that hot coffee or tea can pose a health risk if it exceeds 149 degrees Fahrenheit, and may be culpable in relation to esophageal cancer.
Interestingly, the bulk of the IARC report dealt with the threat of drinking hot coffee as opposed to the apparently nonexistent hazards of the coffee itself. Little mention is ever made of the health problems that are introduced when adding sugarfake sugar and fake creamer to coffee.

Coffee: Studies Show It to Be Beneficial for Health

There's been a firestorm of rhetoric at intervals over the past century regarding coffee and its supposed dangers, and just as much supposition about its incredible health-boosting advantages. The Atlantic reported:
"In the early 1900s, doctors and health agencies warned that caffeine was essentially 'poison,' and that drinking coffee would cause 'nerve storms,' according to a 1912 issue of The Salt Lake Tribune.
Nervous women, the newspaper cautioned, should abstain from coffee altogether. 'Unsteady nerves are foes of beauty,' it said.
… Over time, the debate about coffee — fueled by a combination of legitimate research, junk science, marketing and the rumor mill — has amounted to what the writer Andrew Revkin has called 'whiplash journalism,' in which sweeping conclusions about what's good or bad for you contribute to a mess of contradictions."3
Many in the scientific community have claimed for decades that coffee actually provides multiple health benefits. In fact, large reviews on the topic have come to the same conclusion that coffee can be erased from the "harmful" list of foods and placed on the "advantageous" list. According to The New York Times:
"Last year, a panel of scientists that shaped the federal government's 2015 dietary guidelines said there was 'strong evidence' that three to five cups of coffee daily was not harmful, and that 'moderate' consumption might reduce chronic disease.
Another group, the World Cancer Research Fund International, reported that coffee protects against multiple types of cancer. And several systematic reviews of studies involving millions of people have found that regular coffee drinkers live longer than others."4
The evidence is fairly convincing that coffee may not only lower your cancer risk, but also your risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and neurological disorders.

Reports, Reviews, Evidence and Inconsistencies

It wasn't that long ago — 1991, to be exact — that coffee was termed a "possible carcinogen" linked to bladder cancer. The recent announcement included the acknowledgment that there was simply a lack of evidence that coffee might cause cancer at all.
As a matter of fact, early reports on coffee had compared its hazards with those of lead and diesel fuel.
Those previous studies hadn't taken into account that many of the coffee drinkers under scrutiny were also heavy smokers, according to Dana Loomis, Ph.D., first author of the report and deputy head of the WHO program focused on cancer-causing substance classifications. In addition, more up-to-date studies have become available.
When the group of 23 scientists from 10 countries met in Lyon, France, the issues surrounded the evidence for or against coffee, as well as "mate," a tea-like, high-caffeine drink popular in South America.
The group reviewed more than 1,000 studies, submitted over decades, the upshot of which: coffee failed to show detriment to health in relation to prostate, breast and pancreatic cancers, as had been previously conjectured. In the case of uterine and liver cancers, coffee was linked to a lowered cancer risk.
Twenty other cancer types showed "inadequate" evidential links of coffee being a carcinogen; many showed beneficial associations.

South American 'Mate' Drink Analyzed for Carcinogenic Effect

One of the interesting points made about the above-mentioned mate was that its review was likely based on "single-point-in-time" studies on South Americans with esophageal cancer who probably drank mate.
When the IARC researchers started looking at mate's possible link with cancer, it fell into the "drunk hot" or "very hot" categories. That must have rung a bell, since there's evidence that molten-hot drinks can do thermal damage to the cells in your throat and digestive tract, and possibly trigger cancer.
Further digging into the possibilities netted a bundle of case-control studies (which experts later called "the weakest kind").5 IARC subsequently entered very hot teaand other hot drinks to be a "significant" risk for human esophageal cancer.
As a result, IARC concluded that beverages hotter than 149 degrees Fahrenheit are "probably carcinogenic to humans." According to the Coffee Detective, the best temperature for brewing coffee is between 155 to 175 degrees Fahrenheit.6
Black Bear Coffee Micro Roastery suggests the slightly warmer temperature of 195 and 205 degrees Fahrenheit,7 but study author Loomis said North Americans and Europeans usually prefer to drink theirs at around 136 degrees Fahrenheit.8

Studies and More Studies Not Only Exonerate Coffee but Commend It

As previously noted, 40 studies found either zero connection between coffee consumption and cancer risk or found it actually produced a slightly protective effect. Some of the studies under most scrutiny were those associating coffee consumption with decreasing uterine and liver cancer risks.9
One of the most telling was a report that coffee drinkers exhibit a 15 percent decrease in liver cancer risk for every cup of coffee ingested per day.10 A Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health analysis in 2012 reported that drinking coffee was linked to a decreased endometrial cancer risk.11
Another study concluded that drinking at least five cups of coffee a day prevents some brain cancers by as much as 40 percent.12
In 2015, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) submitted new dietary guidelines concluding that three to five cups of coffee a day  400 milligrams of caffeine  was linked to a lowered risk of Parkinson's disease.13
With all this information about coffee, the Mayo Clinic noted on its website that in deciding whether coffee is a positive or negative, it's possible that the health benefits outweigh the risks.

Expert: Coffee Is 'Probably Not Something to Worry About'

It's interesting, however, that even with all the reviews indicating coffee may in fact be a nutritional asset, the WHO experts gave it rather tepid scores. They placed it in the same category as fluoride, low-frequency electric fields and a nail polish solvent called toluene, which they believe showed insufficient potential as a carcinogen.
Not everyone is thrilled with the findings or the halfhearted efforts the agency exerted to get to the bottom of whether coffee drinking is good or bad. Geoffrey Kabat, Ph.D., acancer epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, noted that the agency seems to diminish positive reports and magnify anything negative. He told The New York Times:
"What the evidence shows overall is that coffee drinking is associated with either reduced risk of several cancers or certainly no clear increase in other cancers … There's a strong signal that this is probably not something that we need to be worrying about."14
The IARC noted, "Since 1971, more than 900 agents have been evaluated, of which more than 400 have been identified as carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic or possibly carcinogenic to humans."15 That list includes substances like asbestos and also processed meats, cigarettes and wood dust. Finding carcinogens in water is pretty sobering to learn. So are reports of the health damage caused by cellphones. One article noted:
"The agency did not go so far as to give coffee its 'probably not carcinogenic' label. In nearly 1,000 carcinogenicity assessments, IARC has exonerated only a single substance — caprolactam, a compound used to make nylon — which has made it the target of vehement criticism."16

The Differences Between Shade-Grown, Organic Versus Conventional Coffee

There are many ways to make sure your coffee is both delicious and good for you, as opposed to not that great and terrible for you. Regarding organic versus conventional coffee, Equal Exchange17 noted:
"Conventional coffee is among the most heavily chemically treated foods in the world. It is steeped in synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and insecticides … Not only does the environment suffer from this overload, but so do the people who live in it.
Farmers are exposed to a high level of chemicals while spraying the crops and while handling them during harvest. The surrounding communities are also impacted through chemical residues in the air and water. These chemical presences are not just unpleasant; many are highly toxic and detrimental to human health."
In contrast, organic coffee contains no chemicals or synthetic fertilizers. The beans have a richer flavor and come with natural antioxidants. It's healthy for you, more sustainable for the farms that grow it, and vastly better for the planet.
Additionally, coffee is a shade-loving plant, but growers often strip forests to make growing and harvesting easier. This destroys the ecological habitat of many natural pest deterrents, such as birds and lizards, while the pests flourish, resulting in additional pesticide use.
The downward spiral to the environment involves chemical run-off, erosion and potentially contaminated water supplies. Organic, shade-grown coffee is available at numerous retail markets, but you can also order it online. Equal Exchange adds:
"Industries can and do change based on the choices that you make in the grocery store or at your favorite café — so you can vote with your mug! By purchasing organic coffee … you support systems that value healthy ecosystems, sustainable methods and superior coffee."18

Differences Between Light and Dark Roasted Coffee

When choosing your next cup of java, it's helpful to know the differences in the way it's been roasted. If you're looking for a higher boost of caffeine by drinking a darker roast, you're not likely to get it, because the added roasting time to make it darker actually breaks down the caffeine molecules.
Moreover, the roasting process produces a toxic byproduct called acrylamide, linked to an elevated cancer risk. One would think this would necessitate choosing a lighter roast, but strangely enough, at least one study found that the highest amount of acrylamide appears earlier in the roasting process rather than later, after which the acrylamide level begins to degrade.19
Dark roasts also generate more of the chemical N-methylpyridinium than the lighter variety, which helps keep your stomach from producing excess acid. Further, Italian or French dark-roasted coffee or the types used for espresso or Turkish coffee contain more antioxidants such as vitamin E, neuroprotective agents and protein-building glutathione than lighter roasts. The upshot, then, is that dark roasted coffee may have a leg up, so to speak, on lighter roasts, for a couple of different reasons.

The Best Brew: Organic Coffee, Sans Cream and Sugar

Maybe you're one of those people who "cheats" in the coffee category by "indulging" in one of the countless non-dairy creamers at every store and nearly every condiment table. You'll find caramel macchiato, hazelnut or peppermint mocha — you name it. There are liquids and powders and even sugar-free options.
But what's in those products? Well, you'll often find sodium caseinate on the ingredients list, which is a thickener and whitening agent with nutrient-suppressing chemicals. Dipotassium phosphate, used as an anti-coagulant, is also used in fertilizers, and when enough is consumed may cause vomiting and diarrhea.
Those are only two of around a dozen highly questionable substances, and that's without mentioning the high-fructose corn syrupand partially hydrogenated oils, aka trans fats.
It's when you drink your coffee black, with no toxic sugar (which could initiate insulin resistance) or chemical-laced sugar substitutes such as Splenda, aka sucralose, aspartame or saccharine, that you receive the most benefits from the coffee. Even real coffee creamer may keep you from being able to absorb beneficial chlorogenic acids present in black coffee.20

Dear IARC: Concentrate on What You Know Does Damage

Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS) believes that substances that are known to cause cancer and other diseases may be what entities like IARC should be concentrating on.
"Quitting smoking and reducing alcohol consumption are much more significant for reducing cancer risk than the temperature of what you're drinking … As a heavy coffee drinker, I have always enjoyed my coffee guilt-free, but now there is scientific evidence to justify that."21

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/06/27/who-reverses-position-on-coffee.aspx

Friday, 1 July 2016

How Nutrition Influences Cancer - MUST READ

Largest Cancer Study Ever Stuns Experts - They Were Wrong
The Cancer Genome Atlas project began in 2006 and set out to sequence the genomes of cancer cells. But the results didn't conform to their original expectations; the evidence clearly showed this is the real driving factor behind cancer.

Story at-a-glance

  • Cancer is not a nuclear genetic disease, but occurs as a result of previous mitochondrial damage, which then triggers nuclear genetic mutations that may lead to cancer
  • Mitochondrial function can be significantly improved through diet. Eating higher amounts of healthy fats and lower amounts of net carbs, along with moderate amounts of high-quality protein, is key
  • Normal, healthy cells have the metabolic flexibility to adapt from using glucose to using ketone bodies. Cancer cells lack this ability, so when you reduce net carbs (total carbs minus fiber), you effectively starve the cancer
June 11, 2016 



By Dr. Mercola
Is it possible that chromosomal damage is simply a marker for cancer and not the actual cause of the disease? Compelling evidence suggests this is the case, and in the featured lecture, orthopedic surgeon Dr. Gary Fettke reviews some of this evidence.
Having battled cancer himself, Fettke came to realize the influence of nutrition on cancer, and the importance of eating a diet high in healthy fats and low in net carbohydrates (total carbs minus fiber, i.e. non-fiber carbs). Fettke is not the only one promoting the metabolic model of cancer.
Earlier this year I interviewed Travis Christofferson, author of a phenomenal book called "Tripping Over the Truth: The Return of the Metabolic Theory of Cancer Illuminates a New and Hopeful Path to a Cure," on this topic.

The Metabolic Model of Cancer

The Cancer Genome Atlas project that began in 2006 set out to sequence the genomes of cancer cells. It was the largest government project ever conceived, involving 10,000 times the amount of genetic sequencing done by the Human Genome Project. Alas, the results didn't conform to their original expectations.
The evidence clearly showed that something other than mere gene mutation was at play. The mutations found in cancer cells were simply too random. Some cancers didn't even have any genetic mutations driving them. So what then could the driving factor be?
In a nutshell, the nuclear genetic defects typically thought to be responsible for cancer actually occur further downstream. Mitochondrial damage happens first, which then triggers nuclear genetic mutations that may lead to cancer.
Moreover, scientists are now finding that mitochondrial dysfunction is at the core of virtually ALL diseases, placing mitochondrial function at the very center of just about any wellness or disease prevention program.
As Fettke notes, one of the primary considerations is glucose metabolism within your mitochondria — a theory initially brought forth by Dr. Otto Warburg in the 1920s.
In 1931, Warburg won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his discovery that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells. As it turns out, cancer cells do not have the same metabolic flexibility as healthy ones.

Cancer Cells Are Metabolically Limited to Feed on Sugar

A cell can produce energy either aerobically, in the mitochondria, or anaerobically, in the cytoplasm. Anaerobic metabolism generates excessive levels of lactic acid, which can be toxic.
Warburg discovered that in the presence of oxygen, cancer cells overproduce lactic acid, and this became known as the Warburg Effect. So what does this tell us about the nutritional origins of cancer? In a nutshell, Warburg's findings tell us that sugar "feeds" cancer while fats "starve" it.
Healthy cells can use either glucose or ketone bodies from fat as an energy source, but cancer is metabolically restricted to using glucose only. Cancer cells for the most part lack metabolic flexibility and simply cannot metabolize ketones, and this is why nutritional ketosis appears to be so effective against cancer.
Cancer could actually be more accurately classified as a mitochondrial metabolic disease. Few people inherit genes that predispose them to cancer. Most inherit genes that prevent cancer. Inherited mutations typically disrupt the function of the mitochondria, and the heightened risk for cancer is a result of that weakness.
The good news is you can optimize your mitochondrial function by addressing certain lifestyle factors such as diet and exercise, and this knowledge opens up a whole new way of looking at and treating cancer.
As explained by Fettke, the metabolic model of cancer is "based around energy and growth; random chromosomal mutations are secondary." Furthermore:
"All cells require an energy source of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). They also require building materials that are either sourced locally or transported in normal cells convert glucose primarily into ATP and a little into maintenance.
Cancer cells do the opposite. There's a diversion of glucose away from ATP production to the building materials required for cell growth ... The other building materials require protein and fatty acids and cancer steals those from its surroundings.
That invasion of surrounding tissue accounts for how cancer spreads and metastasizes ... The driving force behind all of this is oxygen-free radical production.
I believe the free radical production then causes the DNA damage in a random fashion, and account for the chromosomal abnormalities. So, if we can find the source of the oxygen free radicals, we might be onto something."

Processed Food Diet Is a Major Cancer Promoter

What drives free radical production? Inflammation is a major driver, and our modern processed food diet is highly inflammatory.
Key culprits include polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs), trans fats and added sugar in all its forms, especially processed fructose (such as high-fructose corn syrup), as well as refined grains. Artificial ingredients can also promote inflammation.
By reducing the amount of net carbs you eat, you will accomplish four things that will result in lowered inflammation and reduced stimulation of cancer growth. You will:
  1. Lower your serum glucose level
  2. Reduce your mTOR level
  3. Reduce your insulin level
  4. Lower insulin growth factor-1 (IGF-1, a potent hormone that acts on your pituitary gland to induce metabolic and endocrine effects, including cell growth and replication. Elevated IGF-1 levels are associated with breast and other cancers)
Indeed, one of the basic reasons why a high-fat, low-net carb diet (nutritional ketosis) works so well is because it drives your inflammation down to almost nothing. And when inflammation disappears, your body can heal.

What Cancer Requires for Growth

In order to thrive and grow, cancer cells need fuel in the form of glucose, plus building materials in the form of protein, fatty acids, phosphate and acetate. These building materials are not readily available in your bloodstream, so cancer cells "steal" them from surrounding cells.
The process that allows the cancer cells to invade surrounding tissue is known as the Reverse Warburg Effect. This effect is based on hydrogen peroxide generation caused by the interaction between oxygen free radicals and water.
So invasive or metastasizing cancer, in essence, is the result of the Warburg Effect and the Reverse Warburg Effect. I highly recommend viewing the featured video to get a better grasp on these processes, and how they contribute to cancer formation and spread. As noted by Fettke, knowing all of this presents us with a whole new set of cancer prevention and treatment options, including the following:
  • Limit or eliminate sugar and net carbohydrates (non-fiber carbs) to avoid feeding cancer cells
  • Limit or eliminate PUFA oils and trans fats to prevent the formation of harmful free radicals and damaging small, dense LDL particles
  • Limit protein (I recommend using a formula of one-half gram of protein per pound of lean body mass) to avoid stimulating mTOR pathway
  • Increase antioxidant intake (via whole food and/or supplements) to counteract free radical damage
  • Increase healthy fat intake to feed healthy cells while starving cancer cells

The Importance of Diet for Successful Cancer Treatment

Remember, the foundational aspect that must be addressed is the metabolic mitochondrial defect, and this involves radically reducing the non-fiber carbohydrates in your diet and increasing high-quality fats. This does not mean a low total carbohydrate diet. You need to have plenty of fresh, organic and fiber-filled vegetables (low net carbs).
You can actually have several hundred grams of vegetables per day as the fibers will be converted to short-chain fatty acids, which will improve your ability to burn fat for fuel and also nourish your microbiome.
You can replace the non-fiber carbs with up to 70 to 85 percent healthy fats, along with a moderate amount of high-quality protein, as excessive protein can also trigger cancer growth by stimulating mTOR, which accelerates cancer growth. That's really the solution. If you don't do that, other treatments may not work.
According to Fettke, studies have shown that nutritional ketosis, i.e. eating a high-fat, low-net carb diet significantly improves health outcomes in patients undergoing conventional cancer treatment such as chemotherapy.
It's also important to remember that glucose is an inherently "dirty" fuel as it generates far more reactive oxygen species and secondary free radicals than burning fat. But to burn fat, your cells must be healthy and normal. Cancer cells lack the metabolic flexibility to burn fat and this why a healthy high-fat diet appears to be such an effective anti-cancer strategy.
When you switch from burning glucose as your primary fuel to burning fat for fuel, cancer cells really have to struggle to stay alive, as most of their mitochondria are dysfunctional and can't use oxygen effectively to burn fuel. At the same time, healthy cells are given an ideal and preferred fuel, which lowers oxidative damage and optimizes mitochondrial function. The sum effect is that healthy cells begin to thrive while cancer cells are starved.  

General Nutrient Ratio Guidelines for Mitochondrial Health and Cancer Prevention

For optimal health, you need sufficient amounts of carbohydrates, fats, and protein. However, ever since the advent of processed foods and industrial farming, it's become increasingly important to be specific when discussing these nutrients. There are healthy fats and unhealthy ones. Ditto for carbohydrates and protein. Much of the benefits or risks are related to how the food was grown, raised, and/or processed.
To achieve nutritional ketosis, it is important to keep track of your net carbs and total protein intake. Net carbs are calculated by taking the total number of carbohydrates in grams and subtracting the amount of fiber contained in the food. The resulting number is your net carbs. For optimal health and disease prevention, I recommend keeping your net carbs below 40 or 50 grams per day.

Translating Ideal Protein Requirements Into Foods

Substantial amounts of protein can be found in meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, legumes, nuts, and seeds. Some vegetables also contain generous amounts of protein — for example, broccoli. To determine whether or not you're getting too much protein, simply calculate your body's requirement based on your lean body mass by subtracting your percentage of body fat from 100, and write down everything you eat for a few days. 
Then, calculate the amount of daily protein you've consumed from all sources. Again, you're aiming for one-half gram of protein per pound of lean body mass. If you're currently averaging a lot more than what is optimal, adjust downward accordingly. You could use the chart below or simply Google the food you want to know and you will quickly find the grams of protein in that food.
Red meat, pork, poultry, and seafood average 6 to 9 grams of protein per ounce.
An ideal amount for most people would be a 3-ounce serving of meat or seafood (not 9- or 12-ounce steaks!), which will provide about 18 to 27 grams of protein
Eggs contain about 6 to 8 grams of protein per egg. So an omelet made from two eggs would give you about 12 to 16 grams of protein
If you add cheese, you need to calculate that protein in as well (check the label of your cheese)
Seeds and nuts contain on average 4 to 8 grams of protein per quarter cup
Cooked beans average about 7 to 8 grams per half cup
Cooked grains average 5 to 7 grams per cup
Most vegetables contain about 1 to 2 grams of protein per ounce

Beware of Unhealthy Fats

When it comes to fat, it's really crucial to distinguish healthy from the unhealthy ones. The vast majority of fats people eat are actually very unhealthy. As a general rule, avoid all processed and bottled vegetable oils, which are typically high in damaged omega-6 fats. (Also be careful with olive oil. While healthy, up to 80 percent of commercial olive oils are actually adulterated with oxidized omega-6 vegetable oils, so make sure it's third party-certified as genuine.)  
Another general rule: do not be afraid of naturally saturated fats! They're among the healthy ones. Sources of healthy fats you want to include more of in your diet include:
Olives and olive oil (third party-certified authentic)
Coconuts and coconut oil
Butter made from raw grass-fed organic milk, and cacao butter
Raw nuts, such as, macadamia and pecans, and seeds like black sesame, cumin, pumpkin, and hemp seeds
Organic-pastured egg yolks
Grass-fed meats
Lard, tallow and ghee
Animal-based omega-3 fat such as krill oil

Nutritional Ketosis Can Offer Hope and Health

Fettke finishes his lecture listing a number of known benefits of nutritional ketosis in the treatment of cancer, including the following:
It's safe
It's well-tolerated
It can be used with other cancer treatments (and may actually improve the effectiveness of conventional cancer treatments)
Ketones are protective to surrounding cells, reducing the power of the cancer to spread
It gives patients a sense of control, which has been shown to improve survival rates
If useful as a treatment, it should certainly be considered for prevention
It gives patients hope, which also improves survival
It's the least expensive cancer treatment available

A Radical Experiment in Nutritional Ketosis

To give you an idea of how nutritional ketosis can benefit your health beyond cancer prevention, consider the case of Dr. Peter Attia. His experiment is a very clear example of the effects diet can have on overall health markers. Attia is a Stanford University-trained physician with a passion for metabolic science, who decided to use himself as a lab rat — with incredible results. He describes his experiment in the video below.

Although he's always been active and fit, he did not have genetics on his side. His natural tendency was toward metabolic syndrome, in spite of being very diligent about his diet and exercise. So he decided to experiment with nutritional ketosis to see if he could improve his overall health status. 
For a period of 10 years, he consumed 80 percent of his calories from healthy fat and continuously monitored his metabolic markers, such as blood sugar levels, body fat percentage, blood pressure, lipid levels and others. 
He experienced improvement in every measure of health, as you can see in the table below. An MRI confirmed that he had lost not only subcutaneous fat but also visceral fat, which is the most detrimental type. His experiment demonstrates how diet can produce major changes in your body, even if you are starting out relatively fit. And if you're starting out with a low level of fitness, then the changes you experience may be even more pronounced.

BEFOREAFTER
Fasting blood sugar10075 to 95
Percentage body fat2510
Waist circumference in inches4031
Blood pressure130/85110/70
LDL11388
HDL3167
Triglycerides15222
Insulin sensitivityBaselineIncreased by more 
than 400 percent
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/06/11/nutrition-influences-cancer.aspx