From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Fri Aug 30 2002 - 10:54:12 MDT
In a message dated 8/30/02 9:17:05, ABlainey@aol.com writes:
>My question would be: Which cells survive starvation the best? normal or
>cancerous?
Normal cells are more resistant to almost any form of stress, especially
radiation, starvation, and heat, when the cell needs to stop growth for
repair reasons. This is the basis for chemotherapy.
>I would like to place my money on normal healthy cells due to the rapid
>division rate and therefor extra consumption needs of cancer cells. If
>this
>is true, then I would expect lower rates of cancer in women (especially
>those with multiple children), in area's of low food availability like
various
>African nations and any other areas where food resources were scarce. For
>example the concentration camps in WW2 or sufferers of anorexia.
>
Whole-body starvation doesn't "starve" cells, in the sense of making them
die due to lack of food. Animals who eat less have lower rates of several
cancer types, mostly reproductive and digestive, but this is probably due
to hormonal signals reducing the division (and hence mutation) rate in those
cell with lowered food. Eating less reduces the growth rate of cancers
since blood glucose drops and the cancer has less to grow on, but the
effects aren't large - something like 20% extended survival IIRC.
> Just a madcap theory, but is anyone aware of any research into this? I
>know
>that Cancer is more prevalent in the western world. Could it be that we
>are just feeding our cancers more?
Cancer is *not* becoming more prevalent in the western world on an
age-adjusted basis. The increase we see is mostly because people live longer.
Specific cancers are going up and down for various known reasons -
lung and smoking, skin and sun, breast and child bearing - but there's
no overall trend.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:33 MST