BillyBob, I believe they call it "halving time", similar to half life,
or the time it takes for PSA to drop by 50%.
So, for example, if you could find a diet that has a "halving time"
equal to the natural "doubling time" (PSADT), then, in theory, you
could alternate "on-diet" and "off-diet", and end up with PSA
unchanged. You would have to be careful how you do this. If you
did this every other day, you would end up with a bad diet, and you
would get no (anti-cancer) benefit whatsoever. I think something like
3 months on and three months off could work, in theory.
However, in practice, my own experience is that it would take me about
3 months "on-diet" to reverse one month "off-diet". On the other end
of the spectrum, I might get away with one meal a week, eating almost
anything I wanted.
What are your thoughts on overall health implications between those
I have not really done much thinking on that. And even if I had, it's not like I have much evidence for my opinions. But I feel pretty sure you could get away with 1 meal a week eating what you want( 6 on, 1 off). Or as you said, 1 month off to 3 on(3 on to 1 off). But I heve no idea which would make the better gamble for you or me.
I'm thinking of Jason Fung's books on intermittent fasting vs diabetes and also his book on obesity. He is a Canadian kidney doc, but since diabetes is the number 1 cause of kidney disease, he ends up treating a boatload of diabetics. A one liner summary of his ideas on the best way to treat diabetes leading to kidney disease: anything that lowers insulin, which means various intermittent fasting approaches and/or low carb eating. He claims major success at treating his diabetic patients that come to him, - getting many of them totally off of their meds- and I believe him. For him, it's all about
the insulin their bodies produce. You and I share some of his concerns about
high blood insulin vs general health and cancer specifically, I think.
In one of those books, he was listing stats for people of certain nations and classes who eat a surprising amount of carbs but rarely get diabetes or high blood insulin or insulin resistance. Other factors such as how often they eat, how many meals a day, and total amount seemed to explain their freedom from this common American disease. He also gives some stats related to the eating habits in the earlier days of the USA, when folks ate fewer meals per day and snacked less on average, than today. Back before type 2 diabetes was so common, when it was still called "Adult Onset Diabetes", before teenagers started getting it.
So as he considered the studies on folks who ate a fair amount of carbs but did not get insulin resistant, he came to the conclusion that it was chronic high carb loading leading to chronic, all day long high blood insulin that did most of the damage. So, for example, if someone only ate 1 big meal a day, or maybe even only two within a less than an 8 hour period and no snacking, so that most of the day they were not cranking out insulin, they were not likely to have problems from insulin, no matter what they ate during their eating hours. It took that chronic, all day long insulin production to really cause them problems. (especially if they did not already have problems that needed correcting from a lifetime of all day long high blood insulin.)
So, I'm thinking, based on a wild assed guess, that some of that applies to the sort of thing you have been doing. IOW, as long as most of the time you are not eating in a manner so as to stimulate your cancer to grow, you can probably get away with some periods of time off the wagon. But, I'm basing my GUESS on very little evidence.
PSA 10.9 ~112013
Bx on 112013 at age ~65yrs, with 5 of 12 pos, G9(5+4), T2B.
RALP with lymph nodes at Vanderbilt 021914. (nodes clear, SV+, G9 down graded to 4+5, 1 focal margin )
only rare pad use after 1 year
PSA <.01 on 6/14 and all until 9/15 = .01, still .01 9/16, .02 on 3/17,6/17,10/17, .06 1/18, .06 4/18, <.05 7/18, .06 10/18, .06 01/19
Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 3/22/2019 2:44:47 PM (GMT-6)