Science and technology
Fasting and cancer
Starving the beast
Feb 9th 2012, 22:02 by T.C.
DENIAL, famously, is good for the soul. It is also good for the body. Scientists have known for decades that animals fed near-starvation diet in laboratories see dramatic boosts in their lifespans. A lack of nutrients seems to spur the activity of cellular repair mechanisms, which help to slow the gradual accumulation of cellular damage that is one cause of aging.
Some humans, too, try to cheat aging by starving themselves. No one yet knows if such forbearance has the desired effect on members of Homo sapiens. In the meantime, though, boosting a body's repair mechanisms may have other uses. One could be in cancer treatment, where fasting seems both to protect healthy tissue and to make tumours easier to treat.
In 2008 a group led by Valter Longo, a biologist at the University of Southern California (USC), published a paper suggesting that a short, sharp course of fasting—not eating at all for a few days, as opposed to months of eating much less than normal—could make ordinary, non-cancerous cells more resistant to the side-effects of chemotherapy, at least in yeast and mice. If the same results were found in humans, it could mean less suffering for cancer patients; or it could free doctors to use higher doses of chemotherapy in an attempt to tackle cancers more aggressively.
But fasting may bring other benefits, too. On February 8th Dr Longo and his colleagues published another paper showing that—again in yeast and in mice—fasting can actually make cancerous cells more susceptible to chemotherapy than they otherwise might be. Cancerous mice treated with a combination of chemotherapy and fasting had better survival chances and smaller tumours, for several different types of cancer, than those treated with either fasting or chemotherapy alone. In some cases, the combination treatment eradicated even metastasised cancers completely.
The researchers suggest that the explanation for this double bill of fewer side effects and more vulnerable tumours is that cancer cells do not do what the rest of the body would like them to. In thin times, normal cells switch their attention away from reproduction and towards preservation, beefing up their repair mechanisms, and hunker down to wait for better days.
Not so cancer cells which, after all, are distinguished by their reckless proliferation. So while ordinary cells become resistant to chemotherapy drugs following a fast, cancer cells do not. In fact, in Dr Longo's study, tumour cells seemed to boost their activity levels during times of famine. That, in turn, boosted the quantity of free radicals, highly oxidising and damaging chemicals produced as a side-effect of metabolism, inside them. Thus stressed, the tumour cells found it much harder to cope with the added battering from chemotherapy drugs.
The usual caveats apply, as they do to all studies of lab animals; mice and yeast cells are not human. But if fasting shows similar effects in humans with cancer—and early-stage clinical trials are already under way—then the attractions are obvious. Fasting is cheap, safe and, in theory, should work against a wide variety of cancer types. Not quite a magic bullet, then, but not far off.
Correction: The original post listed Lizzia Raffaghello as the lead author of the 2008 paper. In fact, Dr Longo was the lead author on both papers, while Dr Raffaghello was a contributing author. Our apologies to both.
In this blog, our correspondents report on the intersections between science, technology, culture and policy. The blog takes its name from Charles Babbage, a Victorian mathematician and engineer who designed a mechanical computer.
Advertisement
Babbage audio
- Analects | China
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Elysée | France’s presidential election
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- Russia and NATO: Rethink the reset
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- The euro in crisis: Groping towards Grexit
- Renouncing citizenship: Did Eduardo Saverin do anything wrong?
- Nationalism online: Backfired
- The euro crisis: Going, going, gone?
- Greece and the euro: Exodus, chapter 1
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Renouncing citizenship: Did Eduardo Saverin do anything wrong?
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- The euro in crisis: Groping towards Grexit
- The euro crisis: Going, going, gone?
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Poverty: The audacity of hope
- Rival versions of capitalism: The endangered public company
- Daily chart: Top flights
- Bo Xilai v Chen Guangcheng: Who is the mightier?
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
I'm no scientist, but it occurs to me that one possible way of validating this research in humans would be to compare cancer rates and longevity in Muslims that regularly fast for Ramadan versus a control group.
Muslims only fast in daylight hours during Ramadan. At night they overeat to compensate.
can someone summarize this article for me?
INTRESTING
I recommend that the researchers read the works of Dr Otto Warburg, who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1931 for his discovery
of the oxygen transferring enzyme of cell respiration.
His address to Nobel Laureates, on June 30, 1966 at Lindau, Lake Constance, Germany states
"The prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen ... in normal body cells by fermentation of sugar." and so by fasting you elimate the sugars that feed the cancer.
Here is a link; http://www.ionizers.org/Otto-Warburg.html
I couldnot impose my views to you, but one thing that come in your mind when u think, suppose that human body is like a machine ;indeed a perfect machine, if you runs the machine regularly it may damage any part of it . Our digestive system is like such , if we fast then by doing this our digestive system get some rest and it obviously start good .
I think it's absolutely right as we Muslims fast at most 30 days in a year and such is too much helpful as it cure us by doing such
Such rubbish. You eat after the sunset without controll!
Great! Now intelligent public can see again religious ingnorance.
1. You eat without control after sunset. It is like to say i dont drink in the morning, but drink in the evening twise as much.
2. You dont work hard during fasting - lost productivity.
3. Not drinking plenty of water (part of this fast) - detrimental for health
Isaak Newton did not fast and did more then you and your children will ever do. Cheers.
U donot believe in this
This modern science which we have today is benovelence of those who scientists who fast ; kindi , razi etc , Newton did imitation of these scientists. Read Wikipedia .
We should not point out whose science came from whom. Those Muslim scholars in middle ages took base from ancient Greeks/Indians/Mesopotamians. So Enlightenment use of all previous human achievements is normal. Would be not practical to invent bicycle twice, isn`t it.
"A lack of nutrients seems to spur the activity of cellular repair mechanisms"
Is that why we often don't feel like eating when we are ill? Better to repair our cells than to multiply them. And does it mean that when you are ill and people say "you've got to eat something" they may be making you worse?
LOL...yeah, this article made things appear more confusing to me, but your comment about this confusion is too clear.
My grandmother died of cancer some 20 yrs ago and she used to fast (for religious reasons) 1-2 days every week. I guess fasting did not do much good to her. Some eat to live, and some live to eat!
I hope someone comes with a 100% cure for all types of cancer. Sigh!
and on off 1 and 2 days is not a major fast.you smart one. point of fast would be to ease up overload of nutrients and food on body for an extended period of time.. 2 days on and 5 days off.. is too short
Feed a cold starve a flu. Horses for courses.
A sure way to die of natural causes (unless you're hit by a bus, etc.) is to never go to the doctor...
"No one yet knows if such forbearance has the desired effect on members of Homo sapiens."
However, a 20 year study of rhesus monkeys strongly suggests that CRON (Calorie Restriction Optimal Nutrition) would have the same life lengthening effect on humans.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5937/201
Abstract
Caloric restriction (CR), without malnutrition, delays aging and extends life span in diverse species; however, its effect on resistance to illness and mortality in primates has not been clearly established. We report findings of a 20-year longitudinal adult-onset CR study in rhesus monkeys aimed at filling this critical gap in aging research. In a population of rhesus macaques maintained at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center, moderate CR lowered the incidence of aging-related deaths. At the time point reported, 50% of control fed animals survived as compared with 80% of the CR animals. Furthermore, CR delayed the onset of age-associated pathologies. Specifically, CR reduced the incidence of diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and brain atrophy. These data demonstrate that CR slows aging in a primate species.
Diet and nutrition is entirely subject to the appetite and hunger of the patient. Most cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy are nauseous, listless, have poor appetite, are depressed and have low interest in food. Food taste funny, drugs can leave a metallic taste or unique dietary cravings. Food does not have the same attractions when terminally ill and dying.
Perhaps this is advantageous to the effects of chemo, but it is unintentional. The real challenge is to maintain healthy nutrition in the patient who is depressed and facing death.
IT makes no sense if the chemo results in complete tumor remission, but the patient is dying of malnutrition or nutrient deficiency.
Life is maintaining homeostasis, equilibrium and balance. Death is the loss of homeostasis.
To add, if there's a material effect, it would show in the many patients who can't eat. Some have no appetite - remember, that's the justification for medical marijuana - and some literally can't eat. I would think some of these effects would have been noticed in the many people treated over the years. That suggests the effect would be small and perhaps not regular.