Survival

Kumar said:
Can't one day eating nothing be eating less overall?
Click to expand...

Of course. But eating nothing does not help anything. It makes your body burn muscle, and then fat, releases toxins into your blood stream, and is generally a bad idea.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Cells do not develop a coating to protect themselves from carcinogens (especially since one of the biggest carcinogens out there is oxygen) and the genetic machine to protect against DNA damage is already in place. There is no need to develop one. But like all natural things it is good, but not faultless.
The adhesion machinery is also already in place, after all, all cells in your body have this. Alterations in this *can* have an effect on cancer, but again, the sheer number of variations possible makes it impossible to generalize
Click to expand...

Don't cells endangered to becoming cancerous do anything to protect itself from mutation, environmental assults(by carcinogens) & immune responses? Can they develop some sticky/adhesive material or can body system do it arround them? I am trying to understand about adhesive molecules and cell adhesions related to cancer and I assume at this movement, that there can be important relevance. In view of homotypic specificity & tissue specific adhesion molecules(eg. E-cadherins (epithelial), , probably tissue specificity of cancer may be related to it. Ca2+ is one sustance related to cancium dependant adhesion molecules, but btw, can you tell me that if can there be any relevance of potassium to cell adhesion abnormality?

I would like to know/read cellular or body mechanism based mechanisms to save a cell from chronic environmental(carcinogens) assualt.


The paragraph you quoted already mentions it one down. There are also genes that are beneficial to lifespan when overfeeding and detrimental when the organisms are starved. And do bear in mind that calory restriction when applied to humans would constitute severe malnourishment. Even *IF* it were to increase our lifespan it would not be a life worth living. And it has no effect on cancer, it merely prolongs the organism's life, so you can still get sick and die.
Click to expand...

"There are also genes that are beneficial to lifespan when overfeeding and detrimental when the organisms are starved. "

Your above words are bit brainstorming to me. I shall think on these bit later.
Actually something like that calorry restriction related to DNA repair was there(i think). So I was bit attracted.

It's also highly debatable how well results in yeast and c.elegans translate to humans to begin with.
Humans evolved to live to about 40-50, long enough to reproduce and care for 1 generation, so we already have extended our lifespan considerably and our bodies break down rapidly near the end.
Click to expand...

sorry I could not follow above in relevance to our discussions.

I don't know, if we are just increasing the quantity/numbers at the cost of quality & quantity needed for survival of the fittest.
Best regards.
 
Kumar said:
By inactivity.:)
Click to expand...

So you would get fuel by sitting on your backside doing nothing.How does that work? A fleet of servants bringing food on silver trays? What is unnatural about inactivity? It comes very naturally to me.Are you a real doctor?
 
Last edited:
Taffer said:
Of course. But eating nothing does not help anything. It makes your body burn muscle, and then fat, releases toxins into your blood stream, and is generally a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Will you tell me about such burning/losing in sequence on practicing fasting. Whether inflammatory, stress & oxidation related activities increases or decreases on practicing some fasting/calory restriction?
 
dafydd said:
So you would get fuel by sitting on your backside doing nothing.How does that work? A fleet of servants bringing food on silver trays? What is unnatural about inactivity? It comes very naturally to me.Are you a real doctor?
Click to expand...

This is a dynamic issue, we can try discussing it later. May not be real in your sense.:)
 
Kumar said:
Will you tell me about such burning/losing in sequence on practicing fasting. Whether inflammatory, stress & oxidation related activities increases or decreases on practicing some fasting/calory restriction?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I don't know enough/can't be bothered to explain such a complex issue to you. Maybe another poster will, but I suggest your pick up a human biology text book or two and find out for yourself.
 
In adult tissues, E-cadherin is expressed in epithelial tissues, where it is constantly regenerated with a 5-hour half-life on the cell surface. [citation needed]

Loss of E-cadherin function or expression has been implicated in cancer progression and metastasis.[citation needed] E-cadherin downregulation decreases the strength of cellular adhesion within a tissue, resulting in an increase in cellular motility. [citation needed]This in turn may allow cancer cells to cross the basement membrane and invade surrounding tissues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadherin

Cadherin-1 is a protein that in humans is encoded by the CDH1 gene.[1] CDH1 has also been designated as CD324 (cluster of differentiation 324).

It is a tumor suppressor gene.[2][3]

This gene is a classical cadherin from the cadherin superfamily. The encoded protein is a calcium-dependent cell-cell adhesion glycoprotein composed of five extracellular cadherin repeats, a transmembrane region, and a highly conserved cytoplasmic tail. Mutations in this gene are correlated with gastric, breast, colorectal, thyroid, and ovarian cancers. Loss of function is thought to contribute to progression in cancer by increasing proliferation, invasion, and/or metastasis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDH1_(gene)
Click to expand...

Hello Lukraak_Sisser,

Above quote is about one adhesion molecule E-cadherin (epithelial). This seems to be an important molecule related to epithelial cancers. Can you tell me more?
 
Kumar said:
Hello Lukraak_Sisser,

Above quote is about one adhesion molecule E-cadherin (epithelial). This seems to be an important molecule related to epithelial cancers. Can you tell me more?
Click to expand...

Not really without diving into the appropriate literature. The wiki entry seems to explain it in reasonable detail already.
The protein is part of the things that keep cells together. In the mentioned cancer cells, when/if this protein is mutated, the cancer becomes more mobile and thus more dangerous. Bear in mind that this is not a molecule that *causes* cancer, its just that once cells become cancerous, losing this molecule is bad for the patient.
I'm not sure what more you'd want to know.
 
Kumar said:
I was talking about fasting for some time not starvation. Ok you can also take it as eating less(balanced diet), using more & stressing less. I don't know what is basis of diabetes, odd eatings, inactivity & chronic stress causing odd insulin secretion(both way) OR inherited defect other than these odds.
Click to expand...


A classic bait and switch: arguing that fasting is beneficial by redefining "fasting" as "eating less (balanced diet), using more & stressing less".
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Not really without diving into the appropriate literature. The wiki entry seems to explain it in reasonable detail already.
The protein is part of the things that keep cells together. In the mentioned cancer cells, when/if this protein is mutated, the cancer becomes more mobile and thus more dangerous. Bear in mind that this is not a molecule that *causes* cancer, its just that once cells become cancerous, losing this molecule is bad for the patient.
I'm not sure what more you'd want to know.
Click to expand...

There is a confusion to me. Binding of cancer mutated cell & tumor stage is better for delaying fatality or if muated cancer cell/s in initial stage, if detached & move into blood or lymph, can it be better handled by immune system?
 
Mojo said:
A classic bait and switch: arguing that fasting is beneficial by redefining "fasting" as "eating less (balanced diet), using more & stressing less".
Click to expand...

On fasting for a day during a week, it will be eating less in a week. Not so?:)
 
Sorry I’ve been quite busy lately so I have not had a chance to respond.


Kumar said:
Thanks for technical informations in detail.

Yes that can be a problem of killing.
Click to expand...

No problem, though it wasn’t all that technical.


Kumar said:
Do you feel that normal cells & cancer cells are self controlled & surrounding environment to them are just signals to perform different actions as per environment changes?
Click to expand...

Well I think Lukraak_Sisser put it quite eloquently and succinctly.

Lukraak_Sisser said:
To gain some understanding in that I'd advise you to take a full course in cellular biology, genetics and biochemistry.

A short attempt. Each cell is filled with receptors and transport channels. In response to stimuli from their environment cells can release certain signalling molecules that then make the cells that can recieve these molecules react in a certain way. All of these things are part of a massive action/response interactive network of a complexity that boggles the mind and that runs fully automatically without any active input from the brain.
These continuous checks and balances ensure your skin keeps growing, while your brain does not etc.
The fact that something in that network can go wrong is not that surprising. The surprising part is how *little* it actually malfunctions.

However, and this cannot be stressed enough. This is not a sentient network. It does not think, it has no emotions, it is just a very complex chemical reaction. Thus if something goes wrong there is no consious decision to kill the host, its just a side effect.
Click to expand...



Kumar said:
Right.






Yes.
Click to expand...
OK, glad we have cleared that up.


Kumar said:
Is it not like we are doing to cancer cells? We also kill cancer cells with healthy cells like autoimmunity or inflammation kill. In this sense why we can't take that autoimmunity & inflammation is doing right thing for us--probably killing or decreasing odd cells(excessive, sick, foreigners or otherwise problematic) to our body? Obiously some healthy cells can also be sacrificed for some good in nett. Sometime back I was thinking compromised healing esp. for small injuries (scar etc.) may as a result of interventions in natural healing process.
Click to expand...


Well again the problem is in targeting only the cancerous cells. Our immune systems can malfunction just like any other system. Generally those malfunctions result in one of two overall outcomes. The immune system becomes less effective and one becomes more vulnerable to opportunistic infections or diseases. Alternately the system becomes overactive and begins damaging otherwise healthy parts of our body.

By the way, a scar is part of the “natural healing process”, some “interventions in natural healing process” (or more specifically assistance), like keeping the wound tightly closed, can help reduce possible scarring.
 
Kumar said:
There is a confusion to me. Binding of cancer mutated cell & tumor stage is better for delaying fatality or if muated cancer cell/s in initial stage, if detached & move into blood or lymph, can it be better handled by immune system?
Click to expand...

You still try to humanize and rationalize cancer cells.
They are not out to be better. They are not thinking, they are not in any way out to *do* anything.
A cancer goes through a series of stages each of which can be their last and the length of which varies immensely
1: Initial mutation that relaxes the control of cell division
The cells multiply beyond what they would normally do, but are further harmless and can be stopped by simple things like physical resistance
2: Mutations in DNA repair in response to increase multiplication.
This is both the result of and the reaction to the multiplication defect. DNA repair in most tissues is relatively slow due to the slow replication rate. If cells replicate faster its more likely that this system gets subverted
3: Initial tumor.
With the loss of DNA control the cells can replicate faster and will start being destructive to their environment and also rapidly start accumulating various mutations, but are still linked to their point of origin
4: Metastatis
Due to the accumulation of mutations the cells at some point become able to detach from the tumor, enter the bloodstream and attach at a different point in the body.

Although at stage 3 and 4 in theory there is a chance the surface of the cells will alter to such a degree that the patients immune system will respond to them, this is by no means a given, and there is always the possibility that the cells the immune system recognizes and destroys are not the ones actually doing the damage. But all of this is the result of a cascade of mutations and not any conscious decision of the cancer cells. A great many get stuck in stage one and never become dangerous.

I realize that this is a simplification, but I really don't know any way to make it more clear without the need for you to truly immerse yourself in genetics and human biochemistry. At some point such knowledge in necessary if you want to know more about the mechanisms underlying cancer. This is not some secret way to keep knowledge from the layman, but its like trying to explain quantum mechanics to someone who has never had more maths than what is given in high school, or asking someone to build a building when you've never had more than standard woodcraft.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom