43 Dr. Valter Longo Fasting Longevity and Cancer.mp3: Audio automatically transcribed by Sonix
43 Dr. Valter Longo Fasting Longevity and Cancer.mp3: this mp3 audio file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the best speech-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors.
Speaker1:
Hi and welcome to the Cancer Secrets podcast. I am your host and guide, Dr. Jonathan Stegall. Cancer is like a thief who has come to steal, kill and destroy. I have personally seen it wreak havoc on patients, friends and even my own family. But I am on a mission to change the cancer paradigm through the practice of integrative oncology cancer treatment that integrates the best of conventional medicine with the best of alternative therapies backed by science and personalized to each patient. You need a positive voice you can trust. This podcast will share valuable information to give you practical hope for a better outcome. So I invite you to join me on this journey as we seek to change the cancer paradigm together. Well, hello and welcome back to the Cancer Secrets podcast. I'm your host, Doctor Jonathan Seagal. This is Season three and episode 43. And I have a wonderful guest for us today, Dr. Valter Longo. Dr. Longo, PhD, has over 30 years of experience in the field of longevity and healthy eating. He is the director of the Longevity Institute at the University of Southern California and the Leonard Davis School of Gerontology in Los Angeles, California, as well as the Director of the Longevity and Cancer Program at the Italian Foundation for Cancer Research Institute of Molecular Oncology in Milan, Italy. Dr. Longo is the author of the bestselling book The Longevity Diet and as well as two books in Italy. Professor Longo is also the scientific director of the Create Cures Foundation and the Valter Longo Foundation. In 2018, Time magazine named Professor Longo as one of the 50 most influential people in health care for his research on fasting, mimicking diets as a way to improve health and prevent disease. Dr. Longo, thank you so much for being here today.
Speaker2:
Oh, thanks. There was a long introduction.
Speaker1:
Well, you have a lot of great accomplishments to talk about, so we're honored to have you. And I know our listeners are going to really get a lot of great information out of this today. So I'd like to start by talking about how you got interested in longevity research. You're from Italy and I'm sure you had some some people in your family or that you knew who probably lived a long time and had good longevity. But how did you really get into the research?
Speaker2:
I come from actually in I didn't know at the time, but I ended up coming from a little town, or at least my parents come from a little town that has record longevity in the south of Italy is called Moloko and meaning that at some point out of 2000 people, there are five centenarians, which is one of the highest prevalence of centenarians in the world. But I think that I started Longevity Research in my undergraduate with Robert Gracie in Texas, and I so it was my second or third year in college. I was very interested from the very beginning with longevity and aging. And so I joined this lab first and then ended up moving to UCLA for my PhD and work with Roy Walford, who was a was a pathologist there at UCLA and was world famous for, for something called calorie restriction. Yeah. So then I, I did aging research from the very beginning and, and was lucky enough, but also I went, there was one of the reasons for going to UCLA was that UCLA at the time was really one of the, the places where lots of research on aging and particularly several people in biochemistry, but also Roy Walford in the pathology department were leaders in in studies related to aging. And so there was a great choice here.
Speaker1:
Okay, excellent. And so, you know, obviously we're focusing on cancer in this podcast. And I know your research is focused heavily on cancer as well. So so in general, what what kinds of diet and lifestyle factors have you found thus far that seem to be the most significant in in risk for cancer, let's say, people who tend to get cancer. Are there certain things you've seen across your research that that tend to be the biggest risk factors from a nutrition and lifestyle perspective?
Speaker2:
Yes. So protein intake in particular, animal protein intake seems to be at least according to our epidemiological study. Banaji stars also those by Jovan Nucci and others at Harvard School of Public Health. The studies are showing I mean, we focus on high protein diet. They focus more on we focus on the the negative association or the association between high protein, animal protein diet and cancer. They focus on the association between low carbohydrate diet and cancer. But then if you look at their data, you see that the low carbohydrate group has high protein group. And so we very much our data very much matches. And so yeah, the result is that people eat a lot of protein. At least in our study, the risk was three or four fold higher in before age 65 and three or four for higher than than those that had the lowest protein intake. Then after age 65, everything changed and those reporting having a low protein diet, they seem to do not very well at all. And we suspect that maybe due to malnourishment. So an 80 year old reporting having a very low protein diet, maybe somebody who's sick was malnourished. And that's probably why we think that those data are difficult to interpret. But certainly we don't see any more the fact that we see very clearly in the 65 and younger population.
Speaker1:
When we talk about high protein diets, I mean, if we look as a society, I mean, at least in the US, we've been gradually increasing the protein in our diet for for a while now. And not surprisingly, to you and me, we've seen a lot of chronic diseases go up during that span of time as well. Whether that's correlation or causation, I guess we're still figuring that out. But when you say high protein, you're not just talking about a diet a professional bodybuilder might eat that's eating 300 grams of protein a day. You're talking about the average American diet being considered high protein as well, is that correct?
Speaker2:
Yes, we're talking about ideal protein intake. That is probably anywhere between 40 to 50 grams a day and 70, 80 grams a day. And that should cover any any need, including muscle synthesis. Now, you have lots of Americans and not just Americans, also Europeans. They may have 100, 150, 200. So completely out of range. Now, regarding association and correlation and causation, keep in mind this is why we like to work on multiple pillars. And keep in mind that we have data on mice, for example, that don't have the growth hormone receptor or the growth hormone gene, which is the main responder to protein level. And they have a 50% reduction in cancers in tumors and probably be even bigger reduction in cancer. And we have people that we've been following in Ecuador that lack the growth hormone receptor and they have a big reduction. They almost never develop cancer either in Europe. And now we follow between us in Ecuador and Lauren in Europe and the Middle East, about 350 out of 350 people mix genetically with all kinds of other backgrounds and eating all kinds of diets. We've had one cancer death in 50 years. So that tells you I mean, that doesn't I mean, the protein drives the growth hormone, IGF one axis. That doesn't mean that you can get that kind of effect just with protein. But certainly that because we know and that's very well established that the protein are the number one driver of this axis, of this growth axis. Then you know it. Then the causation becomes much more obvious also because in mice you can take mice and put them on a low protein diet and they will live longer, have more, more, less cancer. You can put them on a low maintenance diet. They live longer and they have less cancer. So yeah, if you put it all together, then you get the causation. In addition to the correlation that you mentioned, epidemiology. I agree. Absolutely. Just one pillar, a good pillar, important pillar. But but alone is a limited value. But we never looked at it alone.
Speaker1:
And thank you for mentioning Methionine because I've devoted a several episodes in the past on this podcast to Methionine and the research showing even as far back as the 1970s, that that cancer seems to have an absolute requirement for methionine. And so that's really one of the main reasons why I talk a lot about plant based diet. And I know you do too, because the animal protein has a very high levels of methionine. I mean, if you look at the highest levels, it's it's meat and chicken and fish and even dairy. So, so and of course, plant based foods have lower methionine. So I think that's probably one of the keys. I mean, would you agree with that, that the methionine is a is a big deal?
Speaker2:
Yes, I agree. But that's where we get to the tricky part and the importance of science maintaining is also very, very central. To maintain a normal weight is very central for a lot of essential processes in cells. And so I think if you look at the and this is why I never recommended the vegan diet, I always recommend that a pescatarian diet and exactly for those reasons, whether it's leucine or methionine, if you have a 100% plant based diet, it doesn't mean you cannot get enough. Of course you can. But if you took 1000 people that are vegan, I bet you the majority of them will be malnourished at some level. So. So that means that, yeah, a lot of people can pay attention and do all the right things to substitute in a correct way. And you could do it, but that's not the reality for most people. So I caution people at improvising, and this is why it's so important that professionals like yourself are involved. You know, people don't need to go to an expert all the time, but they need to go to an expert enough times to get it right.
Speaker1:
Absolutely. So let's talk a little about what happens when we do ingest protein. I mean, what's going on on a societal level? You talked a little bit about the the the growth hormone, IGF one insulin like growth factor one is the way we measure that in a lab test. But what other things are also happening when that protein is is ingested to. Predisposed to cancer.
Speaker2:
Well, I mean, once the release of growth hormone, once growth hormone is released in response to protein and not just protein, there is all other other certainly carbohydrates that are also involved, but not as that is. Predominantly once the growth hormone pathway and not just the growth pathway are activated, then you have a cascade of of effects. And so a growth hormone will act, an insulin will act on energy and IGF one and will act on tau directly so the receptor now can signal even independently of the insulin IGF one. So you really and this is why if you look at the research on aging, growth hormone or growth hormone receptor mutation have been now holding the record longevity extension for 20 or 30 years. Nobody's ever been able to beat it. What does that tell you? And also not just longevity, but also health span. The mice that lack growth hormone or growth hormone receptor, about 50% of them will make it to the end of life without ever having any disease of any kind and that a researcher can observe that's less than 10% for the regular mice. And now if you look at the Ecuadorian people we've been following, they rarely get diabetes. They almost never get cancer. We've done functional MRIs. And there seem to be they have a more youthful cognitive performance. So, yes, so this seems to be the growth hormone, seems to be the master regulator and so of protein are clearly driving or increasing the activity of something that is a master regulator and therefore that regulates so many different pro aging. So aging, accelerating genes like tau, IGF one, insulin, etc..
Speaker1:
So it's interesting to think about growth hormone. I mean, I know some of our listeners may be thinking, well, well, I thought growth hormone was good. I mean, it's needed when you're a kid and it makes your your bones grow and your muscles grow. And, you know, they may have even heard some things about growth hormone being used for adults for anti-aging. And I'm putting that in quotes, people who are listening. But but as you said, what we're seeing is that too much growth hormone is is counterproductive to aging healthfully and also preventing chronic diseases like cancer.
Speaker2:
Yes. So absolutely. And and now, again, we need to worry about the right levels. Now, growth hormone seems to be optional in many ways because these people that we follow, they get to very old age and the mice get to 40%, extend their longevity. Right, on average. So growth hormone itself seems to be optional. Now, what is not optional is IGF one is insulin, etc., etc.. So that's I think where we start. We need to have a much more sophistication in understanding what is the correct level of insulin of IGF one to promote, let's say, growth of muscle, but also growth of immune cells and the normal maintenance of a system. And that's where we get into we need to get into the understanding of mechanisms. And that's why when people talk about high protein, low protein, high fat, low fat, high carb, low carb, it doesn't mean anything. It's all carbs, fat and protein all good and it all bad. You just need to know what type, what level and what time, right? So so those are really things that are absent in the medical in the medical community and and even to a large extent in the scientific community. So we need to start introducing these these concepts. And because obviously, as I just mentioned, we know now it's no longer an idea that they can be so powerful in controlling aging and diseases.
Speaker1:
Amazing. So so let's talk a little bit about you just mentioned, you know, carbohydrates, fat proteins. What we eat is important. But as you know and as I know as well, it's also what we don't eat that's important. And so let's talk a little about fasting, because this has been an obvious research interest of yours for a long time. And and it's something I incorporate with my patients as well. So let's talk about fasting and and I guess maybe introduce the topic and how it's different than just starvation, because I think a lot of people who aren't familiar with it may think, oh, is that like starving yourself?
Speaker2:
Yeah. So fasting is starvation. And I always say, you know, fasting doesn't mean anything. It's like it's like saying eating is the opposite of eating. So what does it mean somebody is eating? Is that good for for this person? Yeah, maybe good. Maybe bad, right? Same thing for fasting is a good for a person. Maybe good, maybe bad. So what we need to move into is exactly what are we talking about and for whom. So if you're talking about some people come to me and say, I'm about to do one month of fasting, water only fasting at home. Is that good for me? Well, it could be good for certain things, but it's very dangerous. And and I don't think most people should do it. And now I have lots of cancer patients that come up to me and say, can I should should I do a month long, fast because I want to starve the cancer? You know, probably a bad idea doesn't mean that it couldn't work, but it's very dangerous. And and so unfortunately, we don't have enough studies to understand what's good and what's bad and for whom. So with that said, then, when we first started with cancer, when we first started with fasting, mimicking diets, we started because of cancer patients. And so we started because we did a clinical trial here at a hospital, a USC, and it took forever to enroll for oncologists to enroll people to do water only fasting.
Speaker2:
And the reason was the patient, we were surprised, didn't want to fast, right. They did not want to do four days of water only. And the oncologists also were very worried. So I'm going to put somebody on water now. It's like everybody's doing it. But back then, which was 12 years ago, it was not the case. And everybody was scared to the point that the the Ethics Committee made us do one day, wait two days, three days. So we had to escalate. So yeah. So then then because of this, the National Cancer Institute, the NIH funded research to develop fasting, mimicking diet, some of it was funded by others, but. Certainly one of the fun there was the NCI and then eventually the national incident aging and. And so what we wanted to do was to move fast in towards something more akin to drugs, to medicine, like something standardized that the doctor could say a treatment. This is a treatment that would be standardized. And people say it's exactly the way you tested it clinically. These are the effects. These were the patient on which you tested it. So I'm a medical doctor. If you're a medical doctor, you can make a decision.
Speaker2:
Is this something for my patient or not? So that that's where we think the field, whatever type of facilities and it could be, it doesn't need to be. For example, I always recommend 12 hours of fasting, 12 hours of feeding that doesn't need to have a product or something clinically. That's that's fine just to water only fasting, say 8:00 am, 8 p.m. you eat an 8 p.m., 8 a.m. you fast water only. So that's perfectly fine. So not everything needs to have but but that's because it's something that is part of the normal standard nutrition is not even we don't even consider this fasting but it is fasting so such impact I would describe it as maybe the the form of of time restricted eating and and it is right. So lots of people now in the United States eat were actually on average in the United States is probably around 15 hours a day of eating and and, you know, 9 hours of fasting. So. Yeah, so then this the the 12 hours, it can be done by everybody. It should be done by everybody. Once you get to longer type of fasting than I think you we need to standardize and we probably need to use fasting in diets instead of water only fast.
Speaker1:
And that's just more for compliance and safety. That's your main thought. Let's say someone doesn't have a physician to help them monitor it. Is that the thought that like a fasting mimicking diet can still get a lot of the benefits you'd get from a water fast, but a little more a little safer?
Speaker2:
Yeah. Not just a lot the same, if not more. For example, in the study that we published last year, we showed that for inflammatory bowel disease, this is a mouse model. There was also a clinical component, but most of the study was done in mice. So we compare water only fasting with the fasting diet, and we're a little bit surprised, although I don't think we should have been surprised. But the surprise was that the prebiotic ingredients in the fasting mimicking diet, which we took from centenarian studies, we took from like what's the healthiest food in the world? And so that's how we selected to then develop the diet. And not surprisingly, maybe this prebiotic ingredient, fat, the bacteria, lactobacillus, bifidobacteria, which then repopulate it. So starvation bacteria, the microbiota starts getting repopulated reprogrammed, right. And lots of it probably shrinks. And then if you do water only fasting expands and some of the lactobacillus goes up, it doesn't go up very much. If you instead have the prebiotic present from the fasting diet, now you see a very big expansion. And now the the microbiota became 60% represented by these families, including lactobacillus and bifidobacteria. So yeah. So then the argument would be that another thing it was very interesting, water only fasting. Not surprisingly, during when we use these gastrointestinal toxins, the leakage was higher. And that's not surprising, right? Because if you're starving, if you just have water going through your gut, the gut, the intestine can start depleting some of the cells. It can become more leaky. It doesn't need to be as as tight, tightly populated by cells.
Speaker2:
And that's what we see. So the water only fast and actually made the gut leaky and but the fasting making diet prevented that. So this this is where I think where we need to move now. It could be that in some cases, water only fasting is as good or even better, you know, but all of this needs to be tested. And and because of the safety concern, because the compliance concern and potentially even the efficacy, we completely move away from what, only fasting and only to fasting diet. And I mentioned before privately to you, but I don't make a penny out of any of this, so I'm not trying to advertise any product, but I think I am trying to make sure that what happened in the past doesn't happen again, which is every 50 years or so, fasting comes around and some doctors adopt it and many doctors don't. And eventually something happened, you know, a patient dies or etc., etc., and then it goes away for another 50. So so now I think we have an opportunity to do the clinical trials, to standardize it, to have the FDA involved when it's when it needs to be involved and not involved, when it doesn't need to be involved. And then and so I think this time is going to stay around in the correct way. But I wouldn't be surprised if the improvised type of fasting is going to get is going to go away again just because the people didn't pay attention to the to the side effects.
Speaker1:
So let's jump off a little bit off topic and talk about more about the fasting mimicking diet. I mean, so so let's kind of explain what that is for our listeners because as you said, you know, a straight water fast which which technically people think fast. They think that means no calories. So you can have water, but you're not consuming food. Fasting mimicking diet is just a very low amount of calories on the on the fasting days. Is that is that how the best way to think about it?
Speaker2:
No, not necessarily, because it's about 100 calories on day one and then it goes to 800. And there's probably a lot of people that are very light, mostly women, but also men that are eating much more than that, but not that much more. They may be 16 to 1700 calories a day. Right. So so it's trying to push the calories as high as we can, but it's also trying to push the composition in a way to to a place where people that do it don't feel as hungry as they normally would. Yeah. So I think we, we've achieved now that at the university and now the companies that are marketing this are also working hard at achieving that.
Speaker1:
So, so can you explain a little bit about how many days that is because this is something that that listeners can actually go purchase on their own, correct? They don't need to to have a doctor prescribe it for them. They can go purchase it themselves.
Speaker2:
Yes. So prolonged is the is the clinically tested. And now we're about to publish the second randomized clinical trial on Prolong. This is going to be focused on hypertension patients, hypertensive patients. But I should say that prolonged whatever we showed in the first trial in 2017, now we confirmed in this trial as far as fasting, glucose, cholesterol, IGF one, etc., etc.. So yeah, prolonged is available out there and it was tested in people that are relatively healthy 20 to 70, but also those that are starting to move into the pre-diabetes area and or those that may be at risk for cancer, etc., etc.. So that's those are the ones that prolonged was trying to target. Now, I mean, the company is going to have the cancer product, which is called the antigen in the and that's the cancer product is going to be four days is is a tougher meaning it's got less calories in it but there's going to be multiple versions probably depending on the state of the patient. And then there's going to be other fasting mimicking diets, for example, throughout immunity. Now we're clinically testing the seven day very special fasting making diet. With different properties, focus on autoimmune diseases and including multiple sclerosis and an inflammatory bowel disease.
Speaker1:
Excellent. So the main markers that that you've been following in the with the fasting mimicking studies are growth hormone levels, glucose or blood sugar levels. You mentioned insulin.
Speaker2:
Yeah. So for the fasting mimicking diet first in mice and then in people, we usually measure ketone bodies, glucose IGF one, IGF BP one, those are the markers that are more steady. And then we can growth hormone goes up and down. So it's a good marker to measure, but IGF one is more steady. And so we measure those four. And the way it was developed was to identify a composition of the diet, which is high fat, low sugar, relatively high carb and low very low protein, all vegan, etc., etc.. Now again, lots of people confuse my recommendation for everyday diet with the fasting diet. So the fasting making diet is all 100% vegan. My recommendation are our pescatarian diet, but that's for the everyday diet to.
Speaker1:
Kind of summarize where we are so far. So for an everyday diet, you recommend that people eat over about a 12 hour window. So you fast for 12 hours, you eat for 12 hours and that is the pescatarian diet on those days. And then whatever time period is the fasting period, that would be the fasting mimicking diet you talked about just now.
Speaker2:
The first imaging diet should be done. I always say, and I need to do a basis which means that most people might need to do a two, three, four times a year. You know, people that are relatively healthy, everybody else should go to their doctor. I mean, and even those they should go to a registered dietitian probably, and make sure that they get checked out, etc., etc., at the beginning. And then they can do it. But somebody who's obese, who's got diabetes, pre-diabetes, etc., so they should go to the doctor and then determine something that should be accompanying standard of care and how frequently. So some people now, for example, in Holland, we're testing for diabetes patients and that's going to be monthly cycles of of the five day fasting making diet. But yeah, so different people may do this in a at a very different frequency.
Speaker1:
So let's talk a little bit about I know you don't like this term, but let's talk about intermittent fasting. So it's become popular is sort of an alternative to a multi day fast for people to to restrict their eating within each day. So let's say rather than eating from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., they say, well, I'm going to skip breakfast and maybe even lunch. I'm going to eat from from noon until 8 p.m. or from 4:00 pm to 8 p.m. or the whole idea of condensing the eating into a smaller window each day and doing that every day. What are your thoughts on that?
Speaker2:
Well, the thoughts are that we're going to get the same problems that we saw with the low carb diets. Right. So they they look good. You lose weight, you have an acute effect. You have a temporary effect that makes you feel better, etc., etc.. And then you eventually you get the problems. And even in mice, you see this, if you do a low carb diet, they look great, they lose weight and then they have more problems and they live shorter. So with improvised fasting methods, I think we're going to get the same now. It doesn't mean that is necessarily bad to do 16 hours or even 18 hours or 20 hours. It is possible that and this is what we suspect that some people might be able to use it for a short period of, say, a month or two and then move to a, say, 12 hours, 12 and 12, much safer long term strategy so that I think we need more tasks. But certainly a number of groups have shown that that this this could be promising, as could be some of the other intermittent fasting strategy, let's say, you know, two days a week of 500 calories or something like that. Yeah. Again, in the long run, whether it's 16 hours or two days a week or every other day, I you know, I come from Roy Wolf's lab back in the early nineties. I followed this whole idea about calorie restriction. So I came to the conclusion based on facts, not on ideas, that anything is chronic would be abandoned. Right? Anything that is chronic and that is tough and is really changes the way people do things, especially eat, is going to eventually fail if you're going to not eat every other day.
Speaker2:
Yes, possibly for a month or two you could do it. But eventually you you're going to have to move to something else that is much more reasonable and feasible. And it's not surprising that calorie restriction, which is the chronic restriction of. 25% of your salary from normal, down 25%. It's not surprising that almost nobody does that. And in spite of lots of the positive effects that have been observed by the by the scientific community. Yeah. So I think that intermittent fasting is promising, is not made for long term use, but an even for shorter term use, it needs more, more testing. We think that the periodic fasting mimicking diet is probably much more feasible for the for the masses with the health care professional being involved in basically understanding what the problem is and not interfering with the diet. Right? So somebody could be on a very strict Mediterranean diet, somebody could be in a very strict vegan diet. But somebody most people are going to be and a little bit less restrictive diet and most people are not going to want to change. And that's and that's a reality. And that doesn't mean that health of my book did not talk about the pescatarian diet and which is vegan plus fish only twice a week or three times a week. So I did talk about that. But understanding that the probably the majority of people will have followed the second half of the book which talk about, you know, doing the fasting mimicking diet three times a year for five days.
Speaker1:
So in addition to to just not having as much research on an intermittent fasting approach, you also, though, do, based on your research, feel that there are some key things that happen with a longer term fast that we're not getting if we're just not eating for 18 or 20 hours. Right. I mean, there's something that happens after day two or three of a fast that a benefit that we don't think we can get any other way. Is that fair to say?
Speaker2:
Yeah. So first of all, let's talk about the very briefly about the side effects of of 16 hours all the time. So 16, 18 hours, I didn't mention it. But if you look at gallstone formation, gallbladder operation, it doubles, I think between 10 hours and 16, 18 hours of regular fasting. So that means that you're twice as likely to need your gallbladder removed if you do this all the time. And the other negative association is people that skip breakfast, which is most people that do 16 to 18 hours of fasting. The great majority of people don't want to skip dinner. So the epidemiological data will suggest that people that skip breakfast and live shorter and have more cardiovascular disease and potentially other type of diseases, not longer, but shorter. So of course, it doesn't mean that the fasting itself is doing this. It could be something else that that is. But it's not a good start. Right. You don't want to start with recommending something that actually is associated with shorter lifespan and more cardiovascular disease. Then we get into the longer fasting making diet. So what we're saying is we're saying is most people are not going to do these things all the time.
Speaker2:
Don't don't do it mean try to give as healthy as a diet as possible. If you need to do intermittent fasting for a short period, fine. But other than that, you know, once in a while, which could be every four months or so for most people, or maybe even six months for somebody's extremely healthy use, the longer periods where you force the body to start taking abdominal fat for fuel. And this is we now clinically shown that. And also the body starts shrinking now not very much, but a little bit. The muscle shrink and almost every organ in mice we see a very clearly in people. We saw evidence of it. For example, the lean body mass temporarily at day five is smaller, it's significantly smaller. So the body is just shrunk significantly. But then when you so so up to day one or two, you use glycogen, then you start using fat, then you start burning fat and you burn a little bit of muscle then and day five by day five, you're about half of the energy in your brain is obtained from what's called ketone bodies, and lots of the body is now fueled by fatty acid fats. So fats and ketone bodies are now fueling the heart, lots of the brain, etc., etc..
Speaker2:
The brain is also fueled by sugar, but only partially. And so now the body shrinks a little bit, not very much because it's only five days. It will shrink a lot more if you went, let's say 45 days. But this is this is why we don't want to go 45 days. We want to do a little bit. And then on day five, you return to the normal diet. It's higher protein, IGF one goes up, pica go up, tau can go up. All of these proteins and factors go up and the body begins to re expand, right. And it returns lean body mass return to normal. But the fact of course. That's not because you're not going to rebuild fat in that period. You're just going to rebuild the the mass that you lost temporarily. Also, another interesting thing is that white blood cells is a slight decline. They remain in the normal level, in the normal safe level. But you start seeing them go down and then after refitting, they go back to normal, if not even higher. At least the lymphocytes, potentially they go even higher than they were before.
Speaker1:
Fascinating. So so to summarize, kind of over the long term, what will we see with with a regular fasting plan? And again, that's going to be different for different people. But we see improved blood sugar control. We see we see lower lipid levels, triglycerides, let's say you see lower growth hormone, which.
Speaker2:
No cholesterol is also lower.
Speaker1:
Yeah, lower cholesterol. And we see we see an immune system benefit as well.
Speaker2:
So we haven't published that part yet. We're going to publish it soon. But we we see IGF one go down and stay down for months. There's a very interesting even three months later, the IGF one was still reduced. We see C-reactive protein and a lot of the people that had inflammation, systemic inflammation go down. We see lots of the pre-diabetic dose at 105, 107. Fasting glucose returning to the low 99. Returning to the normal level. Yeah. So we see a general reset of, of a lot of these markers that are risk factors for for, for diseases.
Speaker1:
So it is obviously key for people who want to prevent cancer and other chronic diseases. We also know it's beneficial for people with cancer. I'd like to talk a little bit about your research before I let you go on on fasting and its relationship to chemotherapy. So so the research on on on chemotherapy being done fasting and we do that in my office. So I'm very familiar with maybe for people who aren't familiar, what does that look like? People fast and then they get chemo. What what advantages does that give us?
Speaker2:
Yeah. So again, we are now exclusively in the clinical trials testing the fasting, mimicking diet. Some of them are being published about four studies. Clinical studies have been published and there's another maybe three or four that are going to be published in the in the next six or seven months. The initial advantages that we've seen confirming the advantage in mice is being protection of the patients against the chemotherapy side effects. And now, though, all the most of the trials, if not all of them, are focusing on can we make the cancer therapy better? We very clearly shown we and many others and now have shown this in mice. Is it possible that whether is immunotherapy or kinase inhibitor or radiation or chemotherapy, you can make the therapy work better. So not only you get protection of the normal cells, but you also get more killing of the cancer cells so that those are going to come out before the end of this year.
Speaker1:
Wow, that's exciting. Well, I just want to thank you for for your time today and for all that you're doing. I mean, you're you're such an amazing person and researcher. I just want to thank you for sharing your time with us and for all that you're doing for the for the cancer community, as well as just health in general. Thank you so much.
Speaker2:
Well, thank you. Thank you. Great to be on your show.
Speaker1:
Well, sure. I know you got to go. But I just want to give you a chance to to let our listeners know how they can learn more about you. Website.
Speaker2:
Yeah, so we have a Facebook. I have a Facebook page, a professor Valter Longo. We I also started a foundation called Create Cures and all the profits from my book go at least my, my profits from the book go to the foundation. And the book is called The Longevity Diet. And it talks about all the things that we discussed, including chapters and diseases and yeah. And they create cures dot org is the the other side. You can look up for lots of the information that we discussed.
Speaker1:
Well, thank you so much for your time. I just want to remind everyone listening, please subscribe to the Cancer Secrets podcast. We release new episodes usually every other week and we're going to keep bringing your great content. And if you're enjoying this podcast, please be sure to like it on whatever platform you listen, on what we have in more great episodes. So be sure to listen in. Dr. Longo, thank you again. Really appreciate your time.
Speaker2:
Thank you.
Speaker1:
Bye bye.
Speaker3:
Oh. Oh.
Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.
Automatically convert your mp3 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.
Sonix has many features that you’d love including powerful integrations and APIs, enterprise-grade admin tools, secure transcription and file storage, generate automated summaries powered by AI, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.