Steven Bartlett sharing harmful health misinformation in Diary of CEO podcast

It's hard to know what to believe sometimes, especially when it comes to health-related information.

I'm sharing this link because I recently contributed to an HN discussion about a study that found that fructose promoted tumor growth [1]. My comment shared a link from a Diary of a CEO podcast episode which is called out in this BBC investigation for promoting health advice that is potentially dangerous to cancer patients.

I'm sharing this now for the sake of balance, and as an example about how tricky it can be to know what's good health advice. The interviewee in the episode, Dr Thomas Seyfried, gave some advice that seemed sound to me at the time, my main takeaway being that intermittent fasting is good for your health. The criticism of his advice is that dietary restrictions could be dangerous for patients who are undergoing cancer treatment.

I uploaded the podcast transcription into Notebook LM and asked for a list of the Dr's recommendations:

These are the health recommendations from Professor Thomas Seyfried based on the sources provided: Reduce consumption of highly processed carbohydrates. Engage in vigorous exercise. Practice water-only fasting. Reduce stress. Get enough sleep. Cultivate joy and friendships. Maintain a low Glucose Ketone Index (GKI) of 2.0 or below. Consider a Mediterranean diet or a diet low in carbohydrates. Consume foods with a low glycemic index. Incorporate grapefruit into your diet for vitamin C without spiking glucose. Use a Keto Mojo meter to monitor your GKI. Practice intermittent fasting for 18-20 hours at a time. Consider 10-14 days of a zero-carb diet, consuming meat, fish, and chicken but avoiding bread and pasta. Professor Seyfried explains that these recommendations are based on the idea that cancer is primarily a metabolic disease, and that maintaining a healthy metabolic state can help prevent and manage cancer. He stresses the importance of personal responsibility in managing one's health and making informed decisions about diet and lifestyle.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42343544

I listened to this podcast some time back and as I recall all the ketogenic talk was about keeping glucose low due to many cancers being anerobic (the research he referenced goes back to the 1920s). Without ready carbohydrate byproducts, the cancers are unable to thrive. If the tumors are small they could theoretically then be purged by the immune system. Ketosis doesn't cure cancer it starves tumors.

I guess I recognize that there is much less data for this approach than trying to kill cancers with revenue generating radiation and medicines but I have a hard time understanding why it's harmful to include it as a potential additional treatment.

I tend to feel the same way about climate change. You may not feel confident that humans are causing it or that it's happening at all, but would it hurt anything to increase the fuel efficiency of the cars on the market? Even if your reasoning is just to preserve fossil fuels for future generations?

I suspect there is a similar motivation here. The doctor says in the podcast chemotherapy and radiation treatment are not always effective and neither is his approach. The reason that we're seeing this in the news is that processed food companies don't want people to suspect that all the sugar added to food is harmful and pharmaceutical companies don't want people to feel like their drugs are ineffective. As people we want to find answers and it makes it really hard to determine what is misinformation when there is a profit motivation to all of it... Except for the doctor who goes on a podcast to talk about his research. Sure there's a glucose meter that he helped develop and he mentions donations to Boston College but compared to a course of chemotherapy drugs it's a drop in the ocean. So am I to believe the person with the lowest profit motive in this kind of dispute? Or the highest? It's only our healt so I guess the stakes are pretty low.