Glen writes:
"In order to *perform* as a whole body, whatever supplements you're providing to promote one thing over another, you are also curtailing everything else. The body reacts to extreme exercise in the same way it reacts to fasting, by restricting which systems get the extra juice." Right, all that is not permitted is forbidden. I suppose if it must be very extreme (to work -- if it would), then there is a real risk of injury or overuse that come sooner or later and then the trouble-making diversification of the microenvironments would start again. Marcus ________________________________ From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of ┣glen┫ <geprope...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 2:39:20 PM To: FriAM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Problem with the Mutation-Centric View of Cancer On 09/04/2017 01:26 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I mean to balance culling of developed/adapted cells, it would be good to > have stored blueprints in a refrigerator somewhere so that the poison doesn't > harm them. I don't understand what you're saying, really. If we refine chemo so that it becomes as specific as antibodies, then I'd say it's not a "poison" anymore. But I'm always guilty of using language badly. So, who knows? > Could goal-oriented growth displace `bad' growth? I'm thinking of Lance > Armstrong's remarkable return to racing, for example. Some massive energy > draw that directs resources in a good way. > > Why should curtailing better than directing? It seems counter-intuitive > that a slow metabolism would be preferable to a fast one, when it comes to > fighting disease. I don't think it is necessarily better. But we have to admit our ignorance. By *promoting* some growth (in false distinction from curtailing all growth), you have to have control of the system. And there are way too many variables for us to control. My guess is, at this stage in our understanding of how biology works, unbalanced promotion will find persnickety edge cases that produce disease. But the Lance Armstrong argument is NOT a promotion argument. In order to *perform* as a whole body, whatever supplements you're providing to promote one thing over another, you are also curtailing everything else. The body reacts to extreme exercise in the same way it reacts to fasting, by restricting which systems get the extra juice. So the argument I (or Longo) might make is not that a slow metabolism MUST be preferable, just that for most people, especially e.g. 70-year olds with fresh diagnoses of cancer, fasting is likely to be easier than launching a bicycle racing career. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove