Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sugar = Cancer - Is it now official?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sugar = Cancer - Is it now official?

    This is only for people who are interested, hence the links, but I am seeing more and more opinion and studies linking cancer to sugar consumption, namely that cancer cells thrive on glucose but cannot reproduce without it.

    First is Ron Rosedale MD, from the 2012 AHS

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...TE--5w808#t=24

    Next is Dr Thomas Seyfried

    Short-Term Calorie Restriction Helps Improve Cancer Survival

    We also have a growing case for the use of Ketosis in the treatment of diagnosed cancer. Which is not to say that everyone should be in Ketosis. I'm not. Would I be if I had cancer? You can be darn sure.

    It is looking likely that consumption of sugar greatly increases (if not directly causes) the chances of death from cancer, as well as causing metabolic syndrome of course.

    There is also the question of the different categories of dietary sugars and which ones must be avoided, if not all of them? Refined sugar / Refined grains / Starches from tubers / Lactose / Sugars (Fructose) in fruit.

    This is five different ways of obtaining sugar. Hopefully starches and fruit in some levels will be safe.
    Healthy is the new wealthy.

    http://www.facebook.com/groups/ances...handnutrition/

  • #2
    Seems there's a link but this sounds like a major oversimplification to me.
    So now what? you won't eat any carb containing food?
    Black magic specialist in bangladesh

    Comment


    • #3
      lol Mercola & co guess you're gonna need to avoid dat sugar to prevent the cancer his tanning beds cause

      cancer cells obtain their energy through aerobic and anaerobic pathways comparable to regular cells. They require much more energy to rapidly divide, so they consume much more glucose to obtain energy from fermentation when oxygen is scarce. Cancer cells grow at a much faster rate than normal cells, so, they use a lot more sugar (the basic source of energy for all cells). If you starve cancer cells of sugar, they will simply obtain it from other sources, like the kind you synthesize, or begin eating away your body. Ketosis doesn't prevent, or cure cancer. This is ridiculous. Warburg would be rolling over in his grave.
      Make America Great Again

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks for the links. I don't think anything is official, nor will it be anytime soon when it comes to cancer. And you also have to account that treating a disease and disease prevention are two completely different things. In terms of prevention I'm still of the mind that periodic short term fasts and seasonal variance (month of keto here, seasonal fruit binge there...) are the best solutions for now. In terms of treatment though, yeah.... I'd be ketogenic in a heartbeat. Even though its only shown to address, not cure...as cure is a strong word, certain forms (like brain) in study so far, there is more research needed in this area for sure.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by biko View Post
          Seems there's a link but this sounds like a major oversimplification to me.
          So now what? you won't eat any carb containing food?
          Biko, Owen specifically already answered that question. He's not VLC now; if he had cancer he would be.

          Makes sense to me.
          “In God we trust; all others must bring data.” W. Edwards Deming
          Blogging at http://loafingcactus.com

          Comment


          • #6
            We have people on this board who have treated their cancer with VLC. When my mother was dying of cancer she still had plenty of body fat and so was not put on a feeding tube because her physician believed the feeding tube would shorten her life by speeding the progression of the cancer. Another friend went VLC to prolong her life as she died from ovarian cancer (she just had to eat sugar before her PET scans to track the cancer... which sort of proves the point).
            “In God we trust; all others must bring data.” W. Edwards Deming
            Blogging at http://loafingcactus.com

            Comment


            • #7
              They didn't treat cancer with VLC, they survived it with modern medical science, and used VLC to supposedly prevent remission and lower medication. There is a difference, as Neckhammer said.

              The cancer is going to consume something.

              No one looks at Warburg's hypothesis in the right way.

              The ability of the mitochondria to oxidize pyruvic acid and glucose is characteristically lost to some degree in cancer. When this oxidation fails, the disturbed redox balance of the cell will usually lead to the cell's death, but if it can survive, this balance favors growth and cell division, rather than differentiated function. This was Otto Warburg's discovery, that was rejected by official medicine for 75 years.
              Cancer researchers have become interested in this enzyme system that controls the oxidation of pyruvic acid (and thus sugar) by the mitochondria, since these enzymes are crucially defective in cancer cells (and also in diabetes). The chemical DCA, dichloroacetate, is effective against a variety of cancers, and it acts by reactivating the enzymes that oxidize pyruvic acid. Thyroid hormone, insulin, and fructose also activate these enzymes. These are the enzymes that are inactivated by excessive exposure to fatty acids, and that are involved in the progressive replacement of sugar oxidation by fat oxidation, during stress and aging, and in degenerative diseases; for example, a process that inactivates the energy-producing pyruvate dehydrogenase in Alzheimer's disease has been identified (Ishiguro, 1998).
              Make America Great Again

              Comment


              • #8
                Interesting read here: “But SUGAR Feeds CANCER!” – ehhh….not really. | Sean Flanagan Health & Nutrition
                My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

                Comment


                • #9
                  Obviously all the people we know as n=1s aren't really good information, all the mouse models with genetically altered mice, eh. People picking their pet metabolic pathway to focus on, damn the rest of the biology, really, who gives a shit. What we need are studies in humans with lifespan as the endpoint and as far as I know there aren't any. But there is some info out there:

                  http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...,d.dmg&cad=rja
                  “In God we trust; all others must bring data.” W. Edwards Deming
                  Blogging at http://loafingcactus.com

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yeah, well:

                    https://www.google.com/search?q=dich...ient=firefox-a
                    Make America Great Again

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think that there is a very big difference between a given stimulus CAUSING cancer vs helping it be more aggressive once it is there....

                      At base, most biologists have agreed that cancer is caused by a breakdown of the normal function of what are called "tumor-suppressor genes". In short, there are genes in our bodies that are intended to start apoptosis, or programmed cell death, once cell proliferation gets out of hand. What makes something dangerous is not whether this occurs, as it does all the time, but when the body does not stop this early on.

                      That is why for cancer research, there are 2 big parts:
                      1) Factors causing the genetic TSG's from stopping proliferation.
                      2) Factors causing growth and metastasis once this occurs.

                      Most things you see on "research" only focus on one, just like this....
                      "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I am assuming from what I ve read thus far that cancer cells are not able to reproduce as effectively on ketones as healthy body cells. The Sean Flanagan article, though informative, does not address this. It still could be hypothesised that the more frequent and excessive the supply of sugar, the more likely it is that cancer cells will grow - since cancer is 'uncontrolled cell growth'.

                        Far, far better to be afraid of sugar than to be afraid of saturated fat.

                        That is my wild, flagrant layman's speculation. The fact is that if people become afraid of refined sugar as a cause of cancer then they are likely to be healthier anyway - even if their fears are later proven to be unfounded. There are already a myriad ways in which sugar (refined sugar at least) is bad for you.
                        Last edited by Owen; 09-02-2013, 09:34 AM.
                        Healthy is the new wealthy.

                        http://www.facebook.com/groups/ances...handnutrition/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Lazarus - point well made - important distinction. Whether sugar is the cause or merely exacerbate cancer is part of the question.
                          Last edited by Owen; 09-02-2013, 10:49 AM.
                          Healthy is the new wealthy.

                          http://www.facebook.com/groups/ances...handnutrition/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Owen, the link I gave brushed on some of the other pathways. It isn't just about fuel to the cell, it is about how ketosis changes the immune system, etc. At the end of the day we could be wildly dissimilar to mice and have no where near the longevity change with cancer that they have, the studies aren't there, but if the studies that are there, everything points to humans having a similar biological response.
                            “In God we trust; all others must bring data.” W. Edwards Deming
                            Blogging at http://loafingcactus.com

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Cactus, the key points form your link are:

                              In a low-carbohydrate diet, the increased availability
                              of fatty acids and ketone bodies may inhibit aggressive
                              glycolytic cancers.

                              Studies have reported reduced tumor growth in animals
                              whose dietary carbohydrate has been replaced with fat.

                              Doesn't say which type of fat, but its the first time I've seen that suggested.
                              Healthy is the new wealthy.

                              http://www.facebook.com/groups/ances...handnutrition/

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X