Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Sugar = Cancer - Is it now official?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    849

    Sugar = Cancer - Is it now official?

    Shop Now
    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    amsterdam
    Posts
    268
    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?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,202
    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,413
    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    1,480
    Quote 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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    1,480
    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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,202
    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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    882

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    1,480
    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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,202
    Shop Now
    Make America Great Again

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •