12 ms·
An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death
- codeulike 10y agoSo would a ketogenic diet be effective then?
- somesaba 10y agoYes, it would be helpful. Of course, other forms of treatment would still be needed.
- socratis 10y agoThere are people who advocate that. The following video discusses some results in the area (link is to 41:05, where they show some rodent models). https://youtu.be/gONeCxtyH18?t=41m5s https://youtu.be/gONeCxtyH18?t=41m5s Of note is that that is in addition to (not instead of) standard care. It's also interesting to see many people taking Metformin (which inhibits glucose production in the liver) preventatively.
- amelius 10y agoThere's a very interesting article about that here: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-hype-versus-science/ https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-can...
- ac2u 10y agoNeeds more studies. Armchair analysts find it intuitive though, but we don't know for sure yet.
- retroafroman 10y agoThis is the best way to describe just about any diet or exercise ideas floated on HN.
- commandar 10y agoPeople also tend to very much forget that cancer is not a disease, but a class of diseases. Not all cancers will respond equally to the same treatments.
- nonbel 10y agoCan you give an example of a disease that responds equally to the same treatment in all people?
- commandar 10y agoI'm not talking about across different people; I'm talking about different types of cancer. The causes and treatments for lymphatic cancers are different from lung cancers are different from breast cancers are different from prostate cancers are different from brain cancers are different from liver cancers, ad infinitum.
- dualogy 10y agoWell there must be some things they all have in common. Anaerobic environment I thought, is that still the case? No transport of oxygen via iron possible, in my layman's memory?
- Natanael_L 10y agoLike saying suffocating in vacuum and suffocating from oxygen substitution in an enclosed space (like by inert gasses) is equal. The causes are different enough that different solutions are necessary.
- nonbel 10y agoI don't see how this analogy works at all? In either case a space suit works doesn't it? Anyway, this whole "cancer isn't one disease" meme is best depicted by the bottom right panel of the second section of this comic: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1162 http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1162 It looks just like the "string theory landscape", next you will be told that we need to stop worrying about comparing predictions to evidence when it comes to cancer research. Just wait a few years/decades. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philo...
- WalterBright 10y agoA family member of mine was diagnosed with metastatic cancer and told to get her affairs in order. She went on a strict no sugar diet. 5 years later, she has no sign of cancer. Of course, she also had standard surgery and chemo. But I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the no sugar diet slowed the cancer down enough for the chemo/surgery to be more effective.
- cloudjacker 10y agodid she go on a strict no sugar diet specifically as a supplementary treatment to the metastatic cancer? and if so, what guidance was she following?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- WalterBright 10y agoYes, as a supplementary treatment. She still did all the traditional treatments recommended by her oncologist. She wrote a book about her method and experience, "Thriver Soup" by Heidi Bright.
- nawitus 10y agoWas this no refined sugar or no sugar at all?
- dnautics 10y agoThis is probably why cannabinoids are likely to have a synergistic effect in treating some (but not all) cancers when used in concert with immunotherapies and chemotherapies... The cannabinoid receptors connect into the akt system and modulate cell energy use. In vitro, some cancer cell lines are eradicated by cannabinoids, probably in vivo it's more complicated but weakening the cells probably helps.
- stellar678 10y agoThis is one of the best newspaper science articles I've ever read. It's a survey of the landscape, talks to a wide variety of experts, and modulates expectations for some miracle cure while still laying out the possibilities that could come from this approach. Very good read!
- xchip 10y agoTL;DR: Cancer cell live on glucose... keep levels down
- dualogy 10y agoSimple-minded. That may slow, delay or avoid run-away growth & metastasis (of many not all cancers) but not any&all unwanted growths, because blood glucose never can go to 0. Cancer cells once sufficiently isolated from the immune system also love glutamine, other amino acids and vitamins. How long do you want to restrict all those? Ever heard of cachexia? With no food coming in, nutrients from the blood get scavenged by the baddies as bodily reserves are depleted. What then?
- SherlockeHolmes 10y agoI am very sorry for your loss. my (armchair) analysis on cancer treatment - i) chemotherapy, in vacuum, most likely does considerably more harm than good, ii) sugar feeds cancer cells, iii) essential to feed body nutrients from a variety of sources (all must be plant based and non-processed), iv) it is likely a prudent investment to engage in holistic treatments such as being immersed in positivity and fulfilled environment and ingesting plant products with powerful healing properties known to locals across the world. Having said all this, it is difficult to say no to conventional treatment and to MDs working at prestigious hospitals when the life of your loved one is at stake. I have multiple cancer patients in my extended family, and this is in a family that lives on a south Asian diet (with all kinds of spices and turmeric, lots of vegetables). the cancer epidemic is extremely scary, and makes me feel vulnerable with my life - regardless of how knowledgeable I try to be on the subject. My belief is that we must approach cancer as we have approached infectious diseases such as measles and whooping cough. We must identify carcinogens in our environment (this may be physical and spiritual), and take serious steps to remove them from our social construct.
- NotSammyHagar 10y agoI am sure you mean well, but you need to be better informed about biology. Table sugar is not the greatest thing in the world for our bodies, but your body needs certain kinds of sugars to function. Glucose is how your brain is powered. Sadly there is no evidence that restricting sugar would retard cancerous growth. Yes, there are toxins in our environment. Going past that to things that affect cancer is a huge step. Just like we don't worry anymore about a black cat crossing our path, we should use science to inform our ideas about medical treatment.
- SherlockeHolmes 10y agothank you for the reply. I am aware that saccharides are essential in our bodies in order to produce adenosine tri-phosphates (ATPs) which are units of energy used by our cells to perform everything from translation and commutation of genetic information, regeneration through mitosis, nervous actions carried out through active ion gates. I am also aware of multiple peer reviewed research papers (one from UCSF comes to mind, but I cannot be bothered to search it) that have shown direct links between cancerous cell growth and glucose (a monosaccharide). p.s. the reference to a black cat crossing was intriguing from the perspective of a psychoanalyst studying the HN mind.
- numair 10y agoI was recently shocked and practically offended to read guidelines on what to eat while undergoing chemo[1]. It was a high-sugar diet, basically (milkshakes were encouraged!). I couldn't imagine anything worse than shocking your body with radiation, and then providing cancer cells with all the sugar they need for growth. Hopefully the ideas in this article start to affect public health policy and guidelines. 1: http://www.guysandstthomas.nhs.uk/resources/patient-information/cancer/diet-and-chemotherapy.pdf http://www.guysandstthomas.nhs.uk/resources/patient-informat...
- jstsch 10y agoMany people hospitalized in any way, including when undergoing chemotherapy, don't eat enough. Loss of appetite. That's why this guideline document gives hints to increase kcal uptake.
- tluyben2 10y agoHospitals, no matter what they make of them, are not very nice because of their function. You are there for a reason. That's why, at least in NL/ES (luckily haven't been anywhere else) they try to get you out as fast as possible. Even unable to hardly walk because of the surgery I was out in 24 hours and that really helped recovery. In the 80s when they kept you 2 weeks even after trivial surgery it took far longer to recover (and I was younger so it should've been faster for multiple reasons).
- ac2u 10y agoAs interesting as the article is, it's way too early to have feelings as strong as being "practically offended" towards literature advising such a diet. It's perhaps better to tell patients to "eat balanced and enjoy yourself with a treat from time to time like anyone else" and stamp some medical authority behind it rather than have them obsess over diet to the point where they become hooked by all the predators selling fad diet cures.
- bsmith 10y agoI'd argue that the body of research supporting the `sugar == detriment` hypothesis is mounting. This is merely another in a series of dominoes that is (potentially) falling in that direction. I'd recommend the blog (eatingacademy.com) of Dr. Peter Attia, founder of the Nutrition Science Initiative, for more.
- sergioisidoro 10y agoI've read in multiple places that biohackers are using Intermittent fasting as a way of preventing cancer. By making sporadic (eg. once a month) fasting periods of 12h to 24h, they expect to starve cancer cells in their very early stages (basically using the underlying principle of the article). I would be extremely interested in seeing a study of the incidence of cancer in people doing Intermittent fasting vs general population.
- sergioisidoro 10y agoEdit: Found one study, but this is likely to be a confirmation bias effect: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26094889 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26094889 "Bi-monthly FMD cycles started at middle age extended longevity, lowered visceral fat, reduced cancer incidence and skin lesions, rejuvenated the immune system, and retarded bone mineral density loss." This study shows not so promising results: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20733612 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20733612 Points to "Overall, there was no difference in mouse survival (P=0.37) or tumor volumes (P ≥ 0.10)" (mice that already had prostate cancer) tl;dr: There might be some potential benefits of fasting in the prevention of cancer, might not be the case for treatment of cancer...
- tremon 10y agoBy making sporadic (eg. once a month) fasting periods of 12h to 24h Uh, any adverse effects if you increase that frequency? Because I reach a fasting period of 12h almost every day...
- nommm-nommm 10y agoMost people do I imagine. If you eat dinner at 6pm and breakfast at 8am that is a 14 hour fast.
- oliv__ 10y agoMmmh... lunch?
- mookerific 10y agoJust a plug for /r/ketoscience.
- berberich 10y agoTim Ferriss had Dr. Dom D'Agostino on his podcast late last year[1], where they talked about this subject in-depth. I thought it was a fascinating conversation and a great introduction to the topic. [1]: http://fourhourworkweek.com/2015/11/03/dominic-dagostino/ http://fourhourworkweek.com/2015/11/03/dominic-dagostino/
- dschiptsov 10y agoAt least do not become a fat fertile ground for it. BTW, in developing world with traditional simple, not processed foods and setting in a tribal culture eating habits rates of cancers are way lower (and no, it is not because lack of diagnostic tests).
- andreygrehov 10y agoA friend of mine (she is a microbiologist, let's call her Lucy) was diagnosed with Uterine cancer. Oncologist told her they have to remove her womb, otherwise she'll die in a couple weeks. She decided to avoid "traditional treatment". Instead, she shared her issue with various professors from the university she is working at. One of the professors (another friend of mine) advised her to go to the Republic of Peru. He gave her contacts of his friend who's already been there and suggested to talk to him first. Lucy got in touch with this guy, he convinced her to go and in a week or so she was already in Peru. In Peru, Lucy met some sort of a shaman. He wrote down her a list of things she must eat and things to avoid. This list also contained some herb, that she had to eat during the 2-3 months she was there. After a few months, she got back home. 6 months after - no cancer. Year after this all happened she was dancing at my sister's wedding, healthy and happy. Now as for the Peru guy and the friend of my friend who been there :) He had a brother. They both got cancer. One of the brothers decided to go with traditional treatment (radiation and all that). The other one went to Peru. Long story short: the one who picked traditional methods died many years ago. The other one (who convinced Lucy to go) - completely recovered. As far as I know, overall treatment was less than $5,000. If I'm not wrong, this was including rent + air flight. I must add, that Lucy lost 45 pounds within a year. During my sister's wedding, she was only eating some oceanic fish and rice. Edit: This is just a short story from people I know in person. All of them are scientists working at university, doing researches on molecular genetics & microbiology. I'm not even sure the guy in Peru was a shaman. That's just how I called him here. I just don't believe he was a real doctor. The gist of the whole treatment was fasting, not a herb.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ryanwaggoner 10y agoThis is a scam, pure and simple. People die from this shit needlessly all the time. Doesn't uterine cancer have a very high survival rate with proper treatment? But no, this "microbiologist" treks off to the Peruvian jungle to spend a measly $5k for a magical herb that cures cancer! Doctors hate this one weird trick! If you or someone you know has cancer, go see an oncologist, not a freaking shaman.
- tiatia 10y agoDichloroacetic_acid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid#Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid#Cancer Can't be patent protected, hence clinical trials are very difficult (to fund) but are under way for limited applications: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24297161 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24297161 The mechanism of action targets the unique cancer cells energy metabolism.
- apo 10y agoAnd here's a review (although old) of the literature on the link between dichloroacetate (DCA), glucose, and cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2567082/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2567082/
- known 10y agoCancer cells need to be isolated to starve them; That's the difficult part;
- dualogy 10y agoI think for many/most of them the key thing is that they need some 20x the amount of glucose than normally oxygenated cells. So they're actually supremely inefficient in terms of energy. What's the problem then? They just won't die off normally via programmed-cell-death (apoptosis) or autophagy or immune system attack, but keep replicating. Blood sugar levels may modulate rate of growth and metastasis, but since blood sugar can never go too low, that's only part of the picture.
- ValleyOfTheMtns 10y agoSuch a method may also force the cancer to evolve to survive under such stress.
- danieltillett 10y agoIt is not only glucose that cancer cells can become addidicted to, but also amino acids. Often the cancer cells can overcome a lack of glucose by using an amino acid. An idea that was explored too soon (i.e. before we knew which cancers this would work on) was starving the cancer cells with multiple nutrient withdraws.