> If not eating sugar could slow (all) cancers, then not eating at all would clearly cover that case, and should have slowed the lung cancer. Umm.. This sounds

> If not eating sugar could slow (all) cancers, then not eating at all would clearly cover that case, and should have slowed the lung cancer. Umm.. This sounds to me to be very simplistic thinking. What about the effects of complete starving on the immune system for example?. Or for that matter, the proposed no sugar diet triggers some mechanisms from here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_immunology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_immunology) I do agree, it's not yet accepted through experiments via the scientific method though.