5 ms·

I'm surprised no one has talked about diet here. Not a single one. There are many cases of cancers being completed reversed by change of diet, many cancers surv

I'm surprised no one has talked about diet here. Not a single one. There are many cases of cancers being completed reversed by change of diet, many cancers survive off of glucose and so switching to a fat based diet has helped many people go into remission as well as dull and intensify the effects of chemotherapy. Cancer is a living biological cell after all and will prefer certain sources of energy over others. Starve it of it's primary energy source (glucose) and it will die. Human non-cancerous cells on the other hand are very versatile and can survive off either fat or carbs. Sad how the first thing people would rather do is try chemo than give up off their carb and sugar addictions.

Aloha 7y ago
It'd be helpful if you're gonna post something that sounds like pseudoscience to post a source with it. With all of the studies covering inane things, someone has got to have studied this.
- rleigh 7y ago
  It didn't have a source, but it's not pseudoscience. The switch to anaerobic glucose metabolism is part of the evolution of cancer as it progresses. This is because oxygen diffusion into a solid tumour is a limiting factor upon its growth. Cells which switch off aerobic metabolism will be selected for, since only they will survive and proliferate in an oxygen-free environment. You'll find this in most cancer textbooks. It's not new; I was taught this in undergraduate lectures two decades back. This switch is actually one of the key control points which holds a brake on the progression of a cancer past ~1mm in size, which is basically the limit of passive oxygen diffusion into the mass. It's fairly logical to keep glucose levels minimal to reduce the growth of this type of tumour, and removing sugar from the diet is a simple and effective way to do so. A diet which is based upon fats will do this, since fats can be converted to the minimal levels of glucose the body needs via beta-oxidation. This will reduce the metabolites available to the tumour significantly, compared with the huge spikes you get when you absorb it directly from the gut.
  - 7sigma 7y ago
    It's been debunked. See this post explaining why. https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2017/05/15/sugar-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/ https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2017/05/15/sugar-an...
    - rleigh 7y ago
      This post does not "debunk" what I said. In fact, it explicitly mentions the Warburg effect as something to target as a treatment possibility. And looking at two of the molecular cancer biology texts I have to hand (I did a PhD which involved vascularisation, angiogenesis and HIF-1α/VEGF/EGF), there are several examples of drugs which target the pathways related to this effect directly. Also note that the link does not say, at all, that dietary restriction of simple carbohydrates is ineffective. What it does say, is that dietary restriction should be discouraged in case it causes malnutrition and/or weight loss, which can be counterproductive with effective treatment which itself can also cause weight loss. Which are completely fair points to make for safe general advice to the public; nothing here is black and white, and making definitive statements one way or the other would be both impossible and irresponsible. So in some situations it may well be counterproductive. However, that is not saying that there are no situations in which it can be effective. Cancers are incredibly diverse, each type evolving in a unique way with different courses of progression. In some cases, it may well be the case that such restrictions can help.
      - 7sigma 7y ago
        yeah sorry, first time i read the comment, i missed the nuance. My partner actually researches prostate cancer and i asked her about it and basically her answer is that its complicated. In her research, she found that cancer cells in the prostate are able to find other sources of energy so cutting glucose might not help. From what I understood (not a biologist) it basically depends on tissue and mutations.
guntars 7y ago
Human brains survive exclusively on glucose, according to your theory they’d die too.
- fullmoon 7y ago
  The _exclusively_ claim is incorrect - the brain can and will use ketone bodies when they are present.
- rleigh 7y ago
  No. They can make use of glucose or ketone bodies. I recommend a biology textbook before commenting on fairly basic and long-established facts. However, even if they only metabolised glucose, the brain's requirement is for a constant but low level supply. It doesn't need to be provided by a dietary source; the body will synthesise it on demand from its energy stores. The cancer will need to compete for that small quantity with the rest of the body, which will limit its growth. When you eat sugar, the body can't immediately store it since it takes time to do so, and blood sugar levels spike for a period before reducing back to baseline levels. During this time sugar is in great excess in the bloodstream and tissues, and the cancer is able to utilise as much of it as it can, which can result in its survival and growth. The survival and growth of a cancer is largely based upon various kinetics, proliferation rates vs death rates, and the evolution of a cancer through selective pressure over time. One of the key switches is to anaerobic metabolism. It lets them switch to lactate production to survive a lack of oxygen. But it comes with a limitation: they are restricted to glucose and other simple sugars to survive. By strictly limiting their availability, it can have a significant effect upon tumour viability. Until it undergoes another change under selective pressure, of course, but it's a simple and potentially very effective course of action, without any great risk of harm.
theprotocol 7y ago
It is not so simple. Many kinds of cancer cells can use ketones too.
sfjailbird 7y ago
What you are saying goes against the science. The commonly accepted facts are that the prevalence or absence of glucose does not affect cancer cells' ability to grow. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer-causes/art-20044714 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-dep... Not a scientist, so can't chime in meaningfully, but you are perpetuating what is considered a myth, and very nonchalantly ("undergraduate studies two decades back"), leading me to question if you are qualified to hold such a contrarian viewpoint.
- timbit42 7y ago
  The article you linked says eating sugar doesn't cause cancer to grow faster, but any carbs we eat is converted to glucose, so removing only sugar isn't sufficient to starve cancer cells. Also, each cancer is different. Some use other sources of energy, some use multiple sources.
tluyben2 7y ago
Giving up any addiction is good, especially sugar, alcohol, smoking, etc but telling someone to try this instead of chemo when they have cancer is criminal imho. I have seen people listen to that and then go back for chemo when it is too late. Maybe during chemo it can help or can’t hurt, but instead of... Ofcourse people decide what they do with their own lives, but do not state things as if this is proven or even shown outside a few vague cases.
liveoneggs 7y ago
worked great for Steve Jobs

Aloha 7y ago

It'd be helpful if you're gonna post something that sounds like pseudoscience to post a source with it. With all of the studies covering inane things, someone has got to have studied this.

rleigh 7y ago
It didn't have a source, but it's not pseudoscience. The switch to anaerobic glucose metabolism is part of the evolution of cancer as it progresses. This is because oxygen diffusion into a solid tumour is a limiting factor upon its growth. Cells which switch off aerobic metabolism will be selected for, since only they will survive and proliferate in an oxygen-free environment. You'll find this in most cancer textbooks. It's not new; I was taught this in undergraduate lectures two decades back. This switch is actually one of the key control points which holds a brake on the progression of a cancer past ~1mm in size, which is basically the limit of passive oxygen diffusion into the mass. It's fairly logical to keep glucose levels minimal to reduce the growth of this type of tumour, and removing sugar from the diet is a simple and effective way to do so. A diet which is based upon fats will do this, since fats can be converted to the minimal levels of glucose the body needs via beta-oxidation. This will reduce the metabolites available to the tumour significantly, compared with the huge spikes you get when you absorb it directly from the gut.
- 7sigma 7y ago
  It's been debunked. See this post explaining why. https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2017/05/15/sugar-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/ https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2017/05/15/sugar-an...
  - rleigh 7y ago
    This post does not "debunk" what I said. In fact, it explicitly mentions the Warburg effect as something to target as a treatment possibility. And looking at two of the molecular cancer biology texts I have to hand (I did a PhD which involved vascularisation, angiogenesis and HIF-1α/VEGF/EGF), there are several examples of drugs which target the pathways related to this effect directly. Also note that the link does not say, at all, that dietary restriction of simple carbohydrates is ineffective. What it does say, is that dietary restriction should be discouraged in case it causes malnutrition and/or weight loss, which can be counterproductive with effective treatment which itself can also cause weight loss. Which are completely fair points to make for safe general advice to the public; nothing here is black and white, and making definitive statements one way or the other would be both impossible and irresponsible. So in some situations it may well be counterproductive. However, that is not saying that there are no situations in which it can be effective. Cancers are incredibly diverse, each type evolving in a unique way with different courses of progression. In some cases, it may well be the case that such restrictions can help.
    - 7sigma 7y ago
      yeah sorry, first time i read the comment, i missed the nuance. My partner actually researches prostate cancer and i asked her about it and basically her answer is that its complicated. In her research, she found that cancer cells in the prostate are able to find other sources of energy so cutting glucose might not help. From what I understood (not a biologist) it basically depends on tissue and mutations.

guntars 7y ago

Human brains survive exclusively on glucose, according to your theory they’d die too.

fullmoon 7y ago
The _exclusively_ claim is incorrect - the brain can and will use ketone bodies when they are present.
rleigh 7y ago
No. They can make use of glucose or ketone bodies. I recommend a biology textbook before commenting on fairly basic and long-established facts. However, even if they only metabolised glucose, the brain's requirement is for a constant but low level supply. It doesn't need to be provided by a dietary source; the body will synthesise it on demand from its energy stores. The cancer will need to compete for that small quantity with the rest of the body, which will limit its growth. When you eat sugar, the body can't immediately store it since it takes time to do so, and blood sugar levels spike for a period before reducing back to baseline levels. During this time sugar is in great excess in the bloodstream and tissues, and the cancer is able to utilise as much of it as it can, which can result in its survival and growth. The survival and growth of a cancer is largely based upon various kinetics, proliferation rates vs death rates, and the evolution of a cancer through selective pressure over time. One of the key switches is to anaerobic metabolism. It lets them switch to lactate production to survive a lack of oxygen. But it comes with a limitation: they are restricted to glucose and other simple sugars to survive. By strictly limiting their availability, it can have a significant effect upon tumour viability. Until it undergoes another change under selective pressure, of course, but it's a simple and potentially very effective course of action, without any great risk of harm.

theprotocol 7y ago

It is not so simple. Many kinds of cancer cells can use ketones too.

sfjailbird 7y ago

What you are saying goes against the science. The commonly accepted facts are that the prevalence or absence of glucose does not affect cancer cells' ability to grow. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer-causes/art-20044714 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-dep... Not a scientist, so can't chime in meaningfully, but you are perpetuating what is considered a myth, and very nonchalantly ("undergraduate studies two decades back"), leading me to question if you are qualified to hold such a contrarian viewpoint.

timbit42 7y ago
The article you linked says eating sugar doesn't cause cancer to grow faster, but any carbs we eat is converted to glucose, so removing only sugar isn't sufficient to starve cancer cells. Also, each cancer is different. Some use other sources of energy, some use multiple sources.

tluyben2 7y ago

Giving up any addiction is good, especially sugar, alcohol, smoking, etc but telling someone to try this instead of chemo when they have cancer is criminal imho. I have seen people listen to that and then go back for chemo when it is too late. Maybe during chemo it can help or can’t hurt, but instead of... Ofcourse people decide what they do with their own lives, but do not state things as if this is proven or even shown outside a few vague cases.

liveoneggs 7y ago

worked great for Steve Jobs