Cancer And Glucose (sugar)

GAF

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2014
Messages
789
Age
67
Location
Dallas Texas
The following is from the MAF & ME facebook group by a lady who is cancer researcher and advocate of Gcmaf . The purpose of this post is to present an example anti-sugar side of the debate and ask the Forum members to present their scientific views on the topic. The question for the Forum is "Where are the Flaws in her logic, if any?"

haidut was kind enough to provide an answer and that will be in the post that follows this post.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1636250 ... 967708746/

Amanda Mary wrote:

As a cancer researcher, I receive many messages about diet and sugar:
I would like to share the following: The breakdown of glucose to provide energy is called glycolysis. In a healthy cell, glucose is converted in the cellular cytoplasm in a multi-step process to pyruvate, which passes into the mitochondria (or power stations) to be ´burned´ in another multi-step process in the presence of oxygen. This process involves electron transfer in the mitochondrial membrane.

Healthy cells can use other forms of ´food´ like fats, as precursors.

Cancer cells cannot. They can only derive energy from glycolysis and fermentation in the cytoplasm. The mitochondria have been ´knocked out´ of the process. A further complication is that under normal circumstances, the mitochondria regulate the cell - if something is flawed in the cell, the mitochondria can cause cell death. This mechanism is also lost in cancer. Even if oxygen is restored to the cells, there is little evidence that mitochondria can switch back on again.

Cancer cells need glucose. In fact they can make it themselves. Not enough to grow, but enough to survive. They need you to feed them glucose to grow.

They make their energy from the first step of the normal process - but in the absence of oxygen - it is called anaerobic glycolysis.

The waste product from this process of anaerobic glycolysis is a form of lactic acid, which can only be broken down by the liver. So the lactic acid passes from the cancer cell to the liver where it is broken down. And the waste product of that process is ............. glucose! This then passes back round the body to feed the cancer cell. This cycle can take over the body in cancer.

Of course, as cancers grow they need more and more glucose. But don´t worry. The Hospital dieticians will tell you that if you are having chemotherapy, you should eat lots of calories - from fatty foods, dairy and glucose. This is to protect the seven per cent of patients that experience serious weight loss (cachexia) due to the drugs - and we could´t possibly have drugs killing people, could we? In the defense of government dieticians, they are so overworked they only get time to see the people who are seriously ill from cachexia. The majority of patients have little or no problems, but still get the booklet to read!

Eat Glucose at your peril

we say, if you have cancer, eat glucose and sugary foods at your peril. And there is plenty of research from places such as Harvard Medical School to support our view. In 2012 Cancer Watch covered research that high fructose corn syrup could be even worse than common sugar - you´ll find it abundantly in fizzy soft drinks. There is some evidence that if you starve cancer cells of glucose and HFCS they can sometimes use glutamine from your cells as a reserve fuel supply, but glucose is the main food source.

So, the most important rule in fighting cancer is: 100% Cut out common sugar, chocolate, cakes, biscuits, ice cream, fizzy soft drinks, Ribena, and processed and packaged food as a start! And be warned: ´Healthy honey´ is 50 per cent glucose and fructose. No sugar replacements. SUGAR FEEDS CANCER.

Patrick Quillin, PHD, RD, CNS, former director of nutrition for Cancer Treatment Centers of America in Tulsa, OK, wrote: “It puzzles me why the simple concept ‘sugar feeds cancer’ can be so dramatically overlooked as part of a comprehensive cancer treatment plan” (Nutrition Science News, April 2000). I agree. Sugar is cancer’s favorite food. There are at least five reasons that cancer and sugar are best friends.
1-Affinity

Cancer cells love sugar! That is why refined carbohydrates like white sugar, white flour, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and soft drinks are extremely dangerous for anyone trying to prevent or reverse cancer. Sugar essentially feeds tumors and encourages cancer growth. Cancer cells uptake sugar at 10-12 times the rate of healthy cells. In fact, that is the basis of PET (positive emission tomography) scans — one of the most accurate tools for detecting cancer growth. PET scans use radioactively labeled glucose to detect sugar-hungry tumor cells. When patients drink the sugar water, it gets preferentially taken up into the cancer cells and they light up! The 1931 Nobel laureate in medicine, German Otto Warburg, PhD, discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells. He found that malignant tumors exhibit increased glycolysis — a process whereby glucose is used as a fuel by cancer — as compared with normal cells.
2-Acidity

Warburg also found that cancers thrive in an acidic environment. Sugar is highly acidic. With a pH of about 6.4, it is 10 times more acidic than the ideal alkaline pH of blood at 7.4.
3-Immunity

Sugar suppresses a key immune response known as phagocytosis – the Pac-Man effect of the immune system. Consuming 10 teaspoons of sugar can cause about a 50% reduction in phagocytosis. If you consider the sugar in your cereal, the syrup on your waffles and pancakes, the sugar added to your morning coffee or tea, the sugar in cold beverages like iced tea or lemonade, the HFCS in prepared foods, salad dressing and ketchup, and of course sugary snacks and desserts, you can see how easy it is to suppress your immune systems significantly. Not only the amount of sugar, but also the frequency of ingesting sugar is relevant to immune function. In one study, research subjects were found to have nearly a 38% decrease in phagocytosis one hour after ingesting a moderate amount of sugar. Two hours later, the immune system was suppressed 44%; immune function did not recover completely for a full five hours.
4-Activity

In most people, when sugar in any form is consumed, the pancreas releases insulin. Breast tissue, for example, contains insulin receptors, and insulin is a powerful stimulant of cell growth. One group of Australian researchers concluded that high levels of insulin and insulin-like growth factor (IGF) may actually be causative of cancers of the breast, prostate, endometrium and pancreas. A broad study conducted in 21 countries in Europe, North America and Asia concluded that sugar intake is a strong risk factor contributing to higher breast cancer rates, particularly in older women. A four-year study at the National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection in the Netherlands compared 111 biliary tract cancer patients with 480 healthy controls. Sugar intake was associated with more than double the cancer risk. 5- Obesity

Sugar ingestion seriously contributes to obesity, a known cause of cancer. Obesity also negatively affects survival. More than 100,000 cases of cancer each year are caused by excess body fat, according to the American Institute for Cancer Research. These include esophageal, pancreatic, kidney, gallbladder, breast and colorectal cancer.
Sugar Substitutes

Although I am against sugar, please don’t think I recommend artificial sugar substitutes! Sweeteners containing aspartame, saccharin or sucralose have been shown to contribute to bladder cancer, lymphoma and leukemia, according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Good sugar substitutes are stevia (an all-natural herb from South America), barley malt, rice syrup, and palm sugar. Even high-glycemic sweeteners like Sucanat, evaporated cane juice, molasses, honey and pure maple syrup are nutritionally superior to refined table sugar or HFCS, and you can avoid sugar spiking if you consume them in the presence of high fiber foods like ground flax seeds.

References:

[1] Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science 1956 Feb;123:309-14.

[2] Volk T, et al. pH in human tumor xenografts: effect of intravenous administration of glucose. Br J Cancer 1993 Sep;68(3):492-500.

[3] Kaaks R, Energy balance and cancer: the role of insulin and insulin-like growth factor-1. Proc Nutr Soc 2001 Feb;60(1):91-106

[4] Digirolamo M. Diet and cancer: markers, prevention and treatment. New York: Plenum Press; 1994. p 203.

[5] Brand-Miller J, et al. The glucose revolution. Newport (RI) Marlowe and Co.; 1999.

[6] Mooradian AD, et al. Glucotoxicity: potential mechanisms. Clin Geriatr Med 1999 May;15(2):255.

[7] Hoehn, SK, et al. Complex versus simple carbohydrates and mammary tumors in mice. Nutr Cancer 1979;1(3):27.

[8] Sanchez A, et al. Role of sugars in human neutrophilic phagocytosis. Am J Clin Nutr 1973 Nov;26(11):1180-4.

[9] Moerman CJ, et al. Dietary sugar intake in the aetiology of biliary tract cancer. Int J Epidemiol 1993 Apr;22(2):207-14.

[10] Seeley S. Diet and breast cancer: the possible connection with sugar consumption. Med Hypotheses 1983 Jul;11(3):319-27.

[11] Board M, et al. High Km glucose-phosphorylating (glucokinase) activities in a range of tumor cell lines and inhibition of rates of tumor growth by the specific enzyme inhibitor mannoheptulose. Cancer Res 1995 Aug 1;55(15):3278-85.

[12] Chlebowski RT, et al. Hydrazine sulfate in cancer patients with weight loss. A placebo-controlled clinical experience. Cancer 1987 Feb 1;59(3):406-10.

[13] American College of Physicians. Parenteral nutrition in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. Ann Intern Med 1989 May;110(9):734.

[14] Gatenby RA. Potential role of FDG-PET imaging in understanding tumor-host interaction. J Nucl Med 1995 May;36(5):893-9.

Our stomachs are full yet we are starving! We are starving from lack of nutrition, Stop eating filth and start eating food! Let food be thy medicine and never forget that sugar feeds cancer, your body has no way of processing GMO and processed foods, so don't eat them! Its supply and demand, you continue to demand by purchasing, the filth will continue to be supplied, common sense people!

Testimonies and much more re GcMaf: http://www.gcmafinformation.com/

More Information re GcMaf can be found here http://www.firstproengineering.com

Information on cannabis oil can be found here: https://mothernatureandyou.wordpress.co ... y/cdb-oil/

For information purposes please see the following link https://mothernatureandyou.wordpress.com/…/killer-in-your-…/

http://www.firstproengineering.com

I share lots of useful info on my facebook page, feel free to like to receive up-dates https://www.facebook.com/MotherNatureAndYou

You may find the following interesting https://mothernatureandyou.wordpress.com/…/simple-and-effe…/

My personal story can be read here https://mothernatureandyou.wordpress.com

Further Information re GcMaf can be found here:
https://immuneactivator.wordpress.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Nmla4M1p8
http://www.mothernatureandyou.wordpress.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wlkxgPNecE

We also have a facebook where we answer your questions: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1636250066626603/

Should you be faced with cancer and need assistance, we may maybe able to assist further. As cancer researchers, we put together personal designed protocols to suit your body. We all all individual. We give step by step instructions and help guide you on the road to recovery. For further information, feel free to email.

Love and light Amanda Mary email: [email protected]
Love and light Mary
 
OP
GAF

GAF

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2014
Messages
789
Age
67
Location
Dallas Texas
haidut gave me permission to post his reply to the previous post.

The flaws are many, but the main ones are these:

1. If you restrict glucose the cancer cells will still get their glucose by increasing production of cortisol and destroying your muscle tissue in the process. This will trigger the cachexia process much earlier than it would have normally happened.

2. Cancer cells love fat, not just glucose. They may use glucose for maintenance of normal function, but they love fat and especially PUFA for survival. Using fatty acid oxidation inhibitors may be a viable treatment for cancer. Aspirin and high doses of niacinamide inhibit fatty acid oxidation. Look at this post of mine on the issue:
https://www.raypeatforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7639

3. The cancer phenotype CAN be reversed. The myth of cancer cells not being normal and not being reversible feeds into the old methods of "cut, poison, burn" that aim to kill cancer cells. In reality, there are no cancer cells, just cells that revert to primitive metabolism when the environment does not support oxidative metabolism. Here are some posts that show thyroid and aspirin can reverse the "cancer" cell type back to normal.
https://www.raypeatforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6763
viewtopic.php?style=38&f=75&t=3637

Finally, the GcMAF approach is valid in my opinion but all these people studying it are tainted by the medical dogma they studied in school. She is right about lactic acid being dangerous, but the damaged pyruvate dehydrogenase process resulting in high lactate production can sometimes be reversed by something as simple as vitamin B1 (thiamine). The chemical DCA that made the news as potential caner cure acts through the same mechanism. See the link below for more info.
https://www.raypeatforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3895

I think this doctor means well, but she probably believes in the genetic dogma that mutation cause cancer. It's the other way around actually - cancer cells and the Warburg effect is what drives mutations.
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/commen ... searchers/

Just my 2c.
 

thegiantess

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
316
I think it probably makes a whole lot of sense for people actively being treated for cancer to stay away from sugar and favor saturated fats and proteins. If it has gotten to the point that they are receiving cancer treatment, there is clearly a breakdown in the system. At that point, trying to get yourself back to a proper sugar burner seems like a gamble. If it were me, I would dramatically cut sugars during cancer treatment and then, when I was given a clean bill of health, work on correcting the metabolic errors that got me there.

So, I think this woman is half right.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
Cancer cells love sugar! That is why refined carbohydrates like white sugar, white flour, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and soft drinks are extremely dangerous for anyone trying to prevent or reverse cancer. Sugar essentially feeds tumors and encourages cancer growth.

That sentence shows that this person doesn't know how the body works. She thinks those products like white sugar, flour, soda, and HFCS cause cancer because they turn into glucose. Every one of those products is converted to glucose by way of digestive enzymes and other processes and once converted into glucose, it's the same glucose that is made from any other source. If you eat a steak, some of it is converted into glucose. The steak's converted glucose is no different than the glucose from potato or rice or fruit or sugarcane once in the bloodstream. The difference between the steak and the potato is that the steak will also give a high dose of amino acids like methionine which has been shown to contribute to cancer and block thyroid function and the steak also gives you other things like the animals hormones and it's own toxins. This person is just focusing on the "sugar" part of food and that is the mistake. It's not the glucose that is the problem with those foods. White sugar is simply dried cane juice from the sugarcane plant. Your body will use sugarcane as energy to burn or to store glycogen. There are some African countries that use sugarcane as a food source and they do not have the same rates of cancer as the west. The only problem with white sugar is that it doesn't provide minerals/vitamin C, but that is not a problem because no one simply just eats white sugar only when eating a health-food diet. The problem with things like flour and HFCS is not the sugar conversion of them, it's the other things that are in them like contaminants, heavy metals, and high-processing-produced toxins that have barely been studied. With soda, the problem is all of the additives and phosphoric acid and other things. The immune system and kidneys have to work to excrete these toxins.


So, the most important rule in fighting cancer is: 100% Cut out common sugar, chocolate, cakes, biscuits, ice cream, fizzy soft drinks, Ribena, and processed and packaged food as a start! And be warned: ´Healthy honey´ is 50 per cent glucose and fructose. No sugar replacements. SUGAR FEEDS CANCER."


This shows she also falsely believes in the myth of foods that are called "sugar" when in reality they are actually high fat foods: When people think "sugar" they think bread, pasta, cookies, cakes, crusty pies, pastries, donuts, muffins, pancakes, waffles, biscuits, noodles, and crackers. There are three problems with calling those foods "sugar." Firstly, all of those foods (besides pasta and noodles, which are just flour by themselves) are made with lots of fat, in the form of vegetable oils, margarine, or butter, so to call them "sugar" is a misnomer. People call pizza and ice cream "carbs" when in reality pizza and ice cream have more calories coming from fat than they do carbs. Not only does pizza have plenty of cheese on it, the dough is made with vegetable oil. A cannoli and ice cream have more calories coming from their cream/fat content than from their starch/sugar content. Same with chocolate, it has more fat than sugar. Secondly, besides being baked/cooked with oils, margarine, or butter, those foods are also almost always consumed with added fat as well because no one eats those flour products without any fat. People always add oils and cheese/butter to them. You are considered a weirdo if you eat such foods fat-free. So when one is eating those foods, they have to consider the calories/additives/effects from the fat portion of those foods.

She just sounds like someone who is struggling with sugar "cravings" and doesn't understand that the human being is naturally a high-sugar creature and when craving sweet, eating fruit or sweet potatoes is what you should do. Honey can help with a sweet craving, but we are meant to eat sweet whole foods like fruits and cooked sweet tubers because they come with fiber and nutrients. I don't blame her though for being afraid of "sugar" because it's the culture of the world today. But if she did more research then she would see the truth.

Eat Glucose at your peril
we say, if you have cancer, eat glucose and sugary foods at your peril. And there is plenty of research from places such as Harvard Medical School to support our view. In 2012 Cancer Watch covered research that high fructose corn syrup could be even worse than common sugar - you´ll find it abundantly in fizzy soft drinks. There is some evidence that if you starve cancer cells of glucose and HFCS they can sometimes use glutamine from your cells as a reserve fuel supply, but glucose is the main food source.

Tell that to the long-lived Okinawans who ate 70% of their daily diet as sugary sweet potatoes, pure glucose, no conversion needed: https://raypeatforum.com/community/...et-high-in-vitamin-a-from-beta-carotene.8696/

among many other high starch (sugar) eating peoples.
 
Last edited:

jaguar43

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
1,310
I think it probably makes a whole lot of sense for people actively being treated for cancer to stay away from sugar and favor saturated fats and proteins. If it has gotten to the point that they are receiving cancer treatment, there is clearly a breakdown in the system. At that point, trying to get yourself back to a proper sugar burner seems like a gamble. If it were me, I would dramatically cut sugars during cancer treatment and then, when I was given a clean bill of health, work on correcting the metabolic errors that got me there.

So, I think this woman is half right.

What type of cancer treatments are you referring too ?
 

thegiantess

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
316
What type of cancer treatments are you referring too ?

The typical treatments. Surgery, chemo, radiation, etc. As I said, if it's gone far enough that one has resorted to going through these treatments, I would guess it's fairly advanced and it's not really the best time to try and fix your metabolism. Just my opinion.. And what I would do.
 

jaguar43

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
1,310
The typical treatments. Surgery, chemo, radiation, etc. As I said, if it's gone far enough that one has resorted to going through these treatments, I would guess it's fairly advanced and it's not really the best time to try and fix your metabolism. Just my opinion.. And what I would do.

So why would one want to limited sugars and saturated fats when going through those treatments ?
 

thegiantess

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
316
So why would one want to limited sugars and saturated fats when going through those treatments ?
Limit sugar is what I said. Favor fat and protein. The chemo/radiation is spread sometimes over the period of months. Surgery usually comes later. These drugs don't kill everything immediately (if ever) so, it seems to me that you wouldn't want to continue to fuel the cancer cells whilst also trying to obliterate them.
 

jaguar43

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
1,310
Limit sugar is what I said. Favor fat and protein. The chemo/radiation is spread sometimes over the period of months. Surgery usually comes later. These drugs don't kill everything immediately (if ever) so, it seems to me that you wouldn't want to continue to fuel the cancer cells whilst also trying to obliterate them.

So essentially eating a low carbohydrate during cancer treatments ? Like atkin or paleo ?
 

jaguar43

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
1,310
Yes. That's what I would personally do. Especially if it was brain cancer.

I get what your saying, however the evidence actually points in reverse. According to Ray Peat cancers cells DONT live on sugar but mostly fats and protein.

"Warburg Effect" refers to Otto Warburg's observation that cancer cells produce lactic acid even in the presence of adequate oxygen. Cancer cells don't "live on glucose," since they are highly adapted to survive on protein and fats.

"Cancer metabolism" or stress metabolism typically involves an excess of the adaptive hormones, resulting from an imbalance of the demands made on the organism and the resources available to the organism. Excessive stimulation depletes glucose and produces lactic acid, and causes cortisol to increase, causing a shift to the consumption of fat and protein rather than glucose. Increased cortisol activates the Randle effect (the inhibition of glucose oxidation by free fatty acids), accelerates the breakdown of protein into amino acids, and activates the enzyme fatty acid synthase, which produces fatty acids from amino acids and pyruvate, to be oxidized in a "futile cycle," producing heat, and increasing the liberation of ammonia from the amino acids. Ammonia suppresses respiratory, and stimulates glycolytic, activity.

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/lactate.shtml

I thinks important to point out, that he doesn't mean to consume an all sugar diet. But enough sugar to stop the free fatty acid liberation and aerobic glycolysis while promoting mitochondrial respiration.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
I'm no expert, but here's some of my response.

There seems to be a confusion in her article. On the one hand her suggested foods to eat and avoid seem to be about avoiding some of the more highly refined, low micronutrient versions of sugars and starches, but still eating other concentrated sugars:

So, the most important rule in fighting cancer is: 100% Cut out common sugar, chocolate, cakes, biscuits, ice cream, fizzy soft drinks, Ribena, and processed and packaged food as a start! And be warned: ´Healthy honey´ is 50 per cent glucose and fructose. No sugar replacements. SUGAR FEEDS CANCER.

Good sugar substitutes are stevia (an all-natural herb from South America), barley malt, rice syrup, and palm sugar. Even high-glycemic sweeteners like Sucanat, evaporated cane juice, molasses, honey and pure maple syrup are nutritionally superior to refined table sugar or HFCS, and you can avoid sugar spiking if you consume them in the presence of high fiber foods like ground flax seeds.

On the other hand, her argument against sugars because they feed cancer would seem to be general to all sugars.

If what she wants is to encourage people to not overdo the highly refined sucrose, HFCS, honey, grain flours, in favour of eating actual foods that also contain more of the necessary micronutrients that are needed to make good use of them, and to eat sugars in a way that supports keeping reasonably stable blood sugar levels rather than massive spikes, then this doesn't seem like bad advice to me. Unfortunately, she doesn't mention her reasons for making these distinctions, and her arguments don't quite line up. But we know that minerals are important for processing sugar well, and Peat has certainly recommended fruit and milk etc over relying primarily on refined sucrose or HFCS.

I think there may be some real needs, possibly beyond the average for more intensive micronutrient nutrition when battling cancer. So there may be advantages in getting most of ones carbohydrates from foods that also provide useful minerals - e.g. fruit and veges, and not making refined sucrose too big a part of the diet.

The 1931 Nobel laureate in medicine, German Otto Warburg, PhD, discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells. He found that malignant tumors exhibit increased glycolysis — a process whereby glucose is used as a fuel by cancer — as compared with normal cells.
This is true, as far as I know, and it's important.
Normal cells do oxidation of sugar if they have enough oxygen. If they are doing aerobic glycolisis, that could be the beginning of trouble. Avoiding cell hypoxia is good.

The Hospital dieticians will tell you that if you are having chemotherapy, you should eat lots of calories - from fatty foods, dairy and glucose. This is to protect the seven per cent of patients that experience serious weight loss (cachexia) due to the drugs - and we could´t possibly have drugs killing people, could we? In the defense of government dieticians, they are so overworked they only get time to see the people who are seriously ill from cachexia.
I understood cachexia to be one of the key ways that cancer can kill. I didn't think it was a trivial issue. I can't tell if she thinks that only the glucose in this prescription is a problem, or the fats and dairy too. Is she advocating that people live on milk and cheese? Or vege soup, potatoes and fruit salad instead of powdered glucose?

Healthy cells can use other forms of ´food´ like fats, as precursors.
Different cells favour different fuels - the brain likes to have a regular supply of sugar, and like cancer cells, will get the body to make it some out of proteins if not enough is eaten. Many cells can use fat, but relying too heavily on long-chain fatty acids with inadequate sugars tends to interfere with the oxidative sugar metabolism, possibly reducing CO2 levels, potentially contributing to insulin sensitivity, generally reduced metabolism, increased cortisol, and a weakened immune system - this is stress metabolism. You want good oxygen delivery to help protect other cells from turning cancerous. CO2 is necessary for oxygen delivery. The thymus in particular tends to atrophy under high stress/cortisol, low sugar conditions, and the thymus is an important organ in the immune system. I'd be really wanting my immune system, including thymus, to be strong to address cancer, so I wouldn't want to be depriving my system of sugar for too much of the time.

Could be that excessive refined carbs without adequate other nutrients could weaken the immune system?

Warburg also found that cancers thrive in an acidic environment. Sugar is highly acidic. With a pH of about 6.4, it is 10 times more acidic than the ideal alkaline pH of blood at 7.4.
I believe sucrose is neutral - pH of 7.0. Blood pH should be 7.4, but average urine pH is ideally more like 6.3-6.7 (Peat and Reams). Possibly, when addressing cancer, it may be safer to be on the higher end of this.
Other components of diet, and other processes such as respiration also affect pH. We have to eat a range of different substances to maintain suitable pH, and they don't all have to be neutral pH 7.0 (or pH7.4). Getting adequate alkaline minerals is probably important to maintain a healthy pH. Peat tends to mention the need for sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium fairly regularly.

In most people, when sugar in any form is consumed, the pancreas releases insulin. Breast tissue, for example, contains insulin receptors, and insulin is a powerful stimulant of cell growth.
Yes, insulin allows glucose into cells to provide energy for growth (cancer as well as healthy cells), but it also allows glucose into healthy cells for all their other functions, many of which you need to retain. Without insulin, you are in big trouble. But excesses might be a problem, and you can get excess by other means than just added refined carbs. Keeping blood sugar reasonably stable may well be helpful. That doesn't necessarily mean avoiding all sugar. Chronically starving the body of adequate energy can induce stress, and increased cortisol, and possibly increase the risk of other cells turning cancerous.

A four-year study at the National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection in the Netherlands compared 111 biliary tract cancer patients with 480 healthy controls. Sugar intake was associated with more than double the cancer risk.
Did this study control for PUFA intake? If it was an observational, rather than prospective study, there may be confounders like the high refined-sucrose/HFCS eaters also being the high PUFA eaters, that would make it hard to conclude much from the study about sugar.

Sugar ingestion seriously contributes to obesity, a known cause of cancer. Obesity also negatively affects survival. More than 100,000 cases of cancer each year are caused by excess body fat, according to the American Institute for Cancer Research. These include esophageal, pancreatic, kidney, gallbladder, breast and colorectal cancer.
I assume this is based on epidemiological studies? How many of them controlled for PUFAs?
I think Haidut has posted some studies showing that higher sugar (vs starch or fat) intakes as a proportion of diet do not tend to increase obesity.
Extreme obesity seems to sometimes arise in conjunction with metabolic derangements, and the causal relationship is not so clear. If energy production in cells is not going well, this could result in both obesity and increased cancer risk. PUFA seems to be more implicated in metabolic derangements than sugar is, if I'm interpreting Peat's work correctly.

Although I am against sugar, please don’t think I recommend artificial sugar substitutes! Sweeteners containing aspartame, saccharin or sucralose have been shown to contribute to bladder cancer, lymphoma and leukemia, according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
This makes sense to me.

If I was in that situation, I'd consider seeing how much of my sugar I could get from high-brix organic fruit and veges etc, and try to limit the 'empty' calorie sugars. Might be hard to access enough, though. I don't think I'd be replacing sugars with fats, though I'd probably include some coconut oil.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
If you have cancer unless you are disregarding every advice Ray Peat has given for cancer (to take high dose aspirin, niacinamide, etc.) you won't be able to burn fat or at the very least you will be severely impairing your ability to do so.
 

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,783
Location
UK
If you have cancer unless you are disregarding every advice Ray Peat has given for cancer (to take high dose aspirin, niacinamide, etc.) you won't be able to burn fat or at the very least you will be severely impairing your ability to do so.

Even without following his advice, you won't that much. If you're in a hospital getting treated for cancer, what kind of meals do they give you? Hospital meals seems to be the usual starch meals. That alone should be enough to tamper fatty acid oxidation for a lot of the day.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
Even without following his advice, you won't that much. If you're in a hospital getting treated for cancer, what kind of meals do they give you? Hospital meals seems to be the usual starch meals. That alone should be enough to tamper fatty acid oxidation for a lot of the day.

Well if you're getting radiation and antibiotics you will probably be burning fat. Mostly lactic acid, but also fat.
 

Emstar1892

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
346
I've seen more hclf and hflc boards claiming to cure cancer than i can count. I think if anyone claims more than complete ignorance then they ought to be regarded with suspicion - no one knows yet. Or, if someone does, they don't have a broad, low carb website with cancer as a side note, they are earning billions somewhere saving lives!

I'm not saying she or mercola are wrong, im just sick of people claiming to understand cancer, especially if they're going to use phrases like "cancer cells," which are pretty meaningless unless they define the context, type and stage of the cancer. Furthermore, what feeds a cell doesn't explain it's behaviour.

From personal experience, my lymphocytes have always been low (bad) when cortisol has been high (also bad.) On a keto diet my cortisol was sky high (terrible), so I'd be surprised if keto even was the cure. But hey!

I suppose my point is just don't sweat it, it's not worth it, and cancer is associated with more misinformation than any other problem!
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,519
I've seen more hclf and hflc boards claiming to cure cancer than i can count. I think if anyone claims more than complete ignorance then they ought to be regarded with suspicion - no one knows yet. Or, if someone does, they don't have a broad, low carb website with cancer as a side note, they are earning billions somewhere saving lives!

I'm not saying she or mercola are wrong, im just sick of people claiming to understand cancer, especially if they're going to use phrases like "cancer cells," which are pretty meaningless unless they define the context, type and stage of the cancer. Furthermore, what feeds a cell doesn't explain it's behaviour.

From personal experience, my lymphocytes have always been low (bad) when cortisol has been high (also bad.) On a keto diet my cortisol was sky high (terrible), so I'd be surprised if keto even was the cure. But hey!

I suppose my point is just don't sweat it, it's not worth it, and cancer is associated with more misinformation than any other problem!


I'm looking for theory.
 

Emstar1892

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
346
I know. And I'm saying, there isn't one yet. But that's just my two cents. If you find the theory, let me know!
 

thegiantess

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
316
I'm looking for theory.


There are lots of those. As far as I know the only "cancer cells" that have responded in clinical trials to keto are those in the brain. Beyond that it seems to be speculation at best. Although Haidut has provided so many positive links on aspirins effect on cancer, that's a good a place as any to start.
 
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom