Cancer Debate May Be Finally Over, Confirming Ray's Views Again

haidut

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
17,613
Location
USA / Europe
This is all over the scientific forums, including sites like Reddit. The bottom line is this - after about 100 years of denial, modern science finally seems to be admitting that the Warburg Effect is a cause of cancer and not just a result/symptom/sign. The study goes on to discuss how inhibiting glycolysis through various compounds (2-DG, DCA, etc) which Ray has written about before, inhibits tumor growth and can be a reliable treatment for cancer.
Now, let's see if this results in any meaningful therapies for cancer or if things will go on as usual.

Increased sugar uptake promotes oncogenesis via EPAC/RAP1 and O-GlcNAc pathways
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comment ... searchers/

"...There's been a long running debate over whether or not the well known Warburg Effect is a result of genetic transformation of cells into a malignant state or whether the Warburg Effect is a key driver of the transition. The debate may now be beginning to be over. "
 
Last edited:
J

j.

Guest
haidut said:
Now, let's see if this results in any meaningful therapies for cancer or if things will go on as usual.

Oh, you, the eternal optimist.
 

haidut

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
17,613
Location
USA / Europe
j. said:
haidut said:
Now, let's see if this results in any meaningful therapies for cancer or if things will go on as usual.

Oh, you, the eternal optimist.

Cue in appropriate quote:):
"I am a realist, masking as a pessimist, who is secretly an optimist".
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
11,846
Location
USA
[glow=red]Ray Peat right again![/glow]​
:mrgreen:
 

5magicbeans

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
120
Age
56
I would greatly appreciate it if someone could explain this further.
Peat eating involves sugar.....cancer proliferates with sugar??

Thanks!
 
J

j.

Guest
5magicbeans said:
I would greatly appreciate it if someone could explain this further.
Peat eating involves sugar.....cancer proliferates with sugar??

Thanks!

Sugar is probably a minor factor. How the body uses sugar is more important, and the depends mainly on thyroid function and the level of consumption of polyunsaturated fats.

Peat's views of cancer are based I think on Warburg's theory of cancer.
 

pboy

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
1,681
would the body not still produce glucose from aminos acids and glycerol...even if you didn't eat any? I suppose if you were somehow prone to developing cancer cells, restricting glucose could slow their proliferation...but would the side effects of such a diet not be pretty bad in of themselves, and not really get to the root of the problem? I see a cancer cell as a weak cell...which cannot do anything but use glucose because of their weakness, so they preferentially take it up where as the healthy cells can still muster the energy to utilize alternative fuels. Eventually...would you not need glucose to heal, from anything?
 
J

j.

Guest
The statement above about cancer cells only being able to consume glucose is wrong I believe. If I recall correctly, Peat said cancer cells can use fat for fuel as well.
 

Blossom

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
8,633
His theory is based on Warburgs research. Cancer cells release carbon monoxide inhibiting aerobic respiration. Cancer cells can use all the same fuels the rest of our normal cells do. I will try to find some quotes and post them soon since I've been reading on this topic lately.
 

Blossom

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
8,633
It's beautifully simple. In Peat's work from April 1999 entitled Carbon monoxide, stress and cancer he speaks about cancer being a cellular respiratory defect. Light is one of the things mentioned that restores the proper balance. The supportive measures are exactly the ones that are beneficial for general health. Maybe the mainstream will catch on but it won't be profitable so I kind of doubt it. Adequate nutrition, proper hormone balance, the right light and air. There's just no money in that but I'm sure glad I know about it. Plus we are such a long way off in what's viewed as healthy in the mainstream that that in itself will take time to change let alone have an impact in medical culture.( imo)
 

haidut

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
17,613
Location
USA / Europe
Ray has written that cancer cells are stuck in the glycolysis step and cannot move on to the subsequent steps of the Krebs cycle to fully oxidize glucose to ATP, CO2, and water. Also, he has written that cancer cells actually prefer to burn fat, but use glucose to synthesize fat, so drugs that inhibit the enzyme Fatty Acid Synthase (FAS) are effective in suppressing cancer growth. One of the best "drugs" for suppressing FAS is aspirin.
Finally, I think Ray recommends that for people who have problem oxidizing glucose, fructose is better choice b/c it enters the metabolic cycle later and avoids most of the glycolysis steps. I am a little hazy on where he said it but I think it was one of his articles on the website.
So, if there is a diet for cancer that is Peat approved I think it would be very low fat (he said cancer is absent on fat-free diets), significant protein (150g) and fructose.
Just my 2c.
 

Blossom

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
8,633
You explained that perfectly as always haidut!
 

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
2,829
haidut said:
Ray has written that cancer cells actually prefer to burn fat, but use glucose to synthesize fat,
So, if there is a diet for cancer that is Peat approved I think it would be very low fat (he said cancer is absent on fat-free diets), significant protein (150g) and fructose.

That falls perfectly in line with Gerson's findings about fats ( any kind of fats; vegetal or animal) nourrishing cancer cells, thus his complete avoidance of fats intake during all his regimen.

The notable exception is flaxseed oil, which didn't seem to make tumors grow, and it would be interesting to hear Ray's take on this.
 

Atalanta

Member
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
112
I don't think the debate is over.

According to this research, cancer cells use fructose to multiply:

"In his study, Heaney and his team took pancreatic tumors from patients and cultured and grew the malignant cells in petri dishes. They then added glucose to one set of cells and fructose to another. Using mass spectrometry, they were able to follow the carbon-labeled sugars in the cells to determine what exactly they were being used for and how.

Heaney found that the pancreatic cancer cells could easily distinguish between glucose and fructose even though they are very similar structurally, and contrary to conventional wisdom, the cancer cells metabolized the sugars in very different ways. In the case of fructose, the pancreatic cancer cells used the sugar in the transketolase-driven non-oxidative pentose phosphate pathway to generate nucleic acids, the building blocks of RNA and DNA, which the cancer cells need to divide and proliferate."
http://www.cancer.ucla.edu/index.aspx?r ... 5&page=644

Also, why would fructose not be converted to lactic acid by cancer cells like glucose? Glucose is converted to fructose in the second step of glycolysis, so if cancer cells can ferment glucose, there is no reason they can't ferment fructose as well. In addition, fructose metabolism bypasses only one step of glucose metabolism. In glycolysis, glucose is first converted to glucose-6-phosphate and then to fructose-6-phosphate. In fructose metabolism, fructose is converted to fructose-6-phosphate (in muscle) which then enters the glycolytic pathway. In the liver, fructose is first converted to fructose-1-phosphate and other intermediates before it enters the glycolytic pathway as glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate.

Most amino acids can be converted to glucose, so a high protein diet may not be protective against cancer.

Cancer cells can alter their metabolism to use the same fuels that healthy cells use so cancer treatment is not as simple as using aspirin to inhibit fatty acid synthesis.

According to this article, cancer cells have their unique way of using the glycolytic pathway and creating DNA which they need to multiply:

"Scientists already knew that cancer cells replace one type of a key metabolic enzyme known as pyruvate kinase with another. Both versions of the enzyme (PKM1 and PKM2) catalyze the very last step of glycolysis, which is the transformation of a compound called PEP to the final product, pyruvate.

In the new study, the researchers found that PEP is involved in a previously unknown feedback loop that bypasses the final step of glycolysis. In cancer cells, PKM2 is not very active, causing PEP to accumulate. That excess PEP activates an enzyme called PGAM, which catalyzes an earlier step in glycolysis. When PGAM receives that extra boost, it produces even more PEP, creating a positive feedback loop in which the more PEP a cell has, the more it makes.

The most important result of this loop is that the cell generates a large pool of another chemical that is formed during an intermediate step of the reaction chain. Vander Heiden believes this compound, called 3-phosphoglycerate, is diverted into synthetic pathways such as the production of DNA, which can become part of a new cancer cell. "

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/canc ... -0917.html
 

Atalanta

Member
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
112
@Burtlancast,

Gerson also cut out all animal protein, at least for the first several months, so that may be important as well.
 

Blossom

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
8,633
haidut said:
Ray has written that cancer cells are stuck in the glycolysis step and cannot move on to the subsequent steps of the Krebs cycle to fully oxidize glucose to ATP, CO2, and water. Also, he has written that cancer cells actually prefer to burn fat, but use glucose to synthesize fat, so drugs that inhibit the enzyme Fatty Acid Synthase (FAS) are effective in suppressing cancer growth. One of the best "drugs" for suppressing FAS is aspirin.
Finally, I think Ray recommends that for people who have problem oxidizing glucose, fructose is better choice b/c it enters the metabolic cycle later and avoids most of the glycolysis steps. I am a little hazy on where he said it but I think it was one of his articles on the website.
So, if there is a diet for cancer that is Peat approved I think it would be very low fat (he said cancer is absent on fat-free diets), significant protein (150g) and fructose.
Just my 2c.
My newbie understanding of Peat's work leads me to agree with cancer cells being stuck in glycolysis which leads to increased FFA's and carbon monoxide. It becomes a viscous circle unless one can revert back to optimal cellular respiration through the protective substance which Peat has pointed out numerous times. The result of fructose metabolism will give us abundant CO2 which Peat and Ling consider a cardinal absorbent. I have a lot more studying to do but from personal experience I can say all of Peat's writing that I've read thus far have helped my symptoms of a GI carcinoid tumor disappear. It only anecdotal and that okay with me.
 

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
2,829
Atalanta said:
@Burtlancast,

Gerson also cut out all animal protein, at least for the first several months, so that may be important as well.

...and he did allow fruits, rich in fructose.
Fruits didn't make the tumors grow.

Which kind of contradicts your article; not saying it isn't valid, but we're touching here the frontier between experimental and clinical studies.

Gerson, as a medic, clearly wrote it's the results at patient's bed that matters first...
 

Wilfrid

Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
715
The last exchange ( three weeks ago) I got with Ray on the subject of cancer alternative treatment was very interesting.
When I asked him what could be considered a "good" alternative treatment to stop cancer progression, he seemed to focus mainly on anticholinergic drugs.

RP:" anticholinergic drug such as scopolamine, belladonna, or atropine could be helpful; aspirin and cyproheptadine are other safe drugs that inhibit cancer promoting signals."

The role of the ANS on the cancer genesis and pronostic are often underestimated.
But Ray's answer strongly confirm the work of Fuad Lechìn on the ANS and diseases.

http://lib.freescienceengineering.org/v ... ?id=427161

The following study is also very informative:

Science. 2013 Jul 12;341(6142):1236361.
Autonomic nerve development contributes to prostate cancer progression.
Magnon C, Hall SJ, Lin J, Xue X, Gerber L, Freedland SJ, Frenette PS.
Ruth L. and David S. Gottesman Institute for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine
Research, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY 10461, USA.
clairemagnon@free.fr
Comment in
    Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013 Sep;10(9):487.
    Science. 2013 Jul 12;341(6142):134-5.
    Nat Rev Cancer. 2013 Sep;13(9):608-9.
    Nat Rev Urol. 2013 Sep;10(9):491.
Nerves are a common feature of the microenvironment, but their role in tumor
growth and progression remains unclear. We found that the formation of autonomic
nerve fibers in the prostate gland regulates prostate cancer development and
dissemination in mouse models. The early phases of tumor development were
prevented by chemical or surgical sympathectomy and by genetic deletion of
stromal β2- and β3-adrenergic receptors. Tumors were also infiltrated by
parasympathetic cholinergic fibers that promoted cancer dissemination.
Cholinergic-induced tumor invasion and metastasis were inhibited by
pharmacological blockade or genetic disruption of the stromal type 1 muscarinic
receptor, leading to improved survival of the mice. A retrospective blinded
analysis of prostate adenocarcinoma specimens from 43 patients revealed that the
densities of sympathetic and parasympathetic nerve fibers in tumor and
surrounding normal tissue, respectively, were associated with poor clinical
outcomes. These findings may lead to novel therapeutic approaches for prostate cancer.

Managing balance within the ANS is a tricky one which could explain why some people have positive results from diet excluding proteins and eat only fruits, grains, vegetables and juices while others have positive results excluding starches, fruits and eat mainly a protein based diet. And a lot of legit testimonials of different peoples claiming they cured their cancer with often opposite diet.
So the debate is probably not over yet...
 

Kray

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
967
haidut said:
Ray has written that cancer cells are stuck in the glycolysis step and cannot move on to the subsequent steps of the Krebs cycle to fully oxidize glucose to ATP, CO2, and water. Also, he has written that cancer cells actually prefer to burn fat, but use glucose to synthesize fat, so drugs that inhibit the enzyme Fatty Acid Synthase (FAS) are effective in suppressing cancer growth. One of the best "drugs" for suppressing FAS is aspirin.
Finally, I think Ray recommends that for people who have problem oxidizing glucose, fructose is better choice b/c it enters the metabolic cycle later and avoids most of the glycolysis steps. I am a little hazy on where he said it but I think it was one of his articles on the website.
So, if there is a diet for cancer that is Peat approved I think it would be very low fat (he said cancer is absent on fat-free diets), significant protein (150g) and fructose.
Just my 2c.

So now fats are out? No butter, coconut oil, or "good" animal fats?
 
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
I Near-infrared photoimmunotherapy of cancer: a new approach that kills cancer cells and enhances anti-cancer host immunity Cancer 2
A Does mouth breathing cure cancer ? Altitude, Bag Breathing, CO2, Light, Weather 3
LoryEl Research Mushroom consumption lowers the risk of cancer by 45% Carrot Salad, Bamboo Shoots, Mushrooms 0
egoy Brain Cancer stage 4 glioblastoma giant cells. What options are available? Ask For Help or Advice 167
L Sambar, an Indian Dish Prevents the Development of DimethColon Cancer Digestion 1
Mito Lowering and Stabilizing PSA Levels in Advanced-prostate Cancer Patients With Oral Methioninase Cancer 0
haidut Blocking cortisol may treat terminal pancreatic cancer Scientific Studies 1
haidut Vitamin D can force cancer cells to differentiate back into normal Scientific Studies 1
haidut DHT / Progesterone / aspirin treat, cortisol ineffective, PUFA promotes prostate cancer Scientific Studies 1
Soren Cancer Chemo internal bleeding, help Cancer 4
Jam Association Between Aspirin Use and Biliary Tract Cancer Survival Scientific Studies 18
N Milk, mTOR and cancer Dairy, Eggs 52
Soren Mouth Cancer women 95 Years Cancer 7
J Stage 4 Kidney Cancer Cancer 6
cupofcoffee Post-diagnostic coffee and tea consumption and breast cancer survival Coffee 0
haidut Androgens (e.g. DHT) curative even for treatment-resistant breast cancer Scientific Studies 0
haidut Even "non-carcinogenic" estrogens can cause cancer Scientific Studies 1
J Arginine and Glutaime in Gelatin, is it good or bad for cancer Cancer, Degenerative Diseases 9
ecstatichamster Aspirin increases cancer and mortality — or does it? Scientific Studies 9
B Cancer of the womb Female Issues 2
O Doxycycline Inhibits Cancer Stem Cell-Like Properties via PAR1/FAK/PI3K/AKT Pathway in Pancreatic Cancer Scientific Studies 2
burtlancast Blood acidosis protects against cancer Cancer, Degenerative Diseases 2
A Japanese women and breast cancer - what has been overlooked Cancer 24
P Pain under both armpits could i have cancer Ask For Help or Advice 22
A Consuming Milk Increase Your Risk for Prostate Cancer? Milk 35
Orangeyouglad My Mother Has Breast Cancer Cancer, Degenerative Diseases 23
Mito Serotonin Pathway in Cancer Cancer 1
theantagonist Transcript of PMS, PCOS, and Breast Cancer [Generative Energy #17] Generative Energy Podcast 6
Mito The efficacy of Vitamin K in the treatment of cancer K 1
T Prostate Cancer Prevention Cancer, Degenerative Diseases 20
G Prednisone, lung transplant, breast cancer, appendicitis - where to start to improve health? Ask For Help or Advice 10
M “Mothers can give babies cancer through amniotic fluid” Cancer, Degenerative Diseases 2
L 11-Ketotestosterone main driver of malign prostate cancer Scientific Studies 33
haidut Stress-driven lipid peroxidation, inflammation re-awakens dormant cancer cells Scientific Studies 0
haidut Aspirin can cure liver cancer in just 24 hours (in rabbits) Scientific Studies 2
Tristan Loscha A Proposed Treatment With Clioquinol And Cabergoline For The Treatment Of Terminal Prostate Cancer Cancer, Degenerative Diseases 16
L Aspirin As A Suppressor Of Cancer-related Epigenetic Aging Scientific Studies 2
haidut Estrogen May Be The Cause Of "estrogen-negative" Breast Cancer Scientific Studies 0
M Inflamatory Breast Cancer Treatment Causes? Female Issues 1
GreenTrails If You've Had Cancer, What Do You Think Causes Cancer? Ask For Help or Advice 74
ecstatichamster Would Exemestane Help Prostate Cancer Patients Cancer, Degenerative Diseases 0
rzero Breast Cancer Survivors Who Use Estrogenic Botanical Supplements Have Lower Serum Estrogen Levels Scientific Studies 20
UltraSuperior Is There Anything That Can Be Done For Pancreatic Cancer? Cancer, Degenerative Diseases 26
E Coffee Associated With Improved Survival In Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Scientific Studies 0
haidut Lipolysis / FFA Drive Breast Cancer By Promoting Estrogen Signalling Scientific Studies 0
Lewis Acid Colonoscopy’s Are Lethal And Do NOT Detect Cancer Labs 7
S Cancer Therapy Based On Metabolism Dysfunction Cancer 4
U Anti-Peat Progesterone-positive Cancer? Debate - Anti-Peat 1
L Possible Skin Cancer Help :/ Skin 6
haidut Doxycycline Akin To Meldonium / Mildronate, May Cure Triple-negative Breast Cancer Scientific Studies 0

Similar threads

Top