IF I ALREADY Had A Tumor/cancer, Would Sugar Be Bad Then?

[yoshiesque]

I know there is a lot of stuff going around about how sugar is bad because it feeds cancer, but I could easily argue that this doesnt mean sugar CAUSES cancer.

But if I already had cancer, then what should I do?

Also, I dont have cancer, just wondering.

 

[XPlus]

It'd be bad to not have enough energy and nutrients to keep the physiological repair and maintenance functions going.
It's been mentioned around here that cancers can feed on fatty acids, too.
So, it's probably a question of what's the right environment more than what foods to take and what foods to avoid.

Anyone diagnosed with cancer is most likely to be in very weak overall health.
The first thing would be the zero PUFA (as I remember Peat mentioning this somewhere).
Then, there are measures that can be taken to restore the health status of the patient to pre-cancer levels.
I'd start with some labs to draw a health evaluation.
Then, it'd be possible to decide on what medicine and supplements could be helpful.

In general, it would be imperative to minimise the levels of every-day stress to lowest possible.
This might include things like quitting work and shifting to a more pleasant place, maybe in the high altitudes.
Maintaining a diet of fresh, nutritious, clean, easy to digest foods.
Eliminating environmental pollutants, especially EMF sources.
High-dose aspirin therapy has been mentioned for cancer sround here before.
I believe the aspirin has a wide-range of antiinflammtory effects on the system and helps correcting physiological processes.
Also, I think the Vitmain E adds up to the general level of robustness of the system and I believe it would be especially helpful in the fight against cancer.

You could also search more forum topics, RP.com articles and audio interviews to find out about what Ray thinks of cancer.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

If you eat a steak, about half of it is converted to sugar. Almost everything you eat is converted into sugar. Even if you avoid cane sugar, you're still eating sugar. Your cells need sugar. Without it you die. Glucose. Cancer is a disease of metabolism. Everyone has cancer everyday. Most peoples immune system kills cancer before it spreads. Focus on your immune system and metabolism and don't worry about "sugar."

 

[Blossom]

viewtopic.php?f=75&t=7639&p=97258&hilit=Cancer+and+fatty+acid#p97258

 

[burtlancast]

Cancer patients have been cured by taking Hydrazine Sulfate, which blocks the liver conversion of lactic acid back to glucose.

Ask yourself why.
:2cents

 

[jb116]

It's not the glucose that's the problem, it is, just as in other degenerative disease, a metabolic issue. Pyruvic acid is not oxidized correctly, the appropriate enzymes are blocked. Fructose and thyroid for example can reactivate these enzymes so that the glucose is used and oxidized properly. I forget which interview it is but Ray talks about direct line feeding of tumors of glucose killing them.

 

[Daimyo]

post 104454 I know there is a lot of stuff going around about how sugar is bad because it feeds cancer

I have even more groundbreaking information, that can be used to fight cancer

Literally ALL GROWING, DEVELOPING, ACTIVE CANCER CELLS CONTAINS WATER!!!

also

ALL GROWING, DEVELOPING, ACTIVE CANCER CELLS CONTAINS PROTEIN!!!

There is no alive cancer cell, that does not contain water and protein!

 

[Such_Saturation]

Actually, healthy cells have mostly EZ-water...

 

[tara]

post 104454 I know there is a lot of stuff going around about how sugar is bad because it feeds cancer, but I could easily argue that this doesnt mean sugar CAUSES cancer.

But if I already had cancer, then what should I do?

Also, I dont have cancer, just wondering.

Do you mean sweet foods or refined sucrose?

The immune system needs sugar to run on too, and you are relying on your immune system to detect and remove cancerous cells.

I suspect it may be extra important, when fighting cancer, to make sure the essential mineral supply is abundant. So foods that contain lots of useful minerals along with sugars might be an important part of that. I guess whether there's room in the sugar budget for any refined sucrose etc probably depends on how mineral- and vitamin-dense the rest of the diet is?

I think we pretty much all produce some cancerous cells on a regular basis but most of the time our immune system handles them before the numbers/mass get big enough to cause a problem. I think there was a reference here somewhere to a study where a large number of 50 yr old accident victims got autopsied, and most of them had visible tumours somewhere or other, presumably that most of them didn't know about.

 

[Nicholas]

thinking out loud: refined sugar wouldn't be wise in developed cancer because at that point, the mitochondria are taking up even less nutrients. i.e. spend your calories wisely. technically, this could even apply to somebody without developed cancer.

 

[tara]

post 114822 thinking out loud: refined sugar wouldn't be wise in developed cancer because at that point, the mitochondria are taking up even less nutrients. i.e. spend your calories wisely. technically, this could even apply to somebody without developed cancer.

Maybe.
Making sure to get enough sugar, preferably from more mineral-dense foods, may be important for a couple of reasons:
- In the absence of adequate sugar, proteins will be converted to sugar. Cachexia is one of the major troubles caused by cancer.
- And if sugar get too low, that can lead to fat being liberated too fast, and if stored PUFA is high, than the liberated PUFAs might favour the cancer?
- If you eat high fat to replace the sugar, that may result in lower CO2 levels (this is contentious - some people here have challenged this), which could also favour the cancer? And Blossom's point above about cancer using fats for their own survival.

Did you see this one:
viewtopic.php?t=7032

post 114797 Literally ALL GROWING, DEVELOPING, ACTIVE CANCER CELLS CONTAINS WATER!!!

also

ALL GROWING, DEVELOPING, ACTIVE CANCER CELLS CONTAINS PROTEIN!!!

Yeah. Its obvious, really. Drink no water, eat no protein. After 6 mths (probably much less), cancer will give you no more trouble.

 

[Nicholas]

post 114839

post 114822 thinking out loud: refined sugar wouldn't be wise in developed cancer because at that point, the mitochondria are taking up even less nutrients. i.e. spend your calories wisely. technically, this could even apply to somebody without developed cancer.

Maybe.
Making sure to get enough sugar, preferably from more mineral-dense foods, may be important for a couple of reasons:
- In the absence of adequate sugar, proteins will be converted to sugar. Cachexia is one of the major troubles caused by cancer.
- And if sugar get too low, that can lead to fat being liberated too fast, and if stored PUFA is high, than the liberated PUFAs might favour the cancer?
- If you eat high fat to replace the sugar, that may result in lower CO2 levels (this is contentious - some people here have challenged this), which could also favour the cancer? And Blossom's point above about cancer using fats for their own survival.

Did you see this one:
https://www.raypeatforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7032

post 114797 Literally ALL GROWING, DEVELOPING, ACTIVE CANCER CELLS CONTAINS WATER!!!

also

ALL GROWING, DEVELOPING, ACTIVE CANCER CELLS CONTAINS PROTEIN!!!

Yeah. Its obvious, really. Drink no water, eat no protein. After 6 mths (probably much less), cancer will give you no more trouble.

i said refined sugar

 

[tara]

post 114840 i said refined sugar

Yes. And I'd favour more mineral dense carbs too.
But you just talked about not eating refined sugar, not what you'd eat instead, and I think this matters - there are probably worse options than eating refined sugar.
If you haven't got lots of good mineral-dense plant food available that your gut tolerates, what are you going to do?

 

[tara]

post 114844 And I'd favour more mineral dense carbs too.

I know someone slightly who is outliving his drs' predictions on kilos of organic veges and juices every day (and maybe other stuff I don't know about). The cost of food would be out of most people's reach.

 

[ThunderSpank]

Ray says starving yourself often makes the cancer grow quicker. There was a guy named chris I think, who developed full blown colon cancer and instead of getting chemotherapy he went on a fruit based diet and started bouncing on a mini trampoline and completely reversed his cancer and is still cancer free.

 

[burtlancast]

In my opinion, Ray has clearly avoided the topic of cancer treatment in his work, probably because the politics involved, and the associated risks deriving from that ().

The few contrarian opinions he has voiced ( on sugar notably) have been misrepresented by some posters as meaning sugar consumption ( ie sucrose) is appropriate in cancer, which i reckon is pure madness.

When one gets cancer and refuses conventional therapy, there's many alternatives to chose from, but unless those specifically consist of regimen diets ( like Gerson, Breuss, Kelley,Vit B17,...) one's left in the dark as what he should or not eat.

If i was in that situation, i would go with what has been tried and proven, ie which foods have been proven to feed cancer and which have been proven not to. Max Gerson's work stands here. I would then be free to use another alternative, like Rick Simpson oil, Beljanski herb extracts, Naessens camphor extract, oleander, ESSIAC, Hydrazine Sulfate, etc.

This could have been an easy logical dietary advice for Ray to adopt, but since he has embroiled himself with the Gerson people over the flaxseed oil topic, he dropped altogether the subject of cancer treatment and concentrated instead on it's prevention.

 

[Ewelina]

post 114865 Ray says starving yourself often makes the cancer grow quicker. There was a guy named chris I think, who developed full blown colon cancer and instead of getting chemotherapy he went on a fruit based diet and started bouncing on a mini trampoline and completely reversed his cancer and is still cancer free.

I've seen him (chrisbeatscancer webside or something like that) and what grabbed my attention was that he looked young for his age and his skin was positively glowing. He also didn't have any typically estrogenic features such as puffiness. I remember that he mentioned his lab results and his cholesterol was very low, though.

 

[DaveFoster]

There's evidence that a ketogenic diet stops the proliferation of cancerous tissue due to the lack of provision of adequate glucose. There's also evidence that a ketogenic diet raises metabolic markers that promote cancer.

There are so many purported ways to cure cancer; at the heart of all of them they suggest a combination of adequate nutrition, removal of toxins and heavy metals, removal of parasites and harmful bacteria or pathogen, and often a reduction in stress. How you go about these things tends to be where debate ensues.

Think of this: Kids develop cancer far less than adults, and they also have much higher metabolic rates, generally speaking. It's a correlation, but it may have merit in the context of a Peat paradigm. Also think of the psychology of a sick individual; usually depressed, downtrodden, victimized, and lonely. Once again, this correlates and does not necessarily cause, but it's an observation.