Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 151 posts

Re: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

#21

Post by jstsch »

numair wrote: post #17

I was recently shocked and practically offended to read guidelines on what to eat while undergoing chemo[1]. It was a high-sugar diet, basically (milkshakes were encouraged !). I couldn't imagine anything worse than shocking your body with radiation, and then providing cancer cells with all the sugar they need for growth. Hopefully the ideas in this article start to affect public health policy and guidelines. 1: http…

Many people hospitalized in any way, including when undergoing chemotherapy, don't eat enough. Loss of appetite. That's why this guideline document gives hints to increase kcal uptake.

Re: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

#22

Post by NotSammyHagar »

SherlockeHolmes wrote: post #16

I am very sorry for your loss. my (armchair) analysis on cancer treatment - i) chemotherapy, in vacuum, most likely does considerably more harm than good, ii) sugar feeds cancer cells, iii) essential to feed body nutrients from a variety of sources (all must be plant based and non-processed), iv) it is likely a prudent investment to engage in holistic treatments such as being immersed in positivity and fulfilled envi…

I am sure you mean well, but you need to be better informed about biology. Table sugar is not the greatest thing in the world for our bodies, but your body needs certain kinds of sugars to function. Glucose is how your brain is powered. Sadly there is no evidence that restricting sugar would retard cancerous growth. Yes, there are toxins in our environment. Going past that to things that affect cancer is a huge step. Just like we don't worry anymore about a black cat crossing our path, we should use science to inform our ideas about medical treatment.

Re: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

#23

Post by SherlockeHolmes »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #22
SherlockeHolmes wrote: post #16

I am very sorry for your loss. my (armchair) analysis on cancer treatment - i) chemotherapy, in vacuum, most likely does considerably more harm than good, ii) sugar feeds cancer cells, iii) essential to feed body nutrients from a variety of sources (all must be plant based and non-processed), iv) it is likely a prudent investment to engage in holistic treatments such as being immersed in positivity and fulfilled envi…

I am sure you mean well, but you need to be better informed about biology. Table sugar is not the greatest thing in the world for our bodies, but your body needs certain kinds of sugars to function. Glucose is how your brain is powered. Sadly there is no evidence that restricting sugar would retard cancerous growth. Yes, there are toxins in our environment. Going past that to things that affect cancer is a huge step.…

thank you for the reply. I am aware that saccharides are essential in our bodies in order to produce adenosine tri-phosphates (ATPs) which are units of energy used by our cells to perform everything from translation and commutation of genetic information, regeneration through mitosis, nervous actions carried out through active ion gates. I am also aware of multiple peer reviewed research papers (one from UCSF comes to mind, but I cannot be bothered to search it) that have shown direct links between cancerous cell growth and glucose (a monosaccharide).

p.s. the reference to a black cat crossing was intriguing from the perspective of a psychoanalyst studying the HN mind.

Re: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

#24

Post by mrob »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #22
SherlockeHolmes wrote: post #16

I am very sorry for your loss. my (armchair) analysis on cancer treatment - i) chemotherapy, in vacuum, most likely does considerably more harm than good, ii) sugar feeds cancer cells, iii) essential to feed body nutrients from a variety of sources (all must be plant based and non-processed), iv) it is likely a prudent investment to engage in holistic treatments such as being immersed in positivity and fulfilled envi…

I am sure you mean well, but you need to be better informed about biology. Table sugar is not the greatest thing in the world for our bodies, but your body needs certain kinds of sugars to function. Glucose is how your brain is powered. Sadly there is no evidence that restricting sugar would retard cancerous growth. Yes, there are toxins in our environment. Going past that to things that affect cancer is a huge step.…

The brain does need some glucose to function, but the bulk of its energy need can be met by ketones. After adapting to this energy source the need for glucose is low enough that it can be met entirely by gluconeogenesis (making glucose from proteins and fats). Humans can survive on a zero carbohydrate diet with no cognitive impairment.

Re: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

#25

Post by yourapostasy »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #22
SherlockeHolmes wrote: post #16

I am very sorry for your loss. my (armchair) analysis on cancer treatment - i) chemotherapy, in vacuum, most likely does considerably more harm than good, ii) sugar feeds cancer cells, iii) essential to feed body nutrients from a variety of sources (all must be plant based and non-processed), iv) it is likely a prudent investment to engage in holistic treatments such as being immersed in positivity and fulfilled envi…

I am sure you mean well, but you need to be better informed about biology. Table sugar is not the greatest thing in the world for our bodies, but your body needs certain kinds of sugars to function. Glucose is how your brain is powered. Sadly there is no evidence that restricting sugar would retard cancerous growth. Yes, there are toxins in our environment. Going past that to things that affect cancer is a huge step.…

> ...your body needs certain kinds of sugars to function...

I would really like to see the citations that "body needs certain kinds of sugars to function" connotes that we must perforce consume sugar in some form (which I interpret "not the greatest thing in the world for our bodies" implies while we might not have to eat table sugar, we need to at least eat carbs that can be readily converted to glucose), at least in modest amounts. People who start out as epileptic children put on strict ketogenic diets able to carry out successful lifestyles for decades without any other restrictions are prima facie empirical evidence that we most assuredly can synthesize what little sugars our bodies do require beyond very small amounts of daily net carbohydrates (20g per day or less, equivalent to 5 teaspoons table sugar), and do not have to include sugars in our diets.

Re: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

#26

Post by sergioisidoro »

I've read in multiple places that biohackers are using Intermittent fasting as a way of preventing cancer.

By making sporadic (eg. once a month) fasting periods of 12h to 24h, they expect to starve cancer cells in their very early stages (basically using the underlying principle of the article).

I would be extremely interested in seeing a study of the incidence of cancer in people doing Intermittent fasting vs general population.

Re: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

#28

Post by ac2u »

numair wrote: post #17

I was recently shocked and practically offended to read guidelines on what to eat while undergoing chemo[1]. It was a high-sugar diet, basically (milkshakes were encouraged !). I couldn't imagine anything worse than shocking your body with radiation, and then providing cancer cells with all the sugar they need for growth. Hopefully the ideas in this article start to affect public health policy and guidelines. 1: http…

As interesting as the article is, it's way too early to have feelings as strong as being "practically offended" towards literature advising such a diet.

It's perhaps better to tell patients to "eat balanced and enjoy yourself with a treat from time to time like anyone else" and stamp some medical authority behind it rather than have them obsess over diet to the point where they become hooked by all the predators selling fad diet cures.

Re: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

#29

Post by sergioisidoro »

sergioisidoro wrote: post #26

I've read in multiple places that biohackers are using Intermittent fasting as a way of preventing cancer. By making sporadic (eg. once a month) fasting periods of 12h to 24h, they expect to starve cancer cells in their very early stages (basically using the underlying principle of the article). I would be extremely interested in seeing a study of the incidence of cancer in people doing Intermittent fasting vs genera…

Edit: Found one study, but this is likely to be a confirmation bias effect: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26094889

"Bi-monthly FMD cycles started at middle age extended longevity, lowered visceral fat, reduced cancer incidence and skin lesions, rejuvenated the immune system, and retarded bone mineral density loss."

This study shows not so promising results: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20733612 Points to "Overall, there was no difference in mouse survival (P=0.37) or tumor volumes (P ≥ 0.10)" (mice that already had prostate cancer)

tl;dr: There might be some potential benefits of fasting in the prevention of cancer, might not be the case for treatment of cancer...

Re: An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

#30

Post by tptacek »

jan_g wrote: post #10
WalterBright wrote: post #3

A family member of mine was diagnosed with metastatic cancer and told to get her affairs in order. She went on a strict no sugar diet. 5 years later, she has no sign of cancer. Of course, she also had standard surgery and chemo. But I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the no sugar diet slowed the cancer down enough for the chemo/surgery to be more effective.

My mother had lung cancer which spread to other parts of her body. Throughout her sickness, she ate very little, then almost nothing as the disease progressed. By the time of her death, she was practically just skin and bones. "Starving the cancer" didn't seem to work in her case. Then again, chemo also seemed to have zero effect. Cancer just spread, more and more, with each passing month.

That sucks, and I'm sorry. But: chiming in to clarify: it's not "stop eating to starve cancer"; its, "change diet to route energy through metabolic pathways that cancer is disadvantaged for".
Post reply on HN