An Old Idea, Revived: Starve Cancer to Death

Post by alrs » Sun, May 15, 2016, 1:26 AM UTC

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.…

Post by berberich » Sun, May 15, 2016, 2:32 AM UTC

Post by keto_retards » Sun, May 15, 2016, 2:53 AM UTC

alrs wrote: post #31

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Gluconeogenesis is the process by which the body synthesizes glucose from protein. So long as fats and proteins are available, human beings have no need for any sugars in our diets whatsoever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

Post by Spooky23 » Sun, May 15, 2016, 3:24 AM UTC

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…

Post by bandushrew » Sun, May 15, 2016, 4:02 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #30

jan_g wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".