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

131–140 of 151 posts

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

#131

Post by Natanael_L »

nonbel wrote: post #130
Natanael_L wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like saying suffocating in vacuum and suffocating from oxygen substitution in an enclosed space (like by inert gasses) is equal. The causes are different enough that different solutions are necessary.

I don't see how this analogy works at all? In either case a space suit works doesn't it? Anyway, this whole "cancer isn't one disease" meme is best depicted by the bottom right panel of the second section of this comic: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1162 It looks just like the "string theory landscape", next you will be told that we need to stop worrying about comparing predictions to evidence w…

Can you fit the space suit? (maybe I should have said something about small spaces).

Just because there's a shared behavior there's no guarantee there's a shared cause or mechanism. And even when there are, the environment can make any given solution unusable.

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

#132

Post by reddytowns »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #95
reddytowns wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that medical science today isn't equipped to prove/disprove this kind of medicine. All that would happen if they could convince anyone to even believe the story, which I highly doubt, is one study would be conducted. The scientists would ignore all the diagnosis and individual examination the shaman did, and the study would probably have the participants take a specific amount of a single specific herb…

So the only kind of "science" that could prove this works is to layer on so many confounding effects and other variables that it'd be impossible to tell what, if anything, is happening. Gee, I wonder why rational people are skeptical of that. And to answer your question, no, I do not believe that alternative health systems "developed" over thousands of years work. If they work, then they're medicine. We only use the…

I'm not arguing that the scientific method is invalid. Just that it's applied in a way today that is typically unable to prove or disprove if alternative medicine works or not.

The shaman might tell you, I look into their eyes and if I see a slight yellowness I know X. Then I measure their pulse and that tells me Y. So based on that I prescribe medicine A at dose B.

Now if someone designed a study that first separated people into a category where both X and Y are true, and then gave only those people the medicine the shaman recommended, you'd have a real test. But this isn't done.

Humanity has produced great things before the scientific method existed, agriculture, smelting, sea travel, etc., including the scientific method, itself! How can you reconcile this fact with your proclamation that anything related to medicine, a body of knowledge produced from the same people at the same period of time is all bullshit?

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

#133

Post by ac2u »

tominous wrote: post #83
danieltillett wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that but it is very easy to create a very strong food aversion to whatever you have recently eaten. Your brain connects the very bad nausea that results from the chemo with whatever you last ate. This effect can be so strong that people can never eat that food ever again.

One trick is to choose a scapegoat food that you don't care too much about, preferably something novel (e.g. strong liquorice might work). This has been shown to reduce the risk of aversion to normal food. [1] [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3677112/

That's brilliant if so, great how such a simple technique could potentially have a solid, measurable, quality of life improvement.

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

#134

Post by copperx »

joeyspn wrote: post #117
leonroy wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry for your loss. Can you elaborate on whether his diet excluded rice, refined grains and any other sort of simple carbs? I was rather shocked to see in the documentary 'Fed Up' that all these carb rich foods get broken down to simple sugar molecules pretty darn quick and as far as the body is concerned are identical to sugar.

Simple carbs are known to cause big spikes in insulin levels. So it's not a sugar-free diet alone, but also one has to contemplate glycemic index and glycemic load of apparently non-sugary foods.... http://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glycem... As reflected in the article, the key is keeping the insulin levels at bay.

Metformin helps too.

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

#135

Post by copperx »

swyman wrote: post #50
bandushrew wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parents point is valid though. If not eating sugar could slow (all) cancers, then not eating at all would clearly cover that case, and should have slowed the lung cancer. At the very least, his anecdote is convincing to me that it "starving the cancer" doesn't work with lung cancer. In the more general sense though my first impression of the phrase "route energy through metabolic pathways that cancer is disadvant…

> In the more general sense though my first impression of the phrase "route energy through metabolic pathways that cancer is disadvantaged for" is that it sounds like random word salad. "Eat food that cancer/tumors don't like as much as sugar."

Doesn't everything convert to glucose? Isn't that what cells live on?

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

#136

Post by copperx »

tluyben2 wrote: post #82
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My car broke down the other day and I immediately started doing my prayers and sacrifices to the car healing gods. 2 weeks later, my car is running smoothly with no signs of issues! Of course, my mechanic also replaced the engine, but I wouldn't be surprised if my process helped.

That's why 'smart people' advise to do both; try something you believe in (it helps if you believe) but do it next to regular treatments. Replace the engine and pray at the same time. Praying doesn't hurt although it won't help because of the praying (if there would be a god, it is well accepted that he doesn't listen to individual requests; you get your chance in heaven) but because of the faith/believe you have whi…

Does placebo even work for cancer?

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

#137

Post by tluyben2 »

copperx wrote: post #136
tluyben2 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why 'smart people' advise to do both; try something you believe in (it helps if you believe) but do it next to regular treatments. Replace the engine and pray at the same time. Praying doesn't hurt although it won't help because of the praying (if there would be a god, it is well accepted that he doesn't listen to individual requests; you get your chance in heaven) but because of the faith/believe you have whi…

Does placebo even work for cancer?

Probably not; the point is that you use the regular treatment and, if you have some 'alternative way' you think that will help you, you just add it to it. I would never suggest to try only the 'alternative way'. The fact that I was doing something 'myself' (eating no sugar in my case which I continued after remission) made me feel better and more positive. If it helped I will never know but I felt better for it so who cares.

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

#138

Post by mmargerum »

copperx wrote: post #135
swyman wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the more general sense though my first impression of the phrase "route energy through metabolic pathways that cancer is disadvantaged for" is that it sounds like random word salad. "Eat food that cancer/tumors don't like as much as sugar."

Doesn't everything convert to glucose? Isn't that what cells live on?

Regular cancer cells can use ketones for fuel. Cancer cells, with damaged mitochondria cannot.

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

#139

Post by mmargerum »

pygy_ wrote: post #91
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…

Depending on the tumor, feeding it well may increase its sensitivity to chemotherapy. On the other hand, I've read recently that fasting improved chemo tolerance because it puts healthy cells at rest while the cancerous ones are oblivious to the reduced calories intake... Not sure if it is universal. Such an early study was likely targeted a specific kind of cancer.

There's a therapy called IPT Insulin Potentiation Therapy which allows for much lower doses of chemotherapy
Post reply on HN