LCHF and Cancer...

KaroshiQueen

I think preventing it and curing it are two very different things. Maybe a vegan diet offers "protection" in advance but that says nothing of the efficacy of going vegan *after* you get cancer.

rainbowbow

KaroshiQueen wrote: »

rainbowbow wrote: »

And I've heard a high carb vegan diet also helps cancer.

Anything to push an agenda. And let's not even talk about dr. Mercola!

Having any opinion on MFP seems to = "having an agenda". This is BS. I tried both sides of the carb fence; one worked, one didn't. I state opinions based on the facts I observed. Research from a variety of (legitimate) sources seems to corroborate my individual experiences. This is hardly an agenda, and that applies to anyone.

Facts =/= Anecdotal evidence.

Although, I don't care either way. Everyone should do what they think is best, but should be able to look at these studies objectively.

Clearly dr. Mercola DOES have an agenda (I.e. Building his wealth).
http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html

And just to note:
FDA Warnings

In 2005, the FDA ordered Mercola and his Optimal Wellness Center to stop making illegal claims for products sold through his Web site [15]. The claims to which the FDA objected involved three products:

Living Fuel Rx, claimed to offer an "exceptional countermeasure" against cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, etc.
Tropical Traditions Virgin Coconut Oil, claimed to reduce the risk of heart disease and has beneficial effects against Crohn's disease, irritable bowel syndrome, and many infectious agents
Chlorella, claimed to fight cancer and normalize blood pressure.
In 2006, the FDA sent Mercola and his center a second warning that was based on product labels collected during an inspection at his facility and on claims made on the Optimum Wellness Center Web site [16]. This time the claims to which the FDA objected involve four products:

Vibrant Health Research Chlorella XP, claimed to "help to virtually eliminate your risk of developing cancer in the future."
Fresh Shores Extra Virgin Coconut Oil, claimed to reduce the risk of heart disease, cancer, and degenerative diseases.
Momentum Health Products Vitamin K2, possibly useful in treating certain kinds of cancer and Alzheimer's disease.
Momentum Health Products Cardio Essentials Nattokinase NSK-SD, claimed to be "a much safer and effective option than aspirin and other pharmaceutical agents to treating heart disease."
The warning letters explained that the use of such claims in the marketing of these products violates the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, which bans unapproved claims for products that are intended for curing, mitigating, treating, or preventing of diseases.

rainbowbow

KaroshiQueen wrote: »

I think preventing it and curing it are two very different things. Maybe a vegan diet offers "protection" in advance but that says nothing of the efficacy of going vegan *after* you get cancer.

Oh I agree. Just pointing out that there seems to be conflicting information out there and we need to step back and look at the data before believing righteous claims.

rprussell2004

BrettPGH_ wrote: »

rprussell2004 wrote: »

Yes, very sobering. It stinks. The tendency of people to let their egos get in the way of reality never ceases to let me down.

Well, maybe someone will find an actual needle in that haystack eventually.

LCHF is still a great eating plan tho

I'm sure it works wonders. I doubt I could hack it personally.

And in all honesty it seems like there is still more research to be done, it wasn't completely ruled out as quackery. I just think the sites touting it as a miracle cure/prevention before the science is in are reprehensible. They're doing it to make money off people desperate for a cure or living in fear that they'll someday get cancer. That's just wrong.

We're new to the cancer family, so it was very appealing to see something so simple could have such a huge effect. I wasn't aware that Mercola's history and reputation was so.. ah.. spotted. Being a keto eater already, I wasn't about to fling any money his way; it was an approach that jibed with what I've already experienced and as mentioned "sounded plausible."

THAT said...

BrettPGH_ wrote: »

Depriving the body of the glucose that cancer would feed on SOUNDS reasonable, I'm kind of surprised that there hasn't already been extensive research on it. I have to assume there's a reason for that. And not that doctors love people getting cancer so they can make money. I may not know much, but I know that western medicine isn't all just some giant scam to keep people sick so they can profit. That's woo nonsense.

Well, yeah, and from the scienceblogs link:

If you do a Pubmed search on “targeting cancer metabolism,” which is what Dr. Seyfried is talking about, you’ll find over 22,000 articles, with over 3,000 in 2013 alone, with a sharply increasing curve since 2000 that only now appears to be leveling off. A search on “cancer metabolism” brings up 369,000 references, with 28,000 in 2013 alone. Cancer metabolism is an incredibly important topic in cancer research and has been for several years now, and finding means of targeting the common metabolic abnormalities exhibited by cancer cells is currently a hot area of research.

Operating under the author's assumption that "cancer metabolism" is the goal, there does seem to have been a fair number of stabs at this. I was also following the idea that Seyfried was really on to something new...

Anyway, as I said, it stinks.

stealthq

rprussell2004 wrote: »

BrettPGH_ wrote: »

rprussell2004 wrote: »

Yes, very sobering. It stinks. The tendency of people to let their egos get in the way of reality never ceases to let me down.

Well, maybe someone will find an actual needle in that haystack eventually.

LCHF is still a great eating plan tho

I'm sure it works wonders. I doubt I could hack it personally.

And in all honesty it seems like there is still more research to be done, it wasn't completely ruled out as quackery. I just think the sites touting it as a miracle cure/prevention before the science is in are reprehensible. They're doing it to make money off people desperate for a cure or living in fear that they'll someday get cancer. That's just wrong.

We're new to the cancer family, so it was very appealing to see something so simple could have such a huge effect. I wasn't aware that Mercola's history and reputation was so.. ah.. spotted. Being a keto eater already, I wasn't about to fling any money his way; it was an approach that jibed with what I've already experienced and as mentioned "sounded plausible."

THAT said...

BrettPGH_ wrote: »

Depriving the body of the glucose that cancer would feed on SOUNDS reasonable, I'm kind of surprised that there hasn't already been extensive research on it. I have to assume there's a reason for that. And not that doctors love people getting cancer so they can make money. I may not know much, but I know that western medicine isn't all just some giant scam to keep people sick so they can profit. That's woo nonsense.

Well, yeah, and from the scienceblogs link:

If you do a Pubmed search on “targeting cancer metabolism,” which is what Dr. Seyfried is talking about, you’ll find over 22,000 articles, with over 3,000 in 2013 alone, with a sharply increasing curve since 2000 that only now appears to be leveling off. A search on “cancer metabolism” brings up 369,000 references, with 28,000 in 2013 alone. Cancer metabolism is an incredibly important topic in cancer research and has been for several years now, and finding means of targeting the common metabolic abnormalities exhibited by cancer cells is currently a hot area of research.

Operating under the author's assumption that "cancer metabolism" is the goal, there does seem to have been a fair number of stabs at this. I was also following the idea that Seyfried was really on to something new...

Anyway, as I said, it stinks.

Actually, a number of the "cancer metabolism" studies are concerning the metabolism of various pharmaceuticals, not metabolism in the general sense.

Speaking of which, one thing to consider is that chemotherapy usually depends on the cancer cells having a much higher growth rate than normal cells in order to kill them without killing the patient. If chemo is the best currently available treatment, perhaps slowing down cancer cell replication (given that denying cancer cells glucose is not cell-lethal) is not necessarily that smart of an idea.

I think such strategies are only viable as treatments if you have a way to target and kill the cancer cells that does not depend on growth rate. Targeted radiation, for example, or cancer vaccines, if they can ever be developed to the point where they work more reliably. Otherwise, I can only see it being feasible after all other methods of treatment have failed and the only goal left is delaying the inevitable as long as possible.

GaleHawkins

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4197426/

Folks even when skipping over the medical terms this is one awesome article about what happens when one cuts out carbs specifically related to head/neck cancer. I am glad I ditched carbs last year.