Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Can Sugar Cause Cancer
Replies
-
Cancer cells also use amino acids and fats to grow also.
Wrong, glucose doesn't feed cancer. It's a myth. Sure, glucose is used by rapidly growing and dividing cancer cells, but amino acids and fats are also used by those same cells. Bet your favorite keto or pseudoscienctific quack website didn't tell you that.Glucose does feed most cancers.
Still doesn't mean glucose feeds cancerIn fact PET scans basically just shows where there is very high glucose which is where cancer will be found.
That sentence does not mean that just glucose feeds cancer, but glucose does provide the primary fuel for most cancers. Cancer usually uses glucose to grow.
https://www.cell.com/cell-chemical-biology/fulltext/S2451-9456(16)30083-6
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161207133427.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4380238/
This is the problem when someone who has zero knowledge about a very complex issue and tries to simplfy it by just regurgitating a few keto propaganda talking points.
Just to be clear, there is no evidence that going on a low carb, low sugar, no sugar, atkins, keto or any type of special diet will in shink, reverse, or cure cancer. Zero.
You're projecting. I never said that cancer does not use protein or fats. I said glucose is the primary fuel for most cancers. Are you saying that is wrong (I guess I don't understand in my zero knowledge fueled by keto propaganda...)
As I said, there is really not many human trials testing ketogenic or low carb diets in complimenting a cancer therapy yet. There's dogs and other animals but I'm not sure if anyone is willing to look at that.
This is an interesting lecture on the topic and how they are working towards early clinical trials:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpiyQ_2EbF0
You should actually read about it yourself before you tell others to, it's clear you haven't or if you have, you didn't understand it.If you want the science, look into the Warburg effect.
I have. No need to try to belittle me
And the immune system also protects cancer cells so they can get a hold.
You understand wrong. I'm not sure what this even means. How is cancer normally eliminated?As I understand, highers insulin and glucose levels does tend to make it a bit easier for cancer to get a hold rather than being eliminated as it normally is.
The immune system usually eliminates cancerous growths before they get to be a problem.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090807091437.htm
I don't know what you want me to say to this. My first response was "Duh". I was asked about how cancer is eliminated before it really gets a hold and grows. I answered. I don't believe I was incorrect.As I understand, highers insulin and glucose levels does tend to make it a bit easier for cancer to get a hold
Nice strawman. Please point out where I said this. I'll wait.But in all seriousness, are you saying that cancer cells tend to use fat and protein, just as much as glucose, in order to grow and spread?
I didn't. I asked what you meant by writing this:I'm guessing your insinuating these foods "feed" cancer. Cancer cells also use amino acids and fats, so I guess we should avoid the the keto diet also.
Are you saying cancer uses fat and protein, just as much as glucose, in order to grow (rapidly) and spread?
with chemotherapy and/or radiation and/or surgery. But not by diet.By reverse, I meant to treat, to slow and hopefully shrink, cancer. Hopefully to eradicate it. Some cancers are successfully treatable.
I know of some people who are using diet (whole foods, low carb) to treat cancer with the supervision and blessing of doctors.
I guess when or if you get cancer (I think for men it's sadly close to a 50% risk) then you go with that. I may put more into trying lifestyle changes...I've already put into effect a few things I believe could help prevent or treat cancer.
These 2 statements kind of contradict each other. if its not well researched then how do you know diet can help with cancer treatment?Diet can help with cancer treatment.
Treating cancers with diet is not well researched yet.
I don't think so. There is some research and there are some promising outcomes. We can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that dietary changes will help treat or prevent cancer, but there is some evidence and proof.
Like any therapy, it won't work for all cancer or all people.9 -
@nvmomketo Glucose is used by cancer cells for fuel because glucose is used by all cells in the body as fuel. It's not like that sets cancer cells apart from healthy cells, which I think is what your post made it sound like.
All I will add is what I think is imperative to add, which is that NO ONE should rely solely on diet to treat cancer. And that is necessary to say because there are people who are so afraid of chemo and radiation that they refuse them for more "natural" treatment. And while there are folks who claim they cured their own cancer, there are also people who die of cancer while eating a special diet or drinking green juice. Diet should be used as a complimentary treatment under the care of a board certified oncologist. There is a burgeoning industry of anti-oncology woo peddlers taking advantage of sick people and it's reprehensible.
Sorry, but that is personally one of my easy to push buttons, I'll step down off my soapbox now!17 -
@nvmomketo Glucose is used by cancer cells for fuel because glucose is used by all cells in the body as fuel. It's not like that sets cancer cells apart from healthy cells, which I think is what your post made it sound like.
All I will add is what I think is imperative to add, which is that NO ONE should rely solely on diet to treat cancer. And that is necessary to say because there are people who are so afraid of chemo and radiation that they refuse them for more "natural" treatment. And while there are folks who claim they cured their own cancer, there are also people who die of cancer while eating a special diet or drinking green juice. Diet should be used as a complimentary treatment under the care of a board certified oncologist. There is a burgeoning industry of anti-oncology woo peddlers taking advantage of sick people and it's reprehensible.
Sorry, but that is personally one of my easy to push buttons, I'll step down off my soapbox now!
Ahh. I see. Thank you. I just meant to imply that cancer uses more glucose (fuel) than most cells. They are hungry cells.
I do understand it that with mitochondrial malfunction, cancer cells are often more reliant on glucose as a fuel than the more metabolically flexible, typical body cell (beyond obligate glucose users like RBCs).
And yes. Absolutely. Diet should only be considered complimentary to all treatments. There may be the very few that can rely only on diet, but those are few and far between. For the rest, it could be fatal.6 -
@nvmomketo Glucose is used by cancer cells for fuel because glucose is used by all cells in the body as fuel. It's not like that sets cancer cells apart from healthy cells, which I think is what your post made it sound like.
All I will add is what I think is imperative to add, which is that NO ONE should rely solely on diet to treat cancer. And that is necessary to say because there are people who are so afraid of chemo and radiation that they refuse them for more "natural" treatment. And while there are folks who claim they cured their own cancer, there are also people who die of cancer while eating a special diet or drinking green juice. Diet should be used as a complimentary treatment under the care of a board certified oncologist. There is a burgeoning industry of anti-oncology woo peddlers taking advantage of sick people and it's reprehensible.
Sorry, but that is personally one of my easy to push buttons, I'll step down off my soapbox now!
Ahh. I see. Thank you. I just meant to imply that cancer uses more glucose (fuel) than most cells. They are hungry cells.
I do understand it that with mitochondrial malfunction, cancer cells are often more reliant on glucose as a fuel than the more metabolically flexible, typical body cell (beyond obligate glucose users like RBCs).
And yes. Absolutely. Diet should only be considered complimentary to all treatments. There may be the very few that can rely only on diet, but those are few and far between. For the rest, it could be fatal.
It's worth considering that cancer cells are growing/multiplying much more rapidly than normal cells, thus likely use more fuel for that reason, without even considering others.
One of the reasons for side effects from common types of chemotherapy is that the chemotherapeutic interventions target fast-growing cells, so other (healthy) fast-growing cells tend to suffer more than slow-growing ones. Thus the commonness of digestive system side effects, hair loss, mouth sores, etc., all of which depend on fast-growing healthy cells.7 -
@nvmomketo Glucose is used by cancer cells for fuel because glucose is used by all cells in the body as fuel. It's not like that sets cancer cells apart from healthy cells, which I think is what your post made it sound like.
All I will add is what I think is imperative to add, which is that NO ONE should rely solely on diet to treat cancer. And that is necessary to say because there are people who are so afraid of chemo and radiation that they refuse them for more "natural" treatment. And while there are folks who claim they cured their own cancer, there are also people who die of cancer while eating a special diet or drinking green juice. Diet should be used as a complimentary treatment under the care of a board certified oncologist. There is a burgeoning industry of anti-oncology woo peddlers taking advantage of sick people and it's reprehensible.
Sorry, but that is personally one of my easy to push buttons, I'll step down off my soapbox now!
Ahh. I see. Thank you. I just meant to imply that cancer uses more glucose (fuel) than most cells. They are hungry cells.
I do understand it that with mitochondrial malfunction, cancer cells are often more reliant on glucose as a fuel than the more metabolically flexible, typical body cell (beyond obligate glucose users like RBCs).
And yes. Absolutely. Diet should only be considered complimentary to all treatments. There may be the very few that can rely only on diet, but those are few and far between. For the rest, it could be fatal.
It's worth considering that cancer cells are growing/multiplying much more rapidly than normal cells, thus likely use more fuel for that reason, without even considering others.
One of the reasons for side effects from common types of chemotherapy is that the chemotherapeutic interventions target fast-growing cells, so other (healthy) fast-growing cells tend to suffer more than slow-growing ones. Thus the commonness of digestive system side effects, hair loss, mouth sores, etc., all of which depend on fast-growing healthy cells.
True. Agreed.
Those who think you could use low glucose diets as a complimentary therapy wonder what would happen if the fast growing cells are not given enough fuel - what if fermentation is made more difficult? Or if it slows down PARP14? https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8882
A whole foods lower carb diet usually won't hurt, unless someone is misled and told that it is all they need to recover. Low carb may even help minimize cachexia in some patients in some cancers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165433/5 -
@nvmomketo Glucose is used by cancer cells for fuel because glucose is used by all cells in the body as fuel. It's not like that sets cancer cells apart from healthy cells, which I think is what your post made it sound like.
All I will add is what I think is imperative to add, which is that NO ONE should rely solely on diet to treat cancer. And that is necessary to say because there are people who are so afraid of chemo and radiation that they refuse them for more "natural" treatment. And while there are folks who claim they cured their own cancer, there are also people who die of cancer while eating a special diet or drinking green juice. Diet should be used as a complimentary treatment under the care of a board certified oncologist. There is a burgeoning industry of anti-oncology woo peddlers taking advantage of sick people and it's reprehensible.
Sorry, but that is personally one of my easy to push buttons, I'll step down off my soapbox now!
Ahh. I see. Thank you. I just meant to imply that cancer uses more glucose (fuel) than most cells. They are hungry cells.
I do understand it that with mitochondrial malfunction, cancer cells are often more reliant on glucose as a fuel than the more metabolically flexible, typical body cell (beyond obligate glucose users like RBCs).
And yes. Absolutely. Diet should only be considered complimentary to all treatments. There may be the very few that can rely only on diet, but those are few and far between. For the rest, it could be fatal.
It's worth considering that cancer cells are growing/multiplying much more rapidly than normal cells, thus likely use more fuel for that reason, without even considering others.
One of the reasons for side effects from common types of chemotherapy is that the chemotherapeutic interventions target fast-growing cells, so other (healthy) fast-growing cells tend to suffer more than slow-growing ones. Thus the commonness of digestive system side effects, hair loss, mouth sores, etc., all of which depend on fast-growing healthy cells.
True. Agreed.
Those who think you could use low glucose diets as a complimentary therapy wonder what would happen if the fast growing cells are not given enough fuel - what if fermentation is made more difficult? Or if it slows down PARP14? https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8882
A whole foods lower carb diet usually won't hurt, unless someone is misled and told that it is all they need to recover. Low carb may even help minimize cachexia in some patients in some cancers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165433/
I'm with Kimny that cancer patients should consult with and listen to their board-certified oncologist. I know you haven't recommended otherwise, but I'm wanting to underscore it. It's common for cancer centers to have RDs on staff to consult with patients. I found the RD at my cancer center very knowledgeable and helpful.
There are a lot of nuances to dietary interventions as complementary therapies. Certain cancers, and certain mainstream treatments, can require or contraindicate certain foods, supplements, or eating strategies. I don't think people who haven't been through it really appreciate that.7 -
Wow, just wow, I'm speechless. You're doing some serious speculating here and then linking to a research article that has nothing to do with what you are speculating about.Those who think you could use low glucose diets as a complimentary therapy wonder what would happen if the fast growing cells are not given enough fuel - what if fermentation is made more difficult? Or if it slows down PARP14? https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8882
Do you think people are not going to look at your links? Your link here is about pancreatic cancer in in-vitro cell lines and in mice. How you interpret that as "some patients" and "some cancers" is beyond me.A whole foods lower carb diet usually won't hurt, unless someone is misled and told that it is all they need to recover. Low carb may even help minimize cachexia in some patients in some cancers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165433/
Seriously, quit while you're still behind.12 -
@nvmomketo Glucose is used by cancer cells for fuel because glucose is used by all cells in the body as fuel. It's not like that sets cancer cells apart from healthy cells, which I think is what your post made it sound like.
All I will add is what I think is imperative to add, which is that NO ONE should rely solely on diet to treat cancer. And that is necessary to say because there are people who are so afraid of chemo and radiation that they refuse them for more "natural" treatment. And while there are folks who claim they cured their own cancer, there are also people who die of cancer while eating a special diet or drinking green juice. Diet should be used as a complimentary treatment under the care of a board certified oncologist. There is a burgeoning industry of anti-oncology woo peddlers taking advantage of sick people and it's reprehensible.
Sorry, but that is personally one of my easy to push buttons, I'll step down off my soapbox now!
Ahh. I see. Thank you. I just meant to imply that cancer uses more glucose (fuel) than most cells. They are hungry cells.
I do understand it that with mitochondrial malfunction, cancer cells are often more reliant on glucose as a fuel than the more metabolically flexible, typical body cell (beyond obligate glucose users like RBCs).
And yes. Absolutely. Diet should only be considered complimentary to all treatments. There may be the very few that can rely only on diet, but those are few and far between. For the rest, it could be fatal.
It's worth considering that cancer cells are growing/multiplying much more rapidly than normal cells, thus likely use more fuel for that reason, without even considering others.
One of the reasons for side effects from common types of chemotherapy is that the chemotherapeutic interventions target fast-growing cells, so other (healthy) fast-growing cells tend to suffer more than slow-growing ones. Thus the commonness of digestive system side effects, hair loss, mouth sores, etc., all of which depend on fast-growing healthy cells.
True. Agreed.
Those who think you could use low glucose diets as a complimentary therapy wonder what would happen if the fast growing cells are not given enough fuel - what if fermentation is made more difficult? Or if it slows down PARP14? https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8882
A whole foods lower carb diet usually won't hurt, unless someone is misled and told that it is all they need to recover. Low carb may even help minimize cachexia in some patients in some cancers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165433/
I'm with Kimny that cancer patients should consult with and listen to their board-certified oncologist. I know you haven't recommended otherwise, but I'm wanting to underscore it. It's common for cancer centers to have RDs on staff to consult with patients. I found the RD at my cancer center very knowledgeable and helpful.
There are a lot of nuances to dietary interventions as complementary therapies. Certain cancers, and certain mainstream treatments, can require or contraindicate certain foods, supplements, or eating strategies. I don't think people who haven't been through it really appreciate that.
Absolutely.0 -
Wow, just wow, I'm speechless. You're doing some serious speculating here and then linking to a research article that has nothing to do with what you are speculating about.Those who think you could use low glucose diets as a complimentary therapy wonder what would happen if the fast growing cells are not given enough fuel - what if fermentation is made more difficult? Or if it slows down PARP14? https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8882
Do you think people are not going to look at your links? Your link here is about pancreatic cancer in in-vitro cell lines and in mice. How you interpret that as "some patients" and "some cancers" is beyond me.A whole foods lower carb diet usually won't hurt, unless someone is misled and told that it is all they need to recover. Low carb may even help minimize cachexia in some patients in some cancers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165433/
Seriously, quit while you're still behind.
Be speechless. OR actually answer a question or contribute something helpful or thought provoking beyond "wow just wow." LOL
I know what links I posted. I also know that I said there are very few human trials and did not think people would appreciate dog and animal trial links... But there isn't much more beyond that. Maybe in 10-20 years there will be. That is why my responses have been worded with lots of may's, possibly's, and could's. Nothing is certain.
I give up. My guess is that you are just trolling and trying to get a reaction from me since you are mocking my posts and not responding to questions.18 -
nvomketo, you are up where the scientist are going. There are some people here who consider they know it all and are so far behind the observations, so much so, it is frightening, terefying. The science behind cell activity is so very, very intersting I become so enthrawled, its so much more intersting to me than any novella. ncib/gov.. nature and all the other accademic science sites, so much excelent reading.20
-
nvomketo, you are up where the scientist are going. There are some people here who consider they know it all and are so far behind the observations, so much so, it is frightening, terefying. The science behind cell activity is so very, very intersting I become so enthrawled, its so much more intersting to me than any novella. ncib/gov.. nature and all the other accademic science sites, so much excelent reading.
Wild speculation in an area outside of your expertise isn't "where the scientist is going", it's more like where the pulp sci-fi writer is going.17 -
I think people misunderstand what cancer is. Cancer isn't a disease in the traditional sense that one pictures with some foreign infectious agent, it is your own cells malfunctioning. Your bodies immune system typically still recognizes them as "self" and does not attack them and anything that "feeds" cancer cells is also something that "feeds" any of your other normal cells, things you require. If you avoided sugar entirely somehow cancer wouldn't die anymore than any of your other cells would die. If you literally restricted your diet enough to kill cancer cells, it would also kill your healthy cells. Therefore there is no way to eradicate cancer with a diet.
At the risk of oversimplifying here is a simple way to think about cancer. Healthy cells have two primary mechanisms to restrict their growth and expansion. First is contact inhibition, where cells can sense they are next to another cell at which point they stop growing and dividing. The other is telomeres and telomerases where there are sections of DNA at the end of chromosomes that shorten each time a cell divides and when they get short enough the cell can no longer divide. These mechanisms prevent rampant uncontrolled cellular growth. Healthy cells won't grow over eachother (contact inhibited) and they won't grown and reproduce indefinitely (telomeres).
These mechanism, like all biological mechanisms, are encoded in DNA. DNA can acquire mutations, either through miscopying during replication or from outside influences such as radiation or certain chemicals. These mutations occur generally speaking at random and most of the time they will either be innocuous or lead to the cells death. Now and again though mutations can occur in those growth check mechanisms of contact inhibition and telomerases). If a cell accumulates the "right" mutations that essentially deactivate those regulatory mechanisms you end up with a cancer cell. This can happen to anyone at anytime, the things that increase your chance of cancer are basically already having some of these mutations, having mutations that increase the rate that your DNA accumulates mutations, or areas of your body where cells are constantly being sloughed off and destroyed (skin, breast tissue, colon etc) and having to be replaced therefore increasing the amount DNA has to be copied thus increasing the chance for one of these mutations. Having external factors damage your DNA like UV radiation increases your chances of cancer simply by increasing the amount of mutations that occur in your DNA and everytime you get a mutation you are rolling those dice.
27 -
Sorry, John Slater, If you listened to "the life scientific" UK, BBC4 9-00 am. this morning, you might well have learned something.18
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I think people misunderstand what cancer is. Cancer isn't a disease in the traditional sense that one pictures with some foreign infectious agent, it is your own cells malfunctioning. Your bodies immune system typically still recognizes them as "self" and does not attack them and anything that "feeds" cancer cells is also something that "feeds" any of your other normal cells, things you require. If you avoided sugar entirely somehow cancer wouldn't die anymore than any of your other cells would die. If you literally restricted your diet enough to kill cancer cells, it would also kill your healthy cells. Therefore there is no way to eradicate cancer with a diet.
At the risk of oversimplifying here is a simple way to think about cancer. Healthy cells have two primary mechanisms to restrict their growth and expansion. First is contact inhibition, where cells can sense they are next to another cell at which point they stop growing and dividing. The other is telomeres and telomerases where there are sections of DNA at the end of chromosomes that shorten each time a cell divides and when they get short enough the cell can no longer divide. These mechanisms prevent rampant uncontrolled cellular growth. Healthy cells won't grow over eachother (contact inhibited) and they won't grown and reproduce indefinitely (telomeres).
These mechanism, like all biological mechanisms, are encoded in DNA. DNA can acquire mutations, either through miscopying during replication or from outside influences such as radiation or certain chemicals. These mutations occur generally speaking at random and most of the time they will either be innocuous or lead to the cells death. Now and again though mutations can occur in those growth check mechanisms of contact inhibition and telomerases). If a cell accumulates the "right" mutations that essentially deactivate those regulatory mechanisms you end up with a cancer cell. This can happen to anyone at anytime, the things that increase your chance of cancer are basically already having some of these mutations, having mutations that increase the rate that your DNA accumulates mutations, or areas of your body where cells are constantly being sloughed off and destroyed (skin, breast tissue, colon etc) and having to be replaced therefore increasing the amount DNA has to be copied thus increasing the chance for one of these mutations. Having external factors damage your DNA like UV radiation increases your chances of cancer simply by increasing the amount of mutations that occur in your DNA and everytime you get a mutation you are rolling those dice.
I really enjoyed this explanation--thank you again Aaron for taking the time to clarify things.5 -
Everything is on the table.
- Caloric restriction for life - I do it, consequence is being very thin...if you want to entertain breast cancer, be overweight.
- Minimum intake red meat - I eat 4oz twice a week
- Crazy amount of antioxydants - I did a 180deg in nutrition 3 years ago. Beets and broccoli - a lot, I mean a LOT.
- 30-45m of sustained exercise 4-5x a week - we have a Labrador in us, it needs to do a lot of things. don't leave out resistance training.
- Keep out alcohol - well, I failed on that one.
15 -
It is so sad many countries in the western world do not have access to proper scientific information from their key media. In law our main channels are required to hold their factual content tight to the science. Its one way we are blessed here in the UK.
ETA - so its above my pay grade as a cancer survivor not to take an intelligent interest in something which can return? I agree with saintor1, doing all those things would improve your statistical chances. We are human and my secondary situation, achieving antioxidants from diet is precluded because most come from foods heavily laced with salicylate which is more toxic to me than the majority of the population, speculation alert, which could be why I succumbed in the first place.8 -
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2017/05/15/sugar-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/
In short, no. But being overweight can be a contributing factor.
You know what is a big factor in whether you get cancer, luck. We've all heard of people who smoke all their lives and don't get lung cancer. They have been lucky. At the same time there are people who have never smoked in their life, and they get lung cancer, unlucky. Sometimes that luck can be a a two edged sword though. Would you say a lifelong smoker who died by being hit by a bus was lucky because they never got cancer? Probably not, and yet five minutes previously you probably would have. What about if you knew that the next day a cancer would have developed. Would then it have been lucky that they got hit by a bus before that happened?
Now what I'm not saying is "well don't worry about it because you'll die of something eventually" (even though I know it sounds like that). What I'm saying is that sometimes, even with doing everything "right", luck works against us. If eating a couple of cookies makes you happy, and keeps you in check with regards to your weight, then eat cookies.4 -
Anaerobic conditions at a cellular level contribute to cancers growth. The body has a system which is supposed to eliminate these early problematic cells, it does not always work particularly in the elderly, like myself now.
Persons with excess sugar in their diet are more inclined towards nurturing cancerous growths because of the tendency to have anaerobic conditions at a cellular level. I realise most of you who woo my information will never have any experience cancer or chronic health conditions, thankfully. When my cancer returns it will be considered to have metastasised, I had the primary removed etc, 18 years ago. With age the instances of cancers increase.
Back in the 1960's it was bad fats, all fats, which were the cause of heart problems, obesity, cancers and all the other chronic ailments, one had to be thick if you did not loose weight! Not, for a small proportion of the population who's situation is more complicate. There is no one size fits all, to this. Life would be really boring were we all the same. Now in the 21st C, we know more, fats are seen as a necessary component in hormone production so a good balanced diet is king. Even now we know too little of how the body works as a whole, we do not know all the intricacies of every organ in the body. Eating less and moving more does not work for all.
I know genetics play a huge part, as do epigenetics, (the actual switches one needs to avoid triggering because we have not found the off switch in the petri dish, yet), diet and all has its place. If one knows one has or probably has a predisposition to cancers, received through familial knowledge, I would think it would be prudent to attempt to tip the scales in your favour. I know the pain I had with my cancer and I really do not want it on my death bed, thank you. It was hard enough the first time round.
I am grateful for BBC programs like, The life Scientific, Inside Science, Inside Health, a sample of the radio output over here. Other factual scientific programmes are to be found on the Bb tv channels, Channel 4, and Itv, We are so fortunate to have this output.
I'm out of here now. Please think on what I have written. I really would rather the population had fewer cancer case numbers in the future. Hugs everyone.12 -
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2017/05/15/sugar-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/
In short, no. But being overweight can be a contributing factor.
You know what is a big factor in whether you get cancer, luck. We've all heard of people who smoke all their lives and don't get lung cancer. They have been lucky. At the same time there are people who have never smoked in their life, and they get lung cancer, unlucky. Sometimes that luck can be a a two edged sword though. Would you say a lifelong smoker who died by being hit by a bus was lucky because they never got cancer? Probably not, and yet five minutes previously you probably would have. What about if you knew that the next day a cancer would have developed. Would then it have been lucky that they got hit by a bus before that happened?
Now what I'm not saying is "well don't worry about it because you'll die of something eventually" (even though I know it sounds like that). What I'm saying is that sometimes, even with doing everything "right", luck works against us. If eating a couple of cookies makes you happy, and keeps you in check with regards to your weight, then eat cookies.
I understand what you are saying, but it's not quite right. I have a lower likelihood of getting lung cancer by being a non-smoker. Doesn't mean I won't get it, but it's more than just "luck". It's playing with probabilities.3 -
Anaerobic conditions at a cellular level contribute to cancers growth. The body has a system which is supposed to eliminate these early problematic cells, it does not always work particularly in the elderly, like myself now.
Persons with excess sugar in their diet are more inclined towards nurturing cancerous growths because of the tendency to have anaerobic conditions at a cellular level. I realise most of you who woo my information will never have any experience cancer or chronic health conditions, thankfully. When my cancer returns it will be considered to have metastasised, I had the primary removed etc, 18 years ago. With age the instances of cancers increase.
Back in the 1960's it was bad fats, all fats, which were the cause of heart problems, obesity, cancers and all the other chronic ailments, one had to be thick if you did not loose weight! Not, for a small proportion of the population who's situation is more complicate. There is no one size fits all, to this. Life would be really boring were we all the same. Now in the 21st C, we know more, fats are seen as a necessary component in hormone production so a good balanced diet is king. Even now we know too little of how the body works as a whole, we do not know all the intricacies of every organ in the body. Eating less and moving more does not work for all.
I know genetics play a huge part, as do epigenetics, (the actual switches one needs to avoid triggering because we have not found the off switch in the petri dish, yet), diet and all has its place. If one knows one has or probably has a predisposition to cancers, received through familial knowledge, I would think it would be prudent to attempt to tip the scales in your favour. I know the pain I had with my cancer and I really do not want it on my death bed, thank you. It was hard enough the first time round.
I am grateful for BBC programs like, The life Scientific, Inside Science, Inside Health, a sample of the radio output over here. Other factual scientific programmes are to be found on the Bb tv channels, Channel 4, and Itv, We are so fortunate to have this output.
I'm out of here now. Please think on what I have written. I really would rather the population had fewer cancer case numbers in the future. Hugs everyone.
I'd never heard these programs before. They sound excellent. Thanks for sharing it.
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions