What does cancer eat? Sugar, mostly, and other lessons

so basically if you have cancer you need to follow a different diet then people would don't have cancer? I was under the impression that oncologists already recommended various dietary adjustments though in my experience people going through chemo weren't able to eat much of anything.

In cause sugar is the devil and causes cancer...

Thanks for reading the study cause it does not say that.

I did read the article and I did read the study not just the abstract...and guess what I am Canadain...did you read the full study or just the article?

It did say that cancer cells need more glucose to grow...and that our western diet is great for that...but as others have said any cell given nutrition will grow. The abstract indicated that 50% of the mice on the reg diet had cancer I believe and that only 1 on the low carb diet had it..but it didn't say how many mice were in the study...it also stated that 50% of the non carb dieting mice lived longer but again no numbers.

In the research it actually said you really can't extrapolate these findings to people...or if you do be very careful about it..as well there were other factors involved such as initially the mice wouldn't eat the food on the low carb/sugar diet so they had to switch it up to something more palatable...as well to ensure no significant weight loss happened...because in their first go at it the mice eating low carb didn't eat much and lost weight.

I googled it as well and it is plastered all over paleo, atkins etc sites and now I am just waiting on lustwig to get a hold of it or these other fanatics on this site.

The scientist isn't pushing the agenda, Jane McDougall is. She's a vegan and her and her husband promote veganism all the time.

Here's what real scientists say about the McDougalls
http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/10/08/dairy-food-causes-all-disease/

Interestingly, this person also mentions the 30 bananas a day woman (who promotes really bad stuff) & McDougall
http://30bananasadaysucks.com/2013/03/mcdougall-and-deception/

Skepticproject say that McDougall is full of baloney
http://health.skepticproject.com/forum/4805/funny-comment-on-fast-food-skeptoid-episode/

In cause sugar is the devil and causes cancer...

Thanks for reading the study cause it does not say that.

I did read the article and I did read the study not just the abstract...and guess what I am Canadain...did you read the full study or just the article?

It did say that cancer cells need more glucose to grow...and that our western diet is great for that...but as others have said any cell given nutrition will grow. The abstract indicated that 50% of the mice on the reg diet had cancer I believe and that only 1 on the low carb diet had it..but it didn't say how many mice were in the study...it also stated that 50% of the non carb dieting mice lived longer but again no numbers.

In the research it actually said you really can't extrapolate these findings to people...or if you do be very careful about it..as well there were other factors involved such as initially the mice wouldn't eat the food on the low carb/sugar diet so they had to switch it up to something more palatable...as well to ensure no significant weight loss happened...because in their first go at it the mice eating low carb didn't eat much and lost weight.

I googled it as well and it is plastered all over paleo, atkins etc sites and now I am just waiting on lustwig to get a hold of it or these other fanatics on this site.

Also mice are generally inbred for desired traits, genetically engineered, immunodeficient and so on for just about any disease that's researched. Mouse models are interesting for sure and are extremely valuable but don't really translate into comparable human trials. It's just a way to see how the different engines work in physiology and in this case cell mutation and disease. Not to be totally disregarded because the philosophy does have value in human research.

Pretty interesting article. What makes it interesting is the Terry Fox Laboratory at the BC Cancer Agency are not selling
books.....pushing an agenda and neither is the professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at University of British Columbia.



Jane Macdougall: What does cancer eat? Sugar, mostly, and other lessons from my dinner with a professor of pathology

http://life.nationalpost.com/2014/02/01/jane-macdougall-what-does-cancer-eat-sugar-mostly-and-other-lessons-from-my-dinner-with-a-professor-of-pathology/

Hmmm, the author, Jane MacDougall also wrote
"Toast was toast, or how Wheat Belly and its author changed my diet"

For reasons researchers are still trying to establish, cells spontaneously divide and grow uncontrollably creating malignant tumours.

No, researchers already know that cancer occurs because of mutations in genes that control cell division and DNA repair (oncogenes and tumour suppressor genes).

He began by observing that Positron Emission Tomography — PET scans used for tumour and inflammation detection — revealed a particular pattern of deoxyglucose use. Apparently, cancer has an appetite for glucose that is three times that than of other cells; that’s what the PET scan is looking for. This rapid ingestion of glucose leads to the secretion of lactic acid which decreases cellular pH and — here’s the aha! moment — that’s what encourages metastasis. And where does the body get all this glucose? Well, it gets it from the standard Western diet; a diet, it turns out, that’s perfectly designed to kill us all.



Cancer, it turns out, craves carbs. Typically, the maleficent Western diet is made up of over 50% carbohydrates and only 15% protein

Cancer cells have increased glucose needs due to increased cell division etc. This is well known. Unless, I'm reading it incorrectly, the author seems to be suggesting that a diet made up of 50% or more carbs is somehow associated with cancer. This just seems like scare-mongering to me. Glucose can also be synthesised in the body from proteins and fats by gluconeogenesis., so cancer (and other) cells can get their glucose regardless of diet composition.

I was doing my best to wade through Dr. Krystal’s research, Googling every third word. In the basest of laymen’s terms I’ll tell you that his findings hinged on a suspicion that it might be possible to starve cancer by blocking a tumour from accessing glucose. Dr. Krystal set about to see if it was possible to affect tumour growth or — perhaps even better — tumour initiation by affecting blood glucose levels. At the time he started his inquiry, this theory flew in the face of the prevailing science. Almost a decade after he began, his findings reveal that diet may play an even larger role than previously suspected in who gets cancer and which cancers metastasize.

Blocking a tumour from accessing glucose is a world apart from blaming dietary carbs for cancer/metastasis, particularly based on one 2011 study using gene knockout mice. In fact, human studies don't support the idea at all.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23650102

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23651548

I'm surprised that someone who has to google every third word to understand the findings of a study, feels competnt to interpret it and publish the interpretation!

Skimmed over, curious to know more about how this research was carried out - particularly the comment on 'lactic acid secretion lowering cellular pH'. The body has very fine tuned homeostatic mechanisms to prevent this sort of thing happening, which makes me think the study is being carried out in a dish of cells. Also, of course uncontrollably replicating cells will have a higher energy requirement! From seminars I've attended on the subject, it seems that a crucial point of much cancer development comes AFTER the immune system has already failed to recognise it - at the point of vascularisation. But then 'cancer' is the most multi-faceted disease around and each cancer can have a completely different 'cause': immune system failure/cellular checkpoint failure/DNA replication failure/viral infection/mutagenic chemicals/nutrition.

Absolutely, completely, depends on the type of cancer (there are literally thousands of types), and what types of genetic deletions and responses each type of cancer has. Some may respond to dietary changes, and some may not. The most fatal type of cancer, Glioblastoma Multiforme, which is a Grade IV Astrocytoma in the brain, does not typically respond to dietary changes, cannot be treated with the typical forms of chemotherapy, and kills the majority of patients within 12-24 months. It creates its own blood supply.

Sugar is an inflammatory substance, and as such, can have a detrimental effect on some forms of cancer when consumed in large amounts. It is wise to consume it in moderation, just as it is wise to consume any food product in moderation.

Studies in mice and rats often offer hope in the form of responses and treatments, but as those of us who are waiting for a cure for brain cancers have found, the mouse brain is very differerent from the human brain in both its ability to develop cancerous tumors and respond to treatments for them. The cure is still in the future, and it doesn't lie in sugar avoidance.