Sugar and Cancer
Options
Replies
-
No. If you are consuming more than you burn sugar can be turned into fat. Exercise just means you can consume more.3 -
No they don't. This is has been confirmed through DNL studies. Our bodies have a glycogen storage capacity of 300-700g. On top of that, carbs are more metabolically taxing to store as body fat than dietary fat.
The video in the spoiler is from Dr. Layne Norton on fat metabolism.7 -
Everything these days causes cancer, just eat anything in moderation and you'll be fine. I don't lose sleep because I ate something with sugar or meat or whatever new fad cancer is out there.2
-
I suggest you watch a video on YouTube by Dr. Robert Ludwig. He talks about a condition called "Metabolic Syndrome" that is somewhat of a vicious cycle where basically body insulin gets out of balance and the body processes blood sugar into fat, with much of it going to the liver. The body gets somewhat dependent the cycle and when sugar intake is reduced (as with dieting) the body signals the brain and increases appetite. So people eat more and it sabbotages diets. It's a very difficult cycle to break hence many people experience yoyo dieting.
My understanding is that someone experiencing the syndrome may have the best success by VERY gradual weight loss.
Dr. Ludwig paints a pretty bleak picture, but there are many people here on MFP that have overcome, many success stories to motivate you.
This is not factual3 -
YvetteK2015 wrote: »Low sugar diets can help with treating some cancers such as brain cancer and some others. There are some cancers that use fats as a fuel very well, and although those are not a majority, you would want to know your cancer before adjusting your diet to treat it. It can also be complementary to more common cancer treatments such as radiation and chemo, and helps reduce cancer cachexia.
It is thought that limiting or avoiding refined carbohydrates may help with cancer prevention but that is not well researched or proven.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267662/
About all they have shown so far is that the low fat diet of yesteryear does not seem to help prevent CVD or cancer, at least in the types that they looked at.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2006/02/09/low-fat-diet-not-a-cure-all-womens-health-initiative/
What *aggravates* me are the people, or groups or documentaries who try to push cancer patients away from "big pharma" to a "one twue way" natural approach to treatment because big pharma just wants to keep them sick, keep them chronically ill, knows that natural remedies work but would never admit that. I see it so often and I heard it so much when I was ill. Eat a plant based diet, it will cure you. Take high doses of vitamin C, it will cure you. Drink mangosteen juice, it will cure you. DON'T use chemo, it's just poison.
I have no problem with your studies listed. I have no problem if an oncologist suggests, or if a cancer patient on their own decides they want to do a diet in conjuction with treatment. My problem (and I did not watch the documentary, I can only go by what the OP stated) is that in this documentary some person comes out and claims their cancer is cured by a way of eating without any medical treatment. To that I say....show me medical records or it didn't happen. Or that person was misdiagnosed and never had cancer to begin with.
To be fair, spontaneous remission is a real thing and affects somewhere between 5-25% of patients depending on the particulars of the variety of cancer.3 -
100_PROOF_ wrote: »I suggest you watch a video on YouTube by Dr. Robert Ludwig. He talks about a condition called "Metabolic Syndrome" that is somewhat of a vicious cycle where basically body insulin gets out of balance and the body processes blood sugar into fat, with much of it going to the liver. The body gets somewhat dependent the cycle and when sugar intake is reduced (as with dieting) the body signals the brain and increases appetite. So people eat more and it sabbotages diets. It's a very difficult cycle to break hence many people experience yoyo dieting.
My understanding is that someone experiencing the syndrome may have the best success by VERY gradual weight loss.
Dr. Ludwig paints a pretty bleak picture, but there are many people here on MFP that have overcome, many success stories to motivate you.
This is not factual
People put too much faith in doctors, but little do they realize that they also can be snake oil salesman disguised as doctors (Dr. Oz comes in mind).4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »YvetteK2015 wrote: »Low sugar diets can help with treating some cancers such as brain cancer and some others. There are some cancers that use fats as a fuel very well, and although those are not a majority, you would want to know your cancer before adjusting your diet to treat it. It can also be complementary to more common cancer treatments such as radiation and chemo, and helps reduce cancer cachexia.
It is thought that limiting or avoiding refined carbohydrates may help with cancer prevention but that is not well researched or proven.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267662/
About all they have shown so far is that the low fat diet of yesteryear does not seem to help prevent CVD or cancer, at least in the types that they looked at.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2006/02/09/low-fat-diet-not-a-cure-all-womens-health-initiative/
What *aggravates* me are the people, or groups or documentaries who try to push cancer patients away from "big pharma" to a "one twue way" natural approach to treatment because big pharma just wants to keep them sick, keep them chronically ill, knows that natural remedies work but would never admit that. I see it so often and I heard it so much when I was ill. Eat a plant based diet, it will cure you. Take high doses of vitamin C, it will cure you. Drink mangosteen juice, it will cure you. DON'T use chemo, it's just poison.
I have no problem with your studies listed. I have no problem if an oncologist suggests, or if a cancer patient on their own decides they want to do a diet in conjuction with treatment. My problem (and I did not watch the documentary, I can only go by what the OP stated) is that in this documentary some person comes out and claims their cancer is cured by a way of eating without any medical treatment. To that I say....show me medical records or it didn't happen. Or that person was misdiagnosed and never had cancer to begin with.
To be fair, spontaneous remission is a real thing and affects somewhere between 5-25% of patients depending on the particulars of the variety of cancer.
Show me proof it was because of the diet they followed, or because they had high dose IV vitamin C. I never said anything about not believing in spontaneous remission. In fact, that is one reason there is a push back in stopping mammograms at 40 and starting them around age 50. Some in the community believe that some very early breast tumors may actually resolve themselves, therefore we are doing too much and being too aggressive with some women early on. So this is a debated topic right now.
That's not the same thing as saying "Do X,Y,Z natural things and you will no longer have cancer". That is pushing desperate people away from seeking out pharmaceutical treatment. I know people who actively do this. I see it all the time. I see people who who actively promote homeopathy over traditional doctors to "cure" cancer. That is my beef here.
I had a chemo regimen where it flowed throw me for 96 hours straight. The bag was attached to me for 4 days...just pumping through me the whole time. I would never assume that type of chemo was right for EVERY cancer and I would never preach it. Free speech and all, but it's crappy that others would assume that a "natural" approach is the right way for every cancer patient to go, and forgo traditional treatment and they will go into remission. That is my beef.
Sorry if that was long winded lol. I get passionate sometimes.9 -
YvetteK2015 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »YvetteK2015 wrote: »Low sugar diets can help with treating some cancers such as brain cancer and some others. There are some cancers that use fats as a fuel very well, and although those are not a majority, you would want to know your cancer before adjusting your diet to treat it. It can also be complementary to more common cancer treatments such as radiation and chemo, and helps reduce cancer cachexia.
It is thought that limiting or avoiding refined carbohydrates may help with cancer prevention but that is not well researched or proven.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267662/
About all they have shown so far is that the low fat diet of yesteryear does not seem to help prevent CVD or cancer, at least in the types that they looked at.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2006/02/09/low-fat-diet-not-a-cure-all-womens-health-initiative/
What *aggravates* me are the people, or groups or documentaries who try to push cancer patients away from "big pharma" to a "one twue way" natural approach to treatment because big pharma just wants to keep them sick, keep them chronically ill, knows that natural remedies work but would never admit that. I see it so often and I heard it so much when I was ill. Eat a plant based diet, it will cure you. Take high doses of vitamin C, it will cure you. Drink mangosteen juice, it will cure you. DON'T use chemo, it's just poison.
I have no problem with your studies listed. I have no problem if an oncologist suggests, or if a cancer patient on their own decides they want to do a diet in conjuction with treatment. My problem (and I did not watch the documentary, I can only go by what the OP stated) is that in this documentary some person comes out and claims their cancer is cured by a way of eating without any medical treatment. To that I say....show me medical records or it didn't happen. Or that person was misdiagnosed and never had cancer to begin with.
To be fair, spontaneous remission is a real thing and affects somewhere between 5-25% of patients depending on the particulars of the variety of cancer.
Show me proof it was because of the diet they followed, or because they had high dose IV vitamin C. I never said anything about not believing in spontaneous remission. In fact, that is one reason there is a push back in stopping mammograms at 40 and starting them around age 50. Some in the community believe that some very early breast tumors may actually resolve themselves, therefore we are doing too much and being too aggressive with some women early on. So this is a debated topic right now.
That's not the same thing as saying "Do X,Y,Z natural things and you will no longer have cancer". That is pushing desperate people away from seeking out pharmaceutical treatment. I know people who actively do this. I see it all the time. I see people who who actively promote homeopathy over traditional doctors to "cure" cancer. That is my beef here.
I had a chemo regimen where it flowed throw me for 96 hours straight. The bag was attached to me for 4 days...just pumping through me the whole time. I would never assume that type of chemo was right for EVERY cancer and I would never preach it. Free speech and all, but it's crappy that others would assume that a "natural" approach is the right way for every cancer patient to go, and forgo traditional treatment and they will go into remission. That is my beef.
Sorry if that was long winded lol. I get passionate sometimes.
I'm saying that as it's spontaneous, it's almost certainly NOT the diet they followed or any of the other woo.
But humans identify patterns, and the last thing they changed before the spontaneous remission was XXX. find enough people who did XXX before spontaneous remission, and start selling XXX as a cure. In a population of billions, there's going to be enough(a few hundreds) who did XXX just before remission.
And ultimately the woo peddlers aren't selling a cure, they're selling hope. And especially if you've got inoperable, untreatable, etc condition, you'll pay just about any price for hope.5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »YvetteK2015 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »YvetteK2015 wrote: »Low sugar diets can help with treating some cancers such as brain cancer and some others. There are some cancers that use fats as a fuel very well, and although those are not a majority, you would want to know your cancer before adjusting your diet to treat it. It can also be complementary to more common cancer treatments such as radiation and chemo, and helps reduce cancer cachexia.
It is thought that limiting or avoiding refined carbohydrates may help with cancer prevention but that is not well researched or proven.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267662/
About all they have shown so far is that the low fat diet of yesteryear does not seem to help prevent CVD or cancer, at least in the types that they looked at.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2006/02/09/low-fat-diet-not-a-cure-all-womens-health-initiative/
What *aggravates* me are the people, or groups or documentaries who try to push cancer patients away from "big pharma" to a "one twue way" natural approach to treatment because big pharma just wants to keep them sick, keep them chronically ill, knows that natural remedies work but would never admit that. I see it so often and I heard it so much when I was ill. Eat a plant based diet, it will cure you. Take high doses of vitamin C, it will cure you. Drink mangosteen juice, it will cure you. DON'T use chemo, it's just poison.
I have no problem with your studies listed. I have no problem if an oncologist suggests, or if a cancer patient on their own decides they want to do a diet in conjuction with treatment. My problem (and I did not watch the documentary, I can only go by what the OP stated) is that in this documentary some person comes out and claims their cancer is cured by a way of eating without any medical treatment. To that I say....show me medical records or it didn't happen. Or that person was misdiagnosed and never had cancer to begin with.
To be fair, spontaneous remission is a real thing and affects somewhere between 5-25% of patients depending on the particulars of the variety of cancer.
Show me proof it was because of the diet they followed, or because they had high dose IV vitamin C. I never said anything about not believing in spontaneous remission. In fact, that is one reason there is a push back in stopping mammograms at 40 and starting them around age 50. Some in the community believe that some very early breast tumors may actually resolve themselves, therefore we are doing too much and being too aggressive with some women early on. So this is a debated topic right now.
That's not the same thing as saying "Do X,Y,Z natural things and you will no longer have cancer". That is pushing desperate people away from seeking out pharmaceutical treatment. I know people who actively do this. I see it all the time. I see people who who actively promote homeopathy over traditional doctors to "cure" cancer. That is my beef here.
I had a chemo regimen where it flowed throw me for 96 hours straight. The bag was attached to me for 4 days...just pumping through me the whole time. I would never assume that type of chemo was right for EVERY cancer and I would never preach it. Free speech and all, but it's crappy that others would assume that a "natural" approach is the right way for every cancer patient to go, and forgo traditional treatment and they will go into remission. That is my beef.
Sorry if that was long winded lol. I get passionate sometimes.
I'm saying that as it's spontaneous, it's almost certainly NOT the diet they followed or any of the other woo.
But humans identify patterns, and the last thing they changed before the spontaneous remission was XXX. find enough people who did XXX before spontaneous remission, and start selling XXX as a cure. In a population of billions, there's going to be enough(a few hundreds) who did XXX just before remission.
And ultimately the woo peddlers aren't selling a cure, they're selling hope. And especially if you've got inoperable, untreatable, etc condition, you'll pay just about any price for hope.
But that's not usually the case though. It's not usually the case of those who have had spontaneous remission that I see peddling the "cures". It's usually those who have never had cancer who are the snake oil sales men who target the truly desperate, like you said those who are terminal and inoperable. And to me that is despicable.2 -
The more I post here - the more I realize how little I know about all this.
Recently I learned that -fruits can have same acidic effect on teeth as from carbonated beverages. (more or less) for example my whole life- I was made to believe soda is an evil drink which is used to clean toilets and all- can damage bones and what not. I recently started consuming 0 calorie drinks because apparently -if my dental hygiene is good- no harm will come.
Now-when I had just started feeling like I know something- I came across this documentary and I come here to verify their claims and lol look what happened.
I'm so glad that CICO works because otherwise I'd be torn between "good" and "bad" this diet or that diet debate forever and keep having a yo-yo diet.
However, now -even CICO is under criticism - I mean it literally worked for me- I have muscles that are visible lol.
1 -
No they don't. This is has been confirmed through DNL studies. Our bodies have a glycogen storage capacity of 300-700g. On top of that, carbs are more metabolically taxing to store as body fat than dietary fat.
The video in the spoiler is from Dr. Layne Norton on fat metabolism.
Thanks for posting. I really like his work and the way he explains things. Layne norton and Lyle McDonald are the people who I've trusted because they have never (so far) disputed or refuted CICO. Also some poster on mfp who showed me the righteous path of CICO lol0 -
The more I post here - the more I realize how little I know about all this.
Recently I learned that -fruits can have same acidic effect on teeth as from carbonated beverages. (more or less) for example my whole life- I was made to believe soda is an evil drink which is used to clean toilets and all- can damage bones and what not. I recently started consuming 0 calorie drinks because apparently -if my dental hygiene is good- no harm will come.
Now-when I had just started feeling like I know something- I came across this documentary and I come here to verify their claims and lol look what happened.
I'm so glad that CICO works because otherwise I'd be torn between "good" and "bad" this diet or that diet debate forever and keep having a yo-yo diet.
However, now -even CICO is under criticism - I mean it literally worked for me- I have muscles that are visible lol.
Anyone who is criticizing CICO either doesn’t understand it, or is trying to sell you something and doesn’t want you to know that their product, theory, whatever is also contingent upon achieving the desired energy balance because that’s too simple to profit off of...
CICO works for everyone. It isn’t a weight loss program, a diet, a way of eating. It doesn’t mean calorie counting or eat as much junk as you want if your calories are in check. It is a fundamental energy balance that governs all of us - whether you are losing, maintaining or gaining - CICO is in play. It is immutable and is probably one of the simplest, yet most misunderstood things on these boards.
Spend some time reading the stickied posts in the top of each forum section if you’re interested in learning more. There are posts about weight loss, nutrition, fitness, how to best use this tool, different approaches, etc. Read some of the debate section as well - try to keep an open mind as sometimes those threads get a little off track but also some great science and information is posted.
Stop watching Netflix documentaries or getting your information from sites with fearmongering infographics like “10 foods you should never eat if you want to be healthy” . Look for peer reviewed scientific journal articles. Vet your sources. Anything that is a blog is not necessarily reliable no matter how “sciency” it sounds or seems like it comes from a reputable source - many sites, this one included allow blog posts from just about anyone, regardless if their info is scientifically valid.4 -
For what it’s worth I referenced the wrong doc in my earlier post. I meant Dr Robert Lustig NOT David LustWig. That will probably still get me lots of woo. I truly found his documentaries about sugar informative.4
-
I was watching a documentary on Amazon called "Magic pill" which promotes ketogenic diet. As it went on, a woman came on and talked about how she killed her Cancer by doing ketogenic diet and was recommending that everyone can do so by eating keto diet. ...
How does she determine that it wasn't a case of spontaneous remission that had nothing at all to do with her keto diet? Or that the cancer won't come back later (which sometimes happens with spontaneous remission)? See:
https://www.curetoday.com/publications/cure/2007/spring2007/Medical-Miracle-or-Spontaneous-Remission
I have prostate cancer and do some dietary things that may or may not help - like eating more soy, taking more vitamin D, etc. My urologist's attitude is "meh, whatever" - he's skeptical but I'm certainly not going to stop medical monitoring and (if needed) treatment because I think eating soy will "magically cure" me (my cancer is not growing and he said its likely something else will end up killing me). That's the danger here, and the reason why documentaries like this upset me: that people will see these "magic pills" like keto diets as an alternative to medical treatment rather than just a supplement to it.3 -
For what it’s worth I referenced the wrong doc in my earlier post. I meant Dr Robert Lustig NOT David LustWig. That will probably still get me lots of woo. I truly found his documentaries about sugar informative.
Actually, David Ludwig would have been better. Robert Lustig is know for this fructose fear mongering and his inability to set up well controlled studies. He much prefers to rely on the fact he has is an MD.4 -
I was watching a documentary on Amazon called "Magic pill" which promotes ketogenic diet. As it went on, a woman came on and talked about how she killed her Cancer by doing ketogenic diet and was recommending that everyone can do so by eating keto diet. ...
How does she determine that it wasn't a case of spontaneous remission that had nothing at all to do with her keto diet? Or that the cancer won't come back later (which sometimes happens with spontaneous remission)? See:
https://www.curetoday.com/publications/cure/2007/spring2007/Medical-Miracle-or-Spontaneous-Remission
I have prostate cancer and do some dietary things that may or may not help - like eating more soy, taking more vitamin D, etc. My urologist's attitude is "meh, whatever" - he's skeptical but I'm certainly not going to stop medical monitoring and (if needed) treatment because I think eating soy will "magically cure" me (my cancer is not growing and he said its likely something else will end up killing me). That's the danger here, and the reason why documentaries like this upset me: that people will see these "magic pills" like keto diets as an alternative to medical treatment rather than just a supplement to it.
You and me both.
It's completely irresponsible to promote unverified "treatments" to replace known effective ones . . . bordering on evil, even.
I'm glad cancer and diet comes up surprisingly rarely here, because when it does, there's inevitably nonsense pitched by people with neither actual knowledge nor practical experience: Miracle cures, specious eating advice, useless or possibly counter-productive supplements, conspiracy theories, and more.
I'm not disputing anything in your post - it makes perfect sense to use clearly safe and speculatively potentially useful eating and exercise strategies as adjuncts to scientifically well-founded medical care. I pay attention to those kinds of things myself, as a long-term cancer survivor.4 -
Ditto. I've been upping my consumption of broccoli and other cruciferous veggies after finding out I've got more lesions that need to come out six months after the last surgery. Note: as cancers go, I seem to have won the jackpot with one of the 'safe', 'rare to mestatasize', 98% survivable kinds. (Bladder cancer, stage T0). But more lesions means more surgery and if adding more of these veggies could help prevent more lesions from growing back, well... If they're prepared right, I like the taste, they don't have any serious side effects, they don't cost hundreds of dollars per dose, and—since I'm not allergic to any—worst case scenario, I get some more micro-nutrients...
Trying to see a down-side to this and just... not... managing to.4 -
Interesting topic for me, not because I have cancer, but I rescue shelter animals and my oldest one has bone cancer currently and I've tried darn near everything to save her to no avail.
She's 12, so my vet consulted with me (with so many animals, we have six he's like a friend) and said "if it were my dog, I'd forgoe chemo and amputation". She has Osteosarcoma, the most aggressive type of cancer in dogs. Prognosis without any treatment is usually two to three months. If she had an amputation, it doesn't get much better -- life expectancy is six months with amp, chemo and radiation. My vet didn't think at her age she'd last six months with conventional treatment. I am a firm believer in combining best of conventional medicine with diet/supplements but with this dog, at her age, my vet suggested just trying a Holistic approach along with pain management.
She was diagnosed last August and we have the appointment made in the next couple weeks to euthanize her. Really painful decision but it's for the best. The tumor was controlled well for around 6 months and then just blew up all of a sudden. She's still enjoying her days for the most part now but it's clear the cancer's winning and I won't put her through that. I work from home and this dog pretty much lives by my side. She's awesome and I'll be hot mess for some time afterward for sure. So did Holistic help? Maybe, maybe not. Hard to say. She's outlived the normal "boundaries" of this diagnosis by a couple of months. My vet lost two dogs to Osteo and he's extremely impressed with how well she's lasted.
I agree that lifestyle can help prevent cancer and also, perhaps, make conventional treatment more successful. I do consult with some companies that are working on cancer therapeutics where they believe the makeup of the microbiome can assist (or detract from) conventional treatments. But ultimately, it's not in our hands or any one change is going to make all the difference. I think it's ultimately multiple factors that obviously no one fully understands yet.
I do think that animals will offer a lot of help with cancer research. I've read some articles recently about just how much. You can't easily control what people eat but you can very easily control diet with domestic animals. I have relatives that have had cancer, met with nutritionists at the hospital and then ate like garbage cans and completely disregarded any information that someone told them. While I can't see not seeking conventional treatment (if it's an option), I certainly also can't understand if someone's given a nutrition expert that tells them avoiding certain foods might help not listening to them at all. Dogs give us a true opportunity (I'm not talking about giving dogs cancer, just studying treating ones that get it just like humans do) to study what a controlled diet and supplements can do. You can't control humans well and what they eat unless you lock them in a controlled environment, which cancer researchers aren't typically going to do.
I'm all for behavioral knowledge when it comes to cancer as well. My Dad died from lung cancer and he was diagnosed at 80. My sister, an RN wanted to treat him with conventional chemo/radiation and it was a disaster (something his doc wasn't sure about because his age). Sometimes it's not always best in certain cases.
2 -
I'm currently reading tripping Over the Truth. It has some interesting ideas on the history of cancer treatment, and on possible nutritional therapy (mainly based on Warburg and Seifried's work) - LCHF based.MikePfirrman wrote: »Interesting topic for me, not because I have cancer, but I rescue shelter animals and my oldest one has bone cancer currently and I've tried darn near everything to save her to no avail.
She's 12, so my vet consulted with me (with so many animals, we have six he's like a friend) and said "if it were my dog, I'd forgoe chemo and amputation". She has Osteosarcoma, the most aggressive type of cancer in dogs. Prognosis without any treatment is usually two to three months. If she had an amputation, it doesn't get much better -- life expectancy is six months with amp, chemo and radiation. My vet didn't think at her age she'd last six months with conventional treatment. I am a firm believer in combining best of conventional medicine with diet/supplements but with this dog, at her age, my vet suggested just trying a Holistic approach along with pain management.
She was diagnosed last August and we have the appointment made in the next couple weeks to euthanize her. Really painful decision but it's for the best. The tumor was controlled well for around 6 months and then just blew up all of a sudden. She's still enjoying her days for the most part now but it's clear the cancer's winning and I won't put her through that. I work from home and this dog pretty much lives by my side. She's awesome and I'll be hot mess for some time afterward for sure. So did Holistic help? Maybe, maybe not. Hard to say. She's outlived the normal "boundaries" of this diagnosis by a couple of months. My vet lost two dogs to Osteo and he's extremely impressed with how well she's lasted.
I agree that lifestyle can help prevent cancer and also, perhaps, make conventional treatment more successful. I do consult with some companies that are working on cancer therapeutics where they believe the makeup of the microbiome can assist (or detract from) conventional treatments. But ultimately, it's not in our hands or any one change is going to make all the difference. I think it's ultimately multiple factors that obviously no one fully understands yet.
I do think that animals will offer a lot of help with cancer research. I've read some articles recently about just how much. You can't easily control what people eat but you can very easily control diet with domestic animals. I have relatives that have had cancer, met with nutritionists at the hospital and then ate like garbage cans and completely disregarded any information that someone told them. While I can't see not seeking conventional treatment (if it's an option), I certainly also can't understand if someone's given a nutrition expert that tells them avoiding certain foods might help not listening to them at all. Dogs give us a true opportunity (I'm not talking about giving dogs cancer, just studying treating ones that get it just like humans do) to study what a controlled diet and supplements can do. You can't control humans well and what they eat unless you lock them in a controlled environment, which cancer researchers aren't typically going to do.
I'm all for behavioral knowledge when it comes to cancer as well. My Dad died from lung cancer and he was diagnosed at 80. My sister, an RN wanted to treat him with conventional chemo/radiation and it was a disaster (something his doc wasn't sure about because his age). Sometimes it's not always best in certain cases.
This is an interesting talk on possible cancer nutritional therapy using a LCHF diet for dogs. It could be something that is not invassive to consider.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpiyQ_2EbF0 2
https://youtu.be/JpMbsz9T2vA
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions