Chronic bronchitis, emphysema and pneumonia linked to risk in study, but not asthma, tuberculosis
by mimi7 on Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:00 AM
by Sara404 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:00 AM
It's white cane sugar that's bad for anyone with cancer or just bad in general, considering it decays teeth. But whole natural fruits have been shown through many research studies to be cancer-fighters as are vegetables and whole grains such brown rice. The less processed the food is, the better. So, whole grains in their natural form are better than breads, crackers, cakes and flour. Whole, natural foods have been included in anti-cancer diets that have been healing people for over 50 years.
Regarding your ONC doctor, he has not studied nutrition but was trained to treat cancer only with chemo, radiation or surgery. I doubt that he means that you have little time left, he just doesn't know about the strong connection between food and healing.
I'm helping my friend heal from cancer with a diet that's explained on the website that I'm linking for you. In the menu on the site, click on testimonials to read how many people have come back from advanced cancers by following it. http://www.budwigvideos.com
by mmsurvivor on Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:00 AM
Avoiding sugars and sodas helps. you can help yourself by researching natural healing for cancer. just put it in the search area on Cancer Compass. Most doctors are not trained in that area but in the 80's when I was an Oncology RN the specialist I worked with encouraged no dairy and less sugar. He did not go further but there is so much today to help.
Cod liver oil, vitamin C, Reservratol, Fresh vege juices like carrot, celery and bit of apple. While fruits are natural red fruits often have less sugar and more antioxidants, I eat less fruit and more vegies, There is a supplement call epicor caps that boost the immune system, Coq 10 liquid caps, Just because you have stage 1V cancer do not give up. Help yourself and if you want a treat have one but supplement your body with healthy foods. The budwig diet is excellent among other things. Her is something else you might look into ..All the best
On 6/29/2009 mimi7 wrote:I heard that sugar feeds cancer. I stop eating food processed with white sugar, candies, and soda. I wonder should I stop eating sweet fruit like watermelon, dates,honeydews, pineapple, and any sweet fruits. Should I also cut down dry beans, rice, breads, cakes, and most flour make food since they contain carbohydrate and will turn into blood sugar quickly? I am a cancer stage IV. My ONC doctor told me forget that, eat anything you like. Does he mean I don't have much time left, just eat anything I like and enjoy life?
by HNutritionTherapist on Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:00 AM
The fact is that sugar of any kind acts as fuel to all of the cells in our bodies, not just cancer cells. Even if you cut out all sugar in your diet, your body would make it out of protein and fat, because it needs it. Check out this very good article by one of my esteemed collegues.
by veggienft on Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:00 AM
Fruit is heavily fructose. Sucrose from table sugar is half fructose. There is no difference. The small intestine breaks fructose out of sucrose. The liver transforms fructose into glucose. Glucose feeds cancer.
No, humans do not need sugar. Sugar is a hydrocarbon with lots of hydroxyl (OH) ions. Fat is a hydrocarbon without hydroxyl ions. Sugar feeds cancer and humans. Fat feeds humans, but not cancer.
The studies which tout the antioxidants in fruit merely confirm their presence in fruit, and confirm that they kill cancer cells. They do not follow the overall effect of cancer patients eating fruit versus cancer patients consuming no sugars at all. The antioxidants in fruits are mostly salicylate dyes. They kill cancer, but they are also highly allergenic. They also kill beneficial gut microorganisms, making the small intestine walls permeable.
I would recommend a diet void of anything which tastes sweet. I wouldn’t worry about other carbs, except for glutenous grains ........wheat, barley, rye and oats. Avoid them.
Here’s my post on another thread which is basically gone now:
I have a close relative with cancer. I have celiac disease and have been studying the metabolic pathway diligently for almost two years. I’m not an expert, but I know what I know.
So far, one medical professional has claimed that sugar can’t cause cancer, because the body produces sugar even if we don’t eat it. And two people said they got cancer, or a recurrence of cancer after abstaining from refined sugar in favor of fruit ......abstaining from sucrose in favor of fructose.
Refined sugar is half fructose.
Starving people can feed on their own fat for a couple weeks to a couple months before death. If humans required ingested sugar, people would starve to death within a few hours of their last meals. This does not happen.
Blood glucose is required by a few brain cells because they are too thin to contain mitochondria. The majority of brain cells do not need sugar. Humans do not need to eat sugar to live. And yes, our liver have mitochondria which manufacture glucose out of protein and fat. It’s called gluconeogenesis. The purpose is to feed the few brain cells which need it.
Cells use mitochondria to metabolize sugar into energy.
http://courses.coe.asu.edu/dbclark/teams/marathon/paul%20and " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://courses.coe.asu.edu/dbclark/teams/marathon/paul%20and
The body has three main methods of making energy from sugar:
* ATP/CP System
* Anaerobic Lactic Acid System
* Aerobic system.
So far people have ascribed body acid from sugar through the lactic acid system. All three energy systems produce acids and destroy tissue.
In all three systems mitochondria use sugar, produce acid, and destroy tissue. The end product of all three systems is adenosine triphosphate (ATP), known as the cell’s energy currency. Cells are capable of consuming fat directly or via "ketone bodies" .......a fancy term for lightweight hydrocarbons. The liver can convert fat into ketone bodies. Any unused ketone bodies get expelled in the urine, and by the lungs.
As I mentioned above, the liver can convert fat and protein into glucose. The glucose could be consumed by all cells, except for a couple of facts. 1) The brain uses chemicals to claim first dibs on this glucose, and 2) the liver uses chemicals to limit glucose production to the amount needed by the brain.
An important factor has been neglected here. Sugar molecules are sugar because they have lots of hydroxyl (OH) ions. When cell mitochondria process sugar, as a byproduct, they create hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). Cellular vehicles feed needed chemicals to mitochondria. When these vehicles break, mitochondria produce more and more H2O2. H2O2 is a bleach. Compared to water (H2O), hydrogen has an extra oxygen radical (O) which it tries to get rid of. Radical oxygen creates localized acidic conditions throughout the body. Radical oxygen attempts to attach to cells everywhere, essentially burning them.
In contrast, when the liver makes glucose from protein and fat, it reverses the normal cellular metabolic process. Unlike in sugar-using metabolism, sugar-creating metabolism creates hydrogen (H) ions as a byproduct. The hydrogen ions flow through the body absorbing free oxygen radicals. It absorbs the radicals from hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and from the tissue burned by the hydrogen peroxide.
So when a detractor argues against the Warburg effect by claiming the liver manufactures glucose anyway, it’s just bogus. Sugary glucose, whether digested or manufactured represents disease, but manufactured glucose comes with its own cure .......its own neutralizing agent.
Now add that cells burn fat, average about six times as efficiently as sugar. The ATP system is three times as efficient, and the other two systems are between six and twenty times as efficient.
Sugar is good for cancer, and bad for humans. Cancer requires sugar. Humans do not.
by ehlbel on Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:00 AM
When you track a discussion, you will get notified by e-mail if anyone else posts a new message on this discussion. Are you sure you want to track this discussion?
If you stop tracking this discussion, you will no longer get notified by e-mail if anyone else posts a new message on this discussion. Are you sure you want to stop tracking this discussion?
If you were considering traveling for cancer treatment, which headline would you find more interesting?
Destination: HOPE. Cancer care that is worth the trip.
Over 84% of our patients travel to our hospital from another state
Neither headline is interesting
We care about your feedback. Let us know how we can improve your CancerCompass experience.