Of course, she also had standard surgery and chemo. But I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the no sugar diet slowed the cancer down enough for the chemo/surgery to be more effective.
If not eating sugar could slow (all) cancers, then not eating at all would clearly cover that case, and should have slowed the lung cancer.
At the very least, his anecdote is convincing to me that it "starving the cancer" doesn't work with lung cancer.
In the more general sense though my first impression of the phrase "route energy through metabolic pathways that cancer is disadvantaged for" is that it sounds like random word salad.
Umm.. This sounds to me to be very simplistic thinking. What about the effects of complete starving on the immune system for example?. Or for that matter, the proposed no sugar diet triggers some mechanisms from here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_immunology)
I do agree, it's not yet accepted through experiments via the scientific method though.
"Eat food that cancer/tumors don't like as much as sugar."
Can you elaborate on whether his diet excluded rice, refined grains and any other sort of simple carbs?
I was rather shocked to see in the documentary 'Fed Up' that all these carb rich foods get broken down to simple sugar molecules pretty darn quick and as far as the body is concerned are identical to sugar.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glycem...
As reflected in the article, the key is keeping the insulin levels at bay.
In all honesty, I'm pretty touchy about alternative cancer treatments. Probably too touchy. :) I watched Dad choke down blended flaxseed and cottage cheese. I had to talk him out of handing over what little money he and Mom had to some charlatan who claimed to be able to cure cancer with sound waves. And he was also pitched this "cancer lives on sugar, starve the cancer" horsecrap. It was all complete bullshit and he fucking died right when the doctor told me he would after Dad was diagnosed.
There are vampires and leaches out there selling fraudulent hope to the desperate. It's amazing to watch them crawl out of the woodwork.
Cancer is a bunch of different diseases. I think we get into a lot of trouble when we talk about it in simplified terms.
There are stories about certain kinds of cancers having a metabolic component. I have a friend who had a very, very serious cancer which appears to have responded to metabolic therapy. It may not all be "horsecrap". But it's surely not a cure-all, either.
It's probably not. Bitterness creeps in far too easily and my words became caustic.
Can completely understand, a lot of prats out there who take advantage of desperate folk struggling with an awful, awful disease.
Of course, my mechanic also replaced the engine, but I wouldn't be surprised if my process helped.
BTW: Is that sugar as in all sugars or refined sugars? Not eating 'sweets' is not a bad idea anyway no matter if it helps against cancer or not. Just like not eating massive amounts of meat and exercising. It might not help you achieve immortality but it can't hurt. And no it does not 'remove all fun from life'.
strong conclusion. What is your basis for it, if any? Do you have any related experience, education? May be you happened at least to read something on the subject?
>if the results were so positive, surely we would know about them.
we do know about them. At least when you are not too lazy to use Google.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26782788
"Although the full mechanism by which ketogenic diets improve oncological and neurological conditions still remains to be elucidated, their clinical efficacy has attracted many new followers, and ketogenic diets can be a good option as a co-adjuvant therapy, depending on the situation and the extent of the disease."