Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zelphyr | Hacker News Reader

This is why good quality nutrition is so important. It's like giving all of our cells--not just T cells--extra batteries.

View on HN

To be fair, I'd prefer not to give the cancer cells extra batteries.

In truth, it's usually the opposite when our bodies are fueled properly.

I thought I remembered something about certain nutrients (magnesium?) being something you could intentionally reduce to slow down cancer growth -- kind of like a DIY chemotherapy; your cells need Mg to grow and multiply, but cancer cells need it more. Paired with other treatments, where applicable, the reduced nutrient diet had positive clinical outcomes.

Define "quality nutrition" and cite a source.

My health has been improving by eating according to this book:

https://a.co/d/2dHgtQr

"Quality nutrition" is any scientifically backed research results on good health.

Here is a resource that uses research to back up its claims: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/dietary-reference...

And it has a good tool to find and meet those results: https://multimedia.efsa.europa.eu/drvs/index.htm

The comment I was replying to made a specific claim that I was referring to.

Regarding your definition of quality nutrition, you'll have to be more specific. You can find scientific research to support nearly any dietary choice.

Really? Most clinical trials for nutritional therapy as a cancer treatment haven't produced significant results.

This is a surprising position.

Can you link to any?

Everything I have read on the subject says obesity, a nutritional imbalance, is one of the main contributors to cancer growth, and specifically a reduction in sugar and meat have significant positive results in combating cancer's growth.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9559313/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9775518/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/0470869976....

There is no reliable evidence that red meat consumption increases cancer risk. You are spreading medical misinformation by incorrectly interpreting low-quality observational studies.

Weird I feel like I read the opposite, that a high protein/fat diet would slow cancer because it thrives on glucose, so cutting carbs/sugar was key.

It seems counter intuitive to me that meat & sugar would both be correlated because they are almost opposites from a metabolic standpoint. One is pure fat/protein and one is just glucose.

We might know what causes some growth, but it's not homogeneous, and we certainly can't stop it with diet alone once it starts.

https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/center-news/2019/10/keto-f...

>> But Mukherjee’s August 2018 paper in Nature also found that a ketogenic diet was helpful — even “synergistic” — with certain cancers and certain treatments. At least in mice.

>> “It’s probably most helpful in cancers that utilize the PIK3CA / AKT / MTOR pathway [an intracellular signaling pathway]”

A common goal, but tumors mutate and bypass a lot of normal cell functions. Keep in mind that when dying cancer patients starve in the end, the tumors don't slow.

https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/study-unveils-new-way-starve...

https://news.feinberg.northwestern.edu/2024/05/02/drug-shows...

https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2023/01/30/starving-cancer...

> Keep in mind that when dying cancer patients starve in the end, the tumors don't slow.

That's something I don't understand. If cancer cells grow faster then I suppose they should be more affected by the lack of nutrients. I know that this model is too simplistic to be true, but I don't know what exactly is missing from it.

How is this related to the number of mitochondria in a cell?

I believe that the opposite is useful, fasting -> autophagy -> improved mitochondrial health (not sure). Maybe that's what parent tried to say.

nah. let's base the entire world diet on numbers of calories, provided by crops which are collected annually or biannually so we can have an efficient futures market :thumbsupemoji

Yep, we prefer to keep people alive first since its hard to care about the health and well being of dead people.

i can't tell if you lost critical thinking entirely or trolling

Reply on news.ycombinator.com