Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In regards to cancer, perhaps there is logic behind this. The data I've read says sugar impacts the immune system and given the immune system is critical in our survival, including fighting/preventing cancer, perhaps this is just another factor in the ultra complicated world of cancer:
In this study on consuming Shiitake mushrooms, not only the immune system was boosted but inflammation was lowered in the body:
Perhaps that's another piece in how a healthy/clean diet, in foods that boost the immune system, in addition to not consuming foods that knock the immune system and/or create inflammation, help prevent/fight cancer overall. I'll toast an Enoki and Shiitake mushroom (or any mushroom for that matter) to that
Yes I also don't believe in splitting straws when it comes to how much sugar to eat. It seems pretty obvious that one takes out the obvious sources of sugar--everything you can. And it still might be too much but you will have lowered your load substantially. And it seems pretty obvious that when you go to an all-you-can-eat kind of place (which I avoid but sometimes you're with other people), then you stay away from the dessert table. If you do that, perhaps you can afford a little ketchup with your omelet sometimes.
On mushrooms--off the subject of sugar a bit perhaps, but there have been some really interesting studies centered around cancer and mushrooms and turns out you don't even have to get exotic--the white button mushroom from the grocery store is a powerful food based aromatase inhibitor, which is great news for women with estrogen positive breast cancer--https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11739882
And anon, we might have a better idea than you think about how much sugar people ate before 1900 and it's called primary sources. I remember growing up with Laura Little House books and I read them to my girls and when people were heading off into the wilderness, they stopped and bought a 50 lb bag of sugar for the family for the whole year--or more really, because once they got where they were going there probably wasn't going to be any more store sugar for awhile and it was too expensive to buy more than that. Yes I realize that's not a true primary source and that's just one family but there were many packing lists for folks circulating around and that was pretty standard. Of course, some folks probably got lucky and found a bee tree or had sugar maples but it was still an occasional treat for most families.
On soda, it may be the biggest source of sugar for most people but believe you me, you can get plenty of sugar without soda. I never drank the stuff and still managed to be a "sugar junkie" for years. I was pre-diabetic before my cancer dx and I'm not now and the only sugar I get in my diet these days comes from whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.
Yes I also don't believe in splitting straws when it comes to how much sugar to eat. It seems pretty obvious that one takes out the obvious sources of sugar--everything you can. And it still might be too much but you will have lowered your load substantially. And it seems pretty obvious that when you go to an all-you-can-eat kind of place (which I avoid but sometimes you're with other people), then you stay away from the dessert table. If you do that, perhaps you can afford a little ketchup with your omelet sometimes.
On mushrooms--off the subject of sugar a bit perhaps, but there have been some really interesting studies centered around cancer and mushrooms and turns out you don't even have to get exotic--the white button mushroom from the grocery store is a powerful food based aromatase inhibitor, which is great news for women with estrogen positive breast cancer--https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11739882
And anon, we might have a better idea than you think about how much sugar people ate before 1900 and it's called primary sources. I remember growing up with Laura Little House books and I read them to my girls and when people were heading off into the wilderness, they stopped and bought a 50 lb bag of sugar for the family for the whole year--or more really, because once they got where they were going there probably wasn't going to be any more store sugar for awhile and it was too expensive to buy more than that. Yes I realize that's not a true primary source and that's just one family but there were many packing lists for folks circulating around and that was pretty standard. Of course, some folks probably got lucky and found a bee tree or had sugar maples but it was still an occasional treat for most families.
On soda, it may be the biggest source of sugar for most people but believe you me, you can get plenty of sugar without soda. I never drank the stuff and still managed to be a "sugar junkie" for years. I was pre-diabetic before my cancer dx and I'm not now and the only sugar I get in my diet these days comes from whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.
Good points. Sure, I don't get hyper when it comes to things like some ketchup on a grilled potato or something once in a while. And I'm a believer that even the most unhealthy food as a rare treat won't harm the body. What's most amazing to me is the body lasts as long as it does in many cases with people who constantly hammer their body with unhealthy diets/habits. And the other side is how amazing the body is in its ability to heal/maintain a state of health when given the right fuel so to speak.
Good point on white button mushrooms and the powerful anti-aromatase activity they have, thanks for providing that url on the topic. The common Portabello mushroom is another good one too.
The immune system boost/anti-inflammatory properties is quite amazing too from consuming white mushrooms. Some interesting data on white button mushrooms/others in a short video on the topic:
"I think that it is important to dispel once and for all the idea that eating sugar feeds cancer cells. The body, more or less, converts everything into what it needs, including sugar. If one were to stop eating sugar, your liver would just make the sugar from proteins and fatty acids. The key to remember with regard to cancer and nutrition is eating well. Nothing more." ~ Rick Furman, MD CAM: S - Z
Splitting straws again CA4--it's what extra sugar does to your body that is the problem--even those who are not diabetic are often dealing with metabolic syndrome/prediabetes. Their glucose/insulin ratios are all off and insulin may be very high and it's the insulin that feeds the tumor, though sugar may also--they're still working that out. However, it seems wise that folks stop consuming desserts, candies, and soda and obtain their sugar from whole foods, not juice. I suspect that may be what hurt Steve Jobs--he had pancreatic cancer and he was juicing and that's like a sugar infusion. Yes your body can make sugar from proteins--called gluconeogenesis--but it has to work hard to do so.
I do believe that the wisest thing anyone with a new cancer dx can do is to either go on a ketogenic diet or an extended fast to get their blood sugar right back in line and make their bodies insulin sensitive again. Most folks with a new cancer dx don't feel like eating anyway so it's a good time to do it. One could also do a severely restricted cal diet like they give those patients they send home with a gastric bypass--this has been shown to reverse diabetes so it would be a good one also.
Splitting straws again CA4--it's what extra sugar does to your body that is the problem--even those who are not diabetic are often dealing with metabolic syndrome/prediabetes. Their glucose/insulin ratios are all off and insulin may be very high and it's the insulin that feeds the tumor...
Sugar does not feed cancer tumors; ask any oncologist. The title of this thread is sugar and cancer link, not sugar and diabetes.
Quote:
I suspect that may be what hurt Steve Jobs--he had pancreatic cancer and he was juicing and that's like a sugar infusion.
Steve Jobs tried to treat his cancer by altering his diet. He was not successful.
Steve Jobs had a mild form of cancer that is not usually fatal, but seems to have ushered along his own death by delaying conventional treatment in favor of alternative remedies, a Harvard Medical School researcher and faculty member says. The trouble with Steve Jobs - Fortune
Sugar does not feed cancer tumors; ask any oncologist. The title of this thread is sugar and cancer link, not sugar and diabetes.
Steve Jobs tried to treat his cancer by altering his diet. He was not successful.
Steve Jobs had a mild form of cancer that is not usually fatal, but seems to have ushered along his own death by delaying conventional treatment in favor of alternative remedies, a Harvard Medical School researcher and faculty member says. The trouble with Steve Jobs - Fortune
Yes I'm aware of that story about Steve. Anyway as I explained above, the problem is the terminology that "sugar feeds cancer tumors." It does, but in the indirect way of messing up the metabolism and raising the insulin level, which does feed tumors. Also, too much sugar throws the body out of balance in way more ways than that and holistic docs treat cancer by attempting to put the body back into balance. So, there are multiple pathways and sugar is only one of the problems but it's a factor that has changed in a huge way in the last 100 years and one that causes a lot of bodily harm in many ways--not just cancer. Also, there is new research that is pointing back to Otto Warburg's theories and he definitely noted a connection.
Sugar does not feed cancer tumors; ask any oncologist. The title of this thread is sugar and cancer link, not sugar and diabetes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stepka
Yes I'm aware of that story about Steve. Anyway as I explained above, the problem is the terminology that "sugar feeds cancer tumors." It does, but in the indirect way of messing up the metabolism and raising the insulin level, which does feed tumors. Also, too much sugar throws the body out of balance in way more ways than that and holistic docs treat cancer by attempting to put the body back into balance. So, there are multiple pathways and sugar is only one of the problems but it's a factor that has changed in a huge way in the last 100 years and one that causes a lot of bodily harm in many ways--not just cancer. Also, there is new research that is pointing back to Otto Warburg's theories and he definitely noted a connection.
"These findings suggest that a high carbohydrate intake and diets with high glycemic index and glycemic load may increase the risk of developing ER+/PR- breast cancer."
And we have data indicating the same type thing going on with pancreatic cancer:
"In contrast, there was a relationship between increased pancreatic cancer risk and higher intakes of sugar, candy, honey and jam. This suggests that sugary, processed carbohydrates -- rather than carbs like fiber-rich grains, fruits and vegetables -- may be particularly linked to pancreatic cancer, the researchers report in the Annals of Epidemiology."
[b]"These findings suggest that a high carbohydrate intake and diets with high glycemic index and glycemic load may increase the risk of developing ER+/PR- breast cancer."
"May" increase the risk....And a study done in Sweden from 1987-1990 using a questionnaire. Self reporting is not the most accurate or reliable way to gather data.
"May" increase the risk....And a study done in Sweden from 1987-1990 using a questionnaire. Self reporting is not the most accurate or reliable way to gather data.
They surveyed 326 people with pancreatic cancer in Italy. Not a large enough statistical sample to indicate any causal relationship.
A new study indicates they may also lead to colon cancer. Again, self reported data (questionnaire).
The other 2 studies I referenced in my previous post weren't questionnaires.
Here's another one with the science on the connection beyond a questionnaire:
"May" increase the risk....And a study done in Sweden from 1987-1990 using a questionnaire. Self reporting is not the most accurate or reliable way to gather data.
They surveyed 326 people with pancreatic cancer in Italy. Not a large enough statistical sample to indicate any causal relationship.
A new study indicates they may also lead to colon cancer. Again, self reported data (questionnaire).
I don't need a study with a large statistical sample to convince me that maybe eating a lot of sugary foods isn't the best thing to do when you have cancer. You're talking to the sugar queen here--I would have done anything to keep my sugar fix coming but it seemed a very good idea to stop.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're talking to the sugar queen here--I would have done anything to keep my sugar fix coming but it seemed a very good idea to stop.
