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.
Like I have said before. Sugar or glucose is used to diagnostic work. As far as cancer goes, the disease is metabolic meaning it takes nutrients from all sources.
It doesn't have an effect on rate of spread or how it metastases.
And your evidence of that is-?
It would seem results/conclusions are very much mixed to date.
Conclusion In Korea, elevated fasting serum glucose levels and a diagnosis of diabetes are independent risk factors for several major cancers, and the risk tends to increase with an increased level of fasting serum glucose.
Thanks but I don't get the study and/or its relevance - eg what is "fasting serum glucose" and how does this indicate or conclude that glucose levels don't impact the spread of cancer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjl78
Another link. Talking about low glucose causing mutations of the cancer cell. Depends on the cancer type and other factors.
Interesting, but this has a very narrow focus that only shows that certain types appear to fare better in low glucose conditions than others. To take either or both of these and conclude sugar doesn't have an effect on cancer either way is a reach, to say the least. Of course this may very well be true, but again it would seem results are so far inconclusive. I'm certainly not advocating a "chicken little" approach, but I think it would be similarly foolish to dismiss the possibility of a link.
The thing with cancer is there are many different cells that fall into category of a cancer. So to hypothesize that a high fat diet, or glucose, or this factor or that factor can cause cancer or prevent cancer is irresponsible and and foolish.
That would explain why these studies are focused on a specific cancer cell. A specific type of cancer. So if things were as simple as some would assert we would have already found a cure. The thing is there is no magic bullet or potion or single conclusion to resolving cancer.
While there are things people to do to prevent cancer, they are far from being 100% effective. It seems not matter what some people do, how healthy they are, how healthy a lifestyle they lead... They can still get cancer.
The thing with cancer is there are many different cells that fall into category of a cancer. So to hypothesize that a high fat diet, or glucose, or this factor or that factor can cause cancer or prevent cancer is irresponsible and and foolish.
Sure. Just like hypothesizing that they can't is. Again: results are inconclusive.
Quote:
So if things were as simple as some would assert
I think extremely few if any here are saying this is simple.
Quote:
It seems not matter what some people do, how healthy they are, how healthy a lifestyle they lead... They can still get cancer.
Well of course. And yet there are people smoking packs of cigs a day who don't get it. Weird stuff.
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.
Weird stuff.
