Cancer patients

[Squid]

This will get me a lot of backlash, no doubt, but I feel I have to say it for any cancer patients
who come along down the road and read posts here about low carb being good for cancer. I'm zipping up my kevlar suit.

First, let me say that I AM experimenting on myself with a low carb AND calorically restricted diet to hopefully keep my breast cancer from recurring.

BUT please understand that at this stage with the knowledgde we have, that you ARE EXPERIMENTING with yourself and you COULD BE MAKING YOUR CANCER WORSE by going low carb. I just want desperate cancer patients to make an informed decision before following the "low carb will cure cancer" mantra. Maybe, maybe not.

Here's some facts that have been a bit skewed in the press.

There is epidemiological evidence that low carb diets may help prevent SOME cancers. There has been at least one statistical analysis showing this in breast, prostate and esophogeal cancers. On the contrary, a low fat diet was shown to reduce risk of ovarian cancer. But the thing to understand
here is that this shows a correlation and it's not a cause. So you can't read these studies and say that a high carb diet causes cancer. That is simply not what they're saying.

A tumor has different stages. Initiation is when the tumor begins to grow. Promotion is when you already have cancer. It's tempting to think that what works to prevent initiaion will work
to stop promotion (i.e., cure cancer), but that's not necessarily the case. Here's one study that actually found
something that worked for preventing breast cancer actually increased its growth. There's others out
there. http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/18/8/1679.pdf

One of the biggest promoters of study of a ketogenic diet for cancer is Thomas Seyfried at Boston College. He has some really interesting ideas and research going on. However, he has found that is it necessary to combine a ketogenic diet with a calorie restricted diet to have a benefit. He took 4 groups of mice with a nasty brain tumor. 1 was fed an unrestricted diet, 2 was fed an unrestricted ketogenic diet (similar to Atkins), 3 was fed a low calorie diet, 4 was fed a ketogenic low calorie diet. Only groups 3 and 4 had a benefit for their tumors and there was not a difference between the two. So it was the calorie restriction and not the low carb diet that showed the benefit. And the benefit was not a cure - the tumors simply grew a little more slowly. Promising, but not conclusive. And it contradicts studies like the one above that showed that calorie restriction promoted at least one kind of cancer. It also worked on a type of tumor that has very high glucose uptake - who's to say it is at all relevant to other tumors that don't?
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/10/16/5622 (It's interesting to note that Seyfried was very clear the results he got in his study were from a calorie restricted diet, but the press very often reported it wrongly as a ketogenic or low carb diet had the benefit. Not true.)

The German experiment with feeding end-stage cancer patients a high fat no carb diet has been reported by the press (see Time magazine http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1662484,00.html)
but it has not yet been published or peer reviewed. It does show some
promise, but here's a few facts. Only 5 patients were able to stick to the regimen. Their tumors did slow down, stop growing or shrink. 2 patients had their tumors continue to grow. Several other patients dropped out of the study because they couldn't tolerate it. So it's a really small, basically
anecdotal study at this point that worked for some but not other patients. And it was only for tumors that showed a lot of glucose uptake. So
you can't just assume that this would work for your tumor.

Not all tumors show high glucose uptake. So why would low carb work for these tumors? The one type of tumor where there may really be a benefit is a glioma (nasty brain tumor). There MAY be some benefit for prostate, breast, and pancreatic cancer. There very likely is not a benefit for other types of tumors that don't show high glucose uptake. There may even be harm. Do you want to guess if your particular kind of tumor is "glucose hungry"?

Eating sugar and carbs is not the body's only source of glucose. The liver and kidneys are very good at producing glucose, especially when there is a surplus of energy. So, this means that you can eat no
carbs, but too much fat and/or protein and still have too much glucose in your body. Atkins claim of "eat all you want" does NOT apply to cancer patients who are going low carb. Go back and look at Seyfried's work and you'll see that the mice on unrestricted ketogenic diets did NOT have a drop
in blood glucose. (Maybe why some here have trouble losing weight until they cut calories?) The mice on restricted diets (high or low carb) did show a decrease in blood sugar and even more importantly, the insulin-like growth factor and other markers for cancer.

A study that comes out and says XYZ helps cancer may have a couple of problems. First, you can very often find that there's another study showing XYZ makes cancer worse. Second, the amount of benefit may be very small. Third, it can be very difficult to really know if it was XYZ that helped the cancer. Was it the low carb or the low calorie or the combination of both that helped?

Much of the research has been in mice and rats. It may or may not translate to humans. Sometimes mice studies do and sometimes they don't.

There is not a conspiracy among doctors to keep good information from us. Oncologists who do not recommend a low carb diet are not doing anything wrong. There isn't evidence that it works. There isn't evidence that it's at least not harmful for cancer patients, although we may be starting to see that now in SOME cases. All the drugs they have to work with have been studied in the context of a normal carb diet, and we don't know how they'll
work on a low carb diet. The diet may even make them ineffective or harmful. So it is actually responsible in my mind for an oncologist to not recommend something where there isn't strong non-contradictory evidence. Sorry folks, but the evidence for low carb is still conflicting at this stage. (Anyone remember how low fat got started? By doctors recommending something for
which there was little evidence. Maybe they've learned their lesson and won't do that again.)


My advice to cancer patients is to do your own research, but not from what you read on most internent sites. Look at that skeptically because it's often misreported. One example, the Livin la vida low carb web site stated that a ketogenic diet helped reduce tumors. The author of the paper (Seyfried) actually emailed Jimmy to point out that wasn't what his study found.
But Jimmy's article has been picked up and reposted around the web with the error in it.

Cancer is not a single disease. It's many diseases and each cancer is different. That's why when you're sitting in the chemo room, everyone up and down the row is on different drugs. One treatment does not fit all. How likely is it that low carb will fit all?

Just please understand that you ARE experimenting on yourself if you go low carb at this time. I am doing that, (after I finished my conventional treatment of surgery and chemo) but believe me I sweat every time I read a study that indicates I may be doing myself more harm than good. Low carb appears to be a good approach to PREVENT many cancers. But we just don't know
if it helps or hurts when you already have cancer. There's evidence in both directions.

Cancer patients, enjoy your life, go for a walk and enjoy God's beautiful world, enjoy the time you have with your family, donate to cancer research.
Use low carb to prevent cancer but think twice before using it to treat cancer. Have a good discussion with your oncologist first.

[Nancy LC]

Squid, I wish you the best of all possible out-comes!

[Bandito]

I can see that you have thought this out. We all have to find our own paths and I am glad that you have found yours. Thank you very much for your responsible, honest, objective, and deeply personal post. Best of health to you on your journey.

[Hutchinson]

In the same vien as the above, I'd like people to consider the Vitamin D council's article on Does vitamin D treat cancer? (http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2008-jan.shtml) If we think a paleo type diet may be best suited to dealing with cancer it may also be the case that the vitamin D status that paleo man/woman enjoyed also is best for the human body to enable it best to fight infection/cancer?
There isn't hard evidence saying for sure it will.
~But there is a lot of evidence suggesting it may be.
Listen to Feldman here (http://med.stanford.edu/medcast/2008/vitamind.html)
Effective strength D3 capsules are cheap (https://secure.bio-tech-pharm.com/catalog.aspx?cat_id=2) enough. I don't (to my knowledge) have cancer but a totally different inflammatory condition. I keep my 25(OH)D at or around 60ng/ml 150nmol/l simply to allow my body to best fight inflammation. It seems to me obvious that if you want your body to be best able to fight anything, cancer, infection, fungus, virus it needs the means to do so, and not just sufficient, it needs sufficient stores, reserves and supply to be sure it always has sufficient reserves to draw on.

The levels most people have are below that naturally sustained given adequate sun exposure. In the UK currently most adults have only a third of that naturally acquired and less than half the amount required for optimal absorbtion of calcium/magnesium from the diet. If we know that most people aren't able to take up optimal amounts of calcim and magnesium because they are vitamin d insufficient is it any wonder they get ill?

[Wifezilla]

I am still waiting for the hard evidence that sugar and corn syrup are GOOD for cancer patients...since these are ingredients in ENSURE...a product often doctor recommened to cancer patients.

Remember, Doctors are experimenting on you too. Do your research. There are links on my blog to several studies that show carbs feed cancer cells. (Look on the right column....posts by topic)

[Squid]

[QUOTE=Wifezilla]I am still waiting for the hard evidence that sugar and corn syrup are GOOD for cancer patients...since these are ingredients in ENSURE...a product often doctor recommened to cancer patients.

[\QUOTE]

Sigh. You apparently think I am saying something I'm not. I don't believe that sugar and corn syrup are good for you - quite the contrary. The only point I was trying to make is that the chemo drugs were tested and their effectiveness is known in the context of a "standard" diet which is higher in carb than any of us eat. There is plenty of reason to believe that they could very well be less effective or even harmful with a low carb diet. Any one considering doing this should be aware of the risk. It could mean their life.

I have looked at your blog, but I prefer to get the real scoop straight from the study and not an oversimplified summary. If you search pubmed you can find the abstract and possibly have access to the entire study. Repeating what has been reported in the press is passing on third hand information.

Wifezilla, I have refrained from saying this, but you could very well be endangering the lives of cancer patients. You simply do not know that low carb and chemo is safe. There are dozens of chemo drugs, dozens of different kinds of cancer, and they all interact in different ways. Leave it up to the oncologists to decide with their patients on an individual basis what is best for them. I hope that you will continue to grow your knowledge of cancer and especially of how varied this disease is. I highly recommend pubmed over the popular press.

[Wifezilla]

Wifezilla, I have refrained from saying this, but you could very well be endangering the lives of cancer patients. You simply do not know that low carb and chemo is safe.

Show me the evidence that they are unsafe. Chemo has been tested with high carb, and now there is a thread about a study that shows that fasting plus chemo works better. There goes your theory about needing carbs for chemo.

Do you own stock in ensure? Why do you recommend against a way of eating you yourself practice? You seem to be holding low carb to a standard that is not even being held to current recommendations and practices.

Leave it up to the oncologists to decide with their patients on an individual basis what is best for them.
Oncologists can't even agree. Some do tell their pateints to avoid carbs. Some say "eat whatever you can", some say avoid fats yet there is no evidence that fat causes cancer.

Individuals decide what is best for them by getting information. I have given what I found. You gave what you found. Now let them decide.

Telling people I am endangering people's lives is just silly.

[Daisymaiz]

I wish you the best Squid. :bhug:

[Wifezilla]

From the American Cancer Society...

"Limit intake of simple sugars."
http://www.chemocare.com/eatingwell/cancer_diet.asp

Of course, they don't tell you that bread, pasta, rice, and potatoes are ALSO simple sugars...but this is ALL a low carb diet does. It limits simple sugars.

[kaypeeoh]

Squid, are you assuming your cancer is the type that loves glucose or was there a test for this? My wife had herc-2 positive breast cancer four years ago. She had a mastectomy and chemo. She was given chemo because she had hodgkins lymphoma 15 years ago and received a lifetime dose of radiation as treatment back then.

As of now she is still cancer free. I've used a lowcarb diet for 8 years or more and believe it can prevent cancers. My wife is not sure about that but eats a lot less sweet things than in the past.

Good luck.

[Wifezilla]

"Giving Cancer an Energy Blackout
In the 1920s, the German researcher Dr. Otto Warburg discovered that cancer cells rely heavily on a process known as glycolysis to produce energy.

Dr. Warburg, a Nobel Prize winner, also found that cancer cells did this even when there was sufficient oxygen available for a far more efficient, oxygen-dependent energy-production process used by many normal cells, called oxidative phosphorylation. The paradox came to be known as the "Warburg effect."

Dr. Warburg believed that this "aerobic glycolysis" was at the root of cancer development, but his theory never caught on.

Over the last decade, however, there has been a resurgence of interest in learning more about cancer cell metabolism - how cancer cells produce energy and use it to grow and divide.

Cancer cell metabolism hasn't traditionally been "considered as part of the cancer problem," says Dr. Craig Thompson, scientific director at the Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute. But the renewed interest in it, he believes, "gives us a number of new avenues to investigate to see whether it can be exploited for therapeutic benefit."

And Dr. Thompson isn't the only one. A growing cadre of researchers is now delving deep into cancer cells' energy-production machinery, with the hope of finding effective ways to short-circuit it.

Tumor cells' glucose problem

The renewed focus on energy production and Warburg's discoveries from 80 years ago is an ideal case in point.

"More and more, multiple groups are looking at the molecular mechanisms behind the Warburg effect, because it's consistently observed in tumor cells," says Dr. Peng Huang, an associate professor of molecular pathology at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. "Certainly, in both cell culture and animal models, we see the cancer cells' increased dependence on glycolysis."

Both glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation begin with the ingestion of glucose by a cell. The difference resides in how the cell transforms that raw material into energy - in the form of a complex molecule called ATP - and the efficiency with which it does it. Oxidative phosphorylation can produce as much as 18 times more ATP per molecule of glucose than glycolysis.

This inefficiency leads tumor cells that are reliant on glycolysis to take up a tremendous amount of glucose. This reliance forms the basis for the now widespread use of PET scans that involve the glucose analog FDG for the detection of a number of different cancer types.

Researchers like Drs. Huang and Thompson believe tumor cells' addiction to glycolysis might represent a bona fide Achilles heel: Disrupt glycolysis and tumor cells won't be able to produce enough energy to survive. Data from laboratory and animal model studies support this belief.

But the question remains: Why do tumor cells rely on a less efficient energy-production process when they don't have to?

"It's still a matter of debate," says Dr. Huang.

Several theories have been proposed to explain this. One suggests that genetic mutations have damaged the tumor cells' mitochondria, where oxidative phosphorylation takes place, so the cell switches to an alternative energy-production pathway. Another argues that it's an adaptation that gives the cell a survival advantage once a tumor becomes larger and oxygen - but not necessarily glucose - becomes far less abundant.

Dr. Thompson admits that it's complicated and requires more intensive study.

"We need to look more closely at issues like which signaling pathways tumor cells are using when they just want to survive for the day, or if they want to engage in growth and proliferation," he says.

Mucking up the machinery

Efforts to exploit this potential tumor cell weakness are moving ahead full steam, with glycolytic inhibitors already in human clinical trials or headed in that direction.

One company, Threshold Pharmaceuticals, has based its entire therapeutic enterprise on what they call "metabolic targeting." Two of its products are currently in clinical trials, including 2DG, a glucose analog being investigated in combination with docetaxel in a phase I trial.

Because tumor cells are so hungry for glucose - particularly those that are in hypoxic regions of a tumor and are more likely to be resistant to standard chemotherapy agents - 2DG is readily taken up by tumor cells, says the scientist who developed it, Dr. Ted Lampidis.

Once inside, explains Dr. Lampidis, a professor of cell biology at the University of Miami Sylvester Cancer Center, the agent competes with regular glucose to be synthesized into ATP. However, because of the slight difference in 2DG's makeup compared with glucose, that synthesis never happens, starving the cell of energy.

"We've made tremendous progress from developing the concept of 2DG to getting it into the clinic," he says. "I see now that there's a real possibility it's going to work."

The phase I trial is almost complete and plans are under way to launch a phase II trial.

Another agent, 3-BrPA, completely eradicated large, highly glycolytic tumors in one animal model and markedly shrank similar tumors in another model. The agent's target, explains Dr. Peter Pedersen, a professor of biological chemistry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine - who along with Dr. Young Ko, is moving it through preclinical studies - is an enzyme called hexokinase that is bound to the surface of mitochondria but plays a key role in both glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation. Dr. Ko, who discovered the agent's potent anticancer activity, calls 3-BrPA a "total energy blocker."

Most recently, they've been investigating 3-BrPA's effect on different cancer cell lines.

"Once inside [the tumor cell], it's like a Trojan horse," Dr. Pedersen explains. "You see dissipation of ATP very quickly. But if you do the same thing to a hepatocyte [an important and abundant liver cell], for example, it hardly has any effect."

A number of companies have approached Dr. Petersen's lab about taking 3-BrPA into clinical trials.

By Carmen Phillips"
http://www.cancer.gov/ncicancerbulletin/NCI_Cancer_Bulletin_112806/page6

[Legeon]

Telling people I am endangering people's lives is just silly.Good thing that's not what was said.

[Wifezilla]

Squido: Wifezilla, I have refrained from saying this, but you could very well be endangering the lives of cancer patients
Gee where would I get such a goofy notion?

I should mention that this thread is a spill over from another thread. http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=369300

[Squid]

The drugs that are in trials are targeted to interupt the glycolytic pathway. If you eat low carb, you are ingesting less glucose, but your body can still manufacture it. These drugs and eating low carb are not the same thing.

[Wifezilla]

It is simply an article that mentioned in detail the role of sugars in cancer cell growth.

[LC FP]

The drugs that are in trials are targeted to interupt the glycolytic pathway. If you eat low carb, you are ingesting less glucose, but your body can still manufacture it. These drugs and eating low carb are not the same thing.
Squid, any drug or perhaps natural substance that inhibits glycolysis might work in cancer. Patentable drugs are the only ones that interest drug companies. There has been a suggestion that ketones may inhibit glycolytic enzymes, and if so LC might help. Another "drug" DCA, dichloroacetate, inhibits glycolysis and is being looked at by Dr. Michelakis at the University of Alberta here http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/

DCA is an industrial chemical and can't be patented. It has been used for medical applications in the past. I suspect the drug industry is trying to get it banned for obvious reasons.

And Dr. Michelakis isn't an oncologist. He's a cardiologist. I find that interesting.

I somewhat agree that people need to be careful re causing doubt about approved cancer treatment. However people interested in LC have seen that approved diabetes care is plain wrong in terms of diet therapy. If LC is shown to be effective for some cancers those afflicted probably won't care if they can't eat donuts anymore.

[sln88]

a slight tangent, but have any of you looked into Budwig? I think they recommend round flax seeds mixed with cottage cheese as a cancer 'cure'. Many anecdotal stories about 'cures', but don't know if they are true.
I guess flax/cottage cheese would be safe on a LC diet?

[KvonM]

squid, i respect your struggle and the fact that the conclusions you've come to have been well-researched and well thought out. in my opinion, you're drawing conclusions that are a bit off the mark.

both of my parents struggled with cancer. my mom had breast (including a mastectomy) and skin cancer. my dad had pancreatic cancer... he actually survived for 3 years after his surgery before it resurfaced and killed him 2 months later.

The liver and kidneys are very good at producing glucose, especially when there is a surplus of energy. So, this means that you can eat no carbs, but too much fat and/or protein and still have too much glucose in your body.
in a ketogenic diet, the liver will only produce as much glucose as those bodily functions that need it require. the fact that we are capable of producing glucose on our own indicates that we do not need to ingest it.

Atkins claim of "eat all you want" does NOT apply to cancer patients who are going low carb.
atkins comment was meant to indicate "eat until you are satisfied," which he states several times in DANDR. it was not, nor has it ever been, a license to gorge yourself mindlessly. atkins also developed his dietary guidelines for patiens who were suffering from heart-related diseases. he was a cardiologist, not an oncologist.

Low carb appears to be a good approach to PREVENT many cancers. But we just don't know if it helps or hurts when you already have cancer.
there's a lot of things in this world that we just don't know about. the fact that something is unknown does not automatically mean it's harmful. some people respond well to a low-carb diet, some do not. i know little about the development of cancer cells, but i think i would be safe in saying that no two tumors are alike. they would be as varied in structure and growth pattern as in which parts of the body they develop. therefore it would be safe to conclude that different types of cancer respond differently to different eating plans.

as i understand chemotherapy, it uses highly toxic substances to kill off aggressively growing cancer cells, and in the process also kills off just about every other cell in the body. it's like going rabbit hunting with a nuclear bomb. logic would dictate that putting chemo patients on a high-carb diet was done to provide the body with fast, easy energy that helps promote weight gain to counter the debilitating effects of the toxins. but one of the hallmarks of low-carb is the reliance on whole foods rather than overly processed ones... somehow i can't understand why that would be detrimental rather than beneficial for cancer patients.

wifezilla gathers information and provides it to those who are interested. as far as i know (and i very well could be wrong), she is not a doctor, and she does not provide diagnoses for anyone reading her blog. she's not endangering anyone's life because she's not forcing anyone to do anything.

like i said, your post and your thoughts are very well laid out and eloquent. but i too have to wonder why you're speaking out against a way of eating that you yourself practice.

[Squid]

like i said, your post and your thoughts are very well laid out and eloquent. but i too have to wonder why you're speaking out against a way of eating that you yourself practice.

I was afraid I'd be misunderstood. I am NOT speaking out against low carb for a cancer therapy. I even pointed out I'm using it myself.

I just want cancer patients to realize that this is not an area that is well understood yet. There are very few studies, but the same studies keep getting reported over and over again making it sound like there's more support than there is at this point. We really don't have much more to go on than theory at this point.

It is a risk to self-treat yourself with low carb when you are fighting for your life, and it could very well make some cancers worse. It could very well make some chemo drugs ineffective. That's all I want cancer patients to understand so they can make an informed decision. A few early studies are NOT strong support for putting your body in ketosis and altering your chemistry while taking life-threatening drugs.

I'm a little puzzled why everyone thinks it's an attack against low carb and unreasonable to warn a cancer patient to be cautious and consider all sides of the equation.

[PlaneCrazy]

We really don't have much more to go on than theory at this point.
It is still a theory, but there is some evidence, not conclusive, I grant you, that disrupting the supply of glucose to some cancer cells, especially those in hypoxia (when oxygen gets scarce), causes them to either slow their growth, or even die off. There's also some evidence, again, not conclusive, that the role of IGF, insulin-like growth factor, in cancer cells' ability to disrupt a cell's normal self-destruct mechanism, points toward benefits to keeping insulin low. (see the chapter about cancer in GCBC).

So, you're right to point out that so much of this is not proven. So much of this is not fully understood and so you take risks how ever you choose to eat. Neither high carb, medium carb nor low carb have been conclusively proven to be beneficial for helping to treat cancers or even helping to make the other treatments more effective.

My personal response, and so far my treatment hasn't even begun and will hopefully only be surgery, is to think about what little evidence we do have, and to consider what I believe from other sources is the healthiest diet for me under normal circumstances, and then decide what I shall eat.

The best I can do at this point is try to make my body as healthy and strong as I can to help both fight off the bad things happening inside, as well as recover from any of the harsh treatments that damage my normal cells. To me, that seems to be a low-carb diet. It also helps achieve two other important goals that my doctors have emphasized during any cancer treatment: getting enough calories, and getting enough protein for repair of damaged tissues.

The National Cancer Institute discusses this briefly (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/eatinghints/page2) in its' hints for eating during treatment. I've mentioned it before on another thread, but I think it bares mentioning again:
Nutrition Recommendations Can Be Different for Cancer Patients
Recommendations about food and eating for cancer patients can be very different from the usual suggestions for healthful eating. This can be confusing for many patients because these new suggestions may seem to be the opposite of what they've always heard. Nutrition recommendations usually stress eating lots of fruits, vegetables, and whole grain breads and cereals; including a moderate amount of meat and dairy products; and cutting back on fat, sugar, alcohol, and salt. More information and tips on these recommendations are covered in the section After Treatment Ends.

Nutrition recommendations for cancer patients may focus on helping you eat more higher calorie foods that emphasize protein. Recommendations might include eating or drinking more milk, cream, cheese, and cooked eggs. Other suggestions might include increasing your use of sauces and gravies, or changing your cooking methods to include more butter, margarine, or oil. Sometimes, nutrition recommendations for cancer patients suggest that you eat less of certain high- fiber foods because these foods can aggravate problems such as diarrhea or a sore mouth.

Nutrition recommendations for cancer patients are different because they are designed to help build up your strength and help you withstand the effects of your cancer and its treatment. When you are healthy, eating enough food to get the nutrients you need is usually not a problem. During cancer treatment, however, this can become a challenge, especially if you have side effects or simply don't feel well.
While not a completely low-carb diet, it is much lower carb and higher in fat than the SAD.

It is a risk to self-treat yourself with low carb when you are fighting for your life, and it could very well make some cancers worse. It could very well make some chemo drugs ineffective. That's all I want cancer patients to understand so they can make an informed decision. A few early studies are NOT strong support for putting your body in ketosis and altering your chemistry while taking life-threatening drugs.

I'm a little puzzled why everyone thinks it's an attack against low carb and unreasonable to warn a cancer patient to be cautious and consider all sides of the equation.
I don't think it unreasonable to point out that while we'd all love to believe that low-carb cures cancer, or keeps us from having cancer, or ensures a brighter shine when we wash the car, the evidence is just not conclusive, and should all be taken as just part of the information used to make these important decisions.

This whole set of data, the few studies that have been done, my own experiences and priorities, the NCI's recommendations, is what I'm using for my personal decision on how to eat during my treatment. I've discussed it with my doctors and they are perfectly fine with my decision. In fact, my oncologist thinks it's a fine idea.

We do have a tendency here in these forums to get excited about evidence that low-carb eating helps with this or that problem. I confess to being exactly the same. It would also be a good idea to temper our enthusiasm at times to include qualifiers in what we say. "There's evidence for..." instead of more absolute statements.

I'm not accusing anyone in this thread of absolutes, but it seemed like each side is arguing against the other side's absolute position without anyone actually taking that position.

No, the evidence for low-carb eating preventing, halting or curing cancer is not conclusive. But there is evidence for some cancers that it may have a potentially beneficial effect. We also have no evidence that a high carb or even medium carb diet has any of the same effects, or that a low-carb diet is detrimental. This is just information that needs to be factored in to as an informed decision as you can make for your own treatment or prevention plan.

Best wishes to everyone.

Plane

[sln88]

great post plane. I myself am a "low carb cheerleader", and I WANT to believe all of the greatness of low carb. I want to think that if I eat this way I will be forever healthy and happy.

The realisitic side of me knows that I tend to favor positive low carb studies so I do try to be careful. It makes me really wish that there was a way to do true unbiased studies so that we could all know the magic formula.

I hope your treatment goes well.

[LC FP]

It makes me really wish that there was a way to do true unbiased studies so that we could all know the magic formula.
About 1970 President Nixon declared "war on cancer" and since then the NIH has spent untold billions on cancer research. I don't think they've spent a nickel on LC.

[Nancy LC]

The Hyperlipid Blog posted something interesting (http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2008/04/kwasniewski-and-cancer.html) on the state of cancer research and low carb. I haven't followed the links he provided yet.

Snippet:In terms of an evidence base, case reports in peer reviewed publications carry little weight and non published case reports are just off the radar. But then getting a prospective trial set up to provide an evidence base, even a pilot study, is fraught with difficulties. For a flavour of the current state of difficulty anyone can browse the article which started Kasha off on her journey to Kwasniewski. Attempts at collaboration with mainstream medicine by Kwasniewski never got off the ground.

After that there is patient compliance! Look at this quote from Dr Schmidt in the article cited by Kasha:

Four of the patients were so ill, they died within the first week of the study. Others, says Schmidt, dropped out because they found it hard to stick to the no-sweets diet: "We didn't expect this to be such a big problem, but a considerable number of patients left the study because they were unable or unwilling to renounce soft drinks, chocolate and so on."



Of course these people were end stage and probably considered themselves beyond hope, so why not enjoy whatever food they could manage... But for the life of me I can't see why one has to be absolutely at the end stage of cancer before it is considered ethical to advise that you should stop eating sweets, especially when a PET scan confirms that the cancer lights up like a... Well, like a cancer feasting on glucose in a PET scanner.

[The Munch]

(that would make a good signature line -- look for its appearance directly below my name... replacing the stats... coming soon)

Before coming here, I was reading Nancy's link at Hyperlipid:

Kwasniewski and Cancer (see above)

I have yet to read links provided by Chris in the comments... but this post:

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2006/10/parkinsons-disease.html

which links to this article:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-05-14-diet-treatment_x.htm

suggests that a ketogenic diet... one that improves neurodegenerative disorders (modestly) and possibly stalls brain tumors... is not simply low carb. The dietary intervention used had 90 percent of its calories from FAT and only 8 percent from protein (think Atkins' fat fast).

This harks back to Kekwick and Pawan, British obesity researchers in the 1950s, who did seminal experiments on an ultra-high fat dietary regime.

Much as I adore fat... taking 90 percent of my calories as grease would not appeal and perhaps even nauseate. Then, too, I like to munch a carrot now and then (hence the user handle). But I wonder what became of Van Itallie's follow-up with a less extreme regimen?
------------------------------------------------------------------

Does anyone remember the Bear and his extensive thread a few years back? He too had cancer (larynx or throat?) after a lifetime of eating NOTHING but meat. In other words, apart from gluconeogenesis, a virtually sugar-free diet.

Yet his cancer thrived. How so? (Several posters took him to task for not eating vegetables.) Squid, of course, is right: the etiology and progression of various cancers (multiple illnesses) is complex and multi-faceted... and for all our well-funded research, we know little how to combat this modern plague (which has taken many people I loved, including my mother).

Much as one would wish low carb to be a panacea for all ills... alas, it cannot be. Nothing is quite so simple. (fyi, re above... my father has advanced Parkinsons and dementia... ghastly... which I believe was exacerbated IN PART by eating too much sugar and imbibing too many martinis... plus stress and a genetic predisposition... hence his daughter (me) eats low carb and drinks seldom.)

OK then. To brave, spunky, knowledgeable Squid -- and PlaneCrazy, who wrote the best post ever on this subject -- I extend heartfelt wishes for a good prognosis... even better, a full recovery.

[Nancy LC]

I don't know, Andrea. It seems as if we brought a lot of these diseases on ourselves with our "civilized diet". I don't know if you've read GCBC yet but many of these diseases were unheard of until native populations start to eat western diets.

Now perhaps the genie is out of the bottle pretty early on and you can only mitigate some of the harm by adopting a low carb diet, can't completely prevent it.

Then again, we also know from The Bear that he was a heavy drug user. He might also have been a smoker. Probably was a pot smoker if nothing else. Who knows what other habits he had?

[Wyvrn]

Who knows what other habits he had?Dunno about drugs but all that red dye #5 in the Kool-aid couldn't have been good for him.

[KarenJ]

I thought Bear went carnivorous in either the '1950's or in his '50's. And I do remember him writing that he was exposed to an awful lot of smoke (of every kind), not to mention the LSD...
And he says he doesn't eat veggies, but he definitely eats spices (which are quite healthful).

While I agree that LC is not a panacea, cure-all, or magic pill; I also believe that it's the true diet of humans. Not based much on scientific evidence, but based on history. Give any animal it's natural diet and they're far more healthy than their fake-fed counterparts. History has shown the lesser occurrence of all types of cancers in native indigenous populations eating a natural diet.

The fact that vitamin B is essential makes us obligated to eat animals. We may eat other things, just enough to call ourselves omnivore's, but even that term is used too loosely when it comes to human nutrition.

I've been surrounded by smoke all my life, and I do hope that this WOE is helping to curb a little of that damage, although 37 years of high carb probably did a lot more damage than the smoke.

One thing that is very interesting is the combination of a high carb diet with stress and chemical/toxin exposure. There are so many toxins in our modern world like teflon, grains, flouride, PCBs, plastic, margarine, radiation, pharmaceuticals, etc.

Today in Chicagoland, police had to shoot a wild cougar because it was charging on one of the officers. At first, they thought it had come from a zoo or was someone's pet because of the beauty of it's coat. It was later determined to be wild... probably because of the beauty of it's coat.

[The Munch]

Actually... I don't know either.

But we simply don't know ENOUGH to blame cancer, heart disease and so on entirely on our "civilized diet." It's all too human to want a scapegoat... or a magic amulet... to say if only we would straighten up and fly right, these plagues will not be visited upon our house.

But (imo) that's less scientific reasoning than wishful thinking.

The chronic illnesses that hit many (most) of us as we age may be mitigated by proper diet -- but I have read, for example, that traditional Inuit did not have long lifespans despite eating meat and fat almost exclusively. How would the diseases associated with aging appear in populations that don't reach an advanced age?

I'm not sure how rigorous the research on "native populations" has been or how many counter-references exist to Gary Taubes' citations. I do know that humans evolved under conditions of scarcity, living long enough to reproduce and not necessarily decades longer. And I wonder whether chronic illnesses (metabolic syndrome, cancer, heart disease) ever get a foothold in populations that consume many fewer calories than our own.

So if there's a magic bullet... it would have to be calorie restriction. That's supported by a body of research, much of it cited in the War Zone archives. In which case... I personally am doomed because I do eat half again as much as most women my age and size... always have. You might envy me, Nancy --- but apparently the warp-speed metabolism and high energy inherited from both parents won't grant me a long life. Pity.

P.S. I am reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by hitting random chapters as they attract my interest. The book will be assimilated in due course... and many library trips (will not purchase in hard cover) -- cf article in Prevention Online, here's to your health, Mr. Taubes -- and don't take any unexpected falls -- your publisher and I anticipate the book's paperback issue while awaiting your next journalistic venture.

Thank you, too, for the heads up on Bear's drug use. Hmmm. Must have been a page or 10 that I missed. Absolutely. Other habits besides diet influence proliferation of cancerous cells... as does the air we breathe. Point taken on the red Kool Aid. I may dump a small box of sugar free Hawaiian punch tubes (for flavoring water in 16.9 oz PLASTIC bottles). Only two consumed so far... but I haven't had a real Hawaiian Punch since my baby boomer youth. Nostalgia rules.

[The Munch]

we live in the same metropolis. Lovely day, wasn't it (spring at last?), and a pity about the cougar. They are beautiful creatures but were it not for our guns and high-tech weapons...

We would be running from them or climbing the nearest tree.

Your interesting post crossed mine. I agree re the toxic chemicals -- not so sure that high carb is more damaging than smoke exposure. That's lethal. Regardless... our bodies ward off a host of chemical and microbial invasions each and every day.

The wonder is not that we occasionally or eventually fall sick. The wondrous thing is staying healthy, fit and vigorous for as long as we do.

[KarenJ]

we live in the same metropolis. Lovely day, wasn't it (spring at last?), and a pity about the cougar. They are beautiful creatures but were it not for our guns and high-tech weapons...

We would be running from them or climbing the nearest tree.

Your interesting post crossed mine. I agree re the toxic chemicals -- not so sure that high carb is more damaging than smoke exposure. That's lethal. Regardless... our bodies ward off a host of chemical and microbial invasions each and every day.

The wonder is not that we occasionally or eventually fall sick. The wondrous thing is staying healthy, fit and vigorous for as long as we do.

Yes, it is finally spring. :agree: :thup: The cougar being killed is really tragic, what a truly majestic animal! But I do understand the threat, having visited CA where attacks are commonplace and often fatal to humans. The cougar was just looking for a meal, never mind if it's your baby. :yum:

Interesting about the smoke; in the 'real' China study, smokers had less cancers (of all type) than folks who ate higher carb diets. Strange, but true. Maybe something about home-grown and hand-rolled versus the American chemical processed version taken with chips & beer?

The wonder is not that we occasionally or eventually fall sick. The wondrous thing is staying healthy, fit and vigorous for as long as we do.

Interesting thing about the French Paradox, the Swiss, Australian aborigine, African Masai, Okinawan, South American... indeed, every continent seems to have a native population that presents as a "paradox". The real paradox is that Americans eat huge amounts of processed refined carbohydrates- yet we're still alive. That's the real paradox.

:wave:

[LC FP]

Originally posted by Nancy LC
...many of these diseases were unheard of until native populations start to eat western diets
Dr. Jay Wortman (My Big Fat Diet) said at the beginning of his talk in Phoenix that there were 62 Native American cultures in Canada and none of them had a word for diabetes.

[LCivility]

Longevity in the far north was pretty chancy due to accident and the effects of cyclical starvation when the caribou changed their migration pattern. Also much of the heating and cooking fuel was blubber of various sorts, which does not burn clean. Most cooking was done inside small dwellings. These tiny spaces did not provide for much ventilation so lung problems were common especially among women who spent more time inside.

Still, diabetes and cancer were so rare in the communities outside white contact that each occurrence was written up as a case history and published in the medical journals of the time. I think Taubes says that no cases of cancer or diabetes was identified before 1950.

Sounds like meat is good for us. But maybe not living in an arctic environment. It isn't spring here. Still snowing in fact.

[Nancy LC]

Dr. Jay Wortman (My Big Fat Diet) said at the beginning of his talk in Phoenix that there were 62 Native American cultures in Canada and none of them had a word for diabetes.Did you go? Anything you can report on? :)

I forget the researcher that compiled all the cancer data about Africa. Cleave perhaps? But cancer was extremely rare until the western diet took hold.

As an aside: Malaria, which now kills thousands, wasn't a problem for native Africans either. They knew how to live to keep away from the mosquitoes. But the Europeans built cities near areas where the mosquitoes bred (water sources) and ever since then, people come to the cities, get malaria and quite often die.



But we simply don't know ENOUGH to blame cancer, heart disease and so on entirely on our "civilized diet." It's all too human to want a scapegoat... or a magic amulet... to say if only we would straighten up and fly right, these plagues will not be visited upon our house.
Did you not get to that part in GCBC? It sounded pretty gosh darn compelling to me.

But (imo) that's less scientific reasoning than wishful thinking.
I'd say there's more compelling evidence to believe that high carb diets are responsible for a good chunk of the diseases we currently face in epidemic proportions than there ever was for the cholesterol/fat hypothesis which everyone accepted so readily. You either haven't gotten to those chapters in GCBC or your attention strayed.

[LC FP]

It was a great conference as blogged about by Drs. Eades and others. A few fireworks between Dr. Feinman and a lecturer representing the mainstream view. Dr. Vernon zoomed through her patient results, which are amazing. Dr. Phinney and Gary Taubes talked about saturated fat. Taubes is really nice and funny. Dr. German talked about the physical qualities of saturated fat and how it and trans fats are used in the food industry, and why they taste so good. Also he talked about personalized medicine which he thinks is coming soon.

And I certainly agree with you about the carbohydrate/chronic disease connection. If it weren't for carbs I'd probably be out of a job.

[RobinB]

Very interesting thread for us b.c. survivors!

[Nancy LC]

Here's something related to the topic, perhaps tangentially.

Tumors Use Sugars To Avoid Programmed Cell Death (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080415194236.htm)

[Wifezilla]

Once glucose was withdrawn from the environment, however, Akt was no longer able to maintain regulation of the key targeted proteins Mcl-1 and Puma, and the cells died.

"Akt's dependence on glucose to provide an anti-cell-death signal could be a sign of metabolic addiction to glucose in cancer cells, and could give us a new avenue for a metabolic treatment of cancer," said Dr. Rathmell.

Interesting, but not surprising considering the other information gathered. It is nice to see it spelled out though.

[The Munch]

LCivility -- Thanks for the post on (Inuit) longevity in a brutally cold, inhospitable environment. Very informative.

Karen -- I often wonder whether there might be a (relatively) safe way to use tobacco leaves... just as we brew tea leaves. Nicotine is quite an interesting drug, but the delivery system (cigarettes) can kill you. No argument re huge quantities of processed refined carbs.

You either haven't gotten to those chapters in GCBC or your attention strayed. False dichotomy (excluded middle). Other possibilities exist.

For years I found the cholesterol/fat hypothesis pretty gosh darn compelling and the studies referenced seemed definitive. Click below. I may not agree with Brian but neither can I refute him.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=36840063&postID=2077827626681037499

Ignorance makes me skeptical. Gary Taubes' work merits intelligent criticism -- not a hatchet job -- but Stuart and JoeDoro have vanished. Everyone else considers the book more or less infallible in its sources, reasoning, and interpretation of the data. But what if the references exclude critical studies refuting Taubes' working hypothesis. How would I even know what has been excluded?

Re the dangers of fructose (and that includes overly sweet hybrid fruits) I agree... a metabolic load aimed at the liver. Diabetics do much better on minimal carbs. But there well may be cultures that thrive on high carb intake (in a natural form far removed from white sugar or HFCS).

Mark Twain remarked that rumors of his death had been greatly exaggerated. I wonder whether this may be true of the cholesterol hypothesis as well. Saturated fat... is it best avoided? Walter Willett certainly thinks so. Has his thinking been corrupted by the politics of academia? Or did Gary Taubes go over his head (brilliant though he is).

Thomas Seyfried has used a ketogenic diet to treat malignant brain tumors -- but emphasizes the crucial importance of calorie restriction. Eat too much and a ketogenic diet loses its therapeutic benefit.

Bias distorts reasoning across the board. There's no avoiding it except by constant vigilance... and it helps to argue the opposing viewpoint.

[Nancy LC]

But what if the references exclude critical studies refuting Taubes' working hypothesis. How would I even know what has been excluded?
Then I'm sure someone will come along and write a book that refutes it.

Personally, I evaluate the man's stature in his business. He's is a god amongst science writers. He started his research without a bias in either direction, although he says he is quite convinced now. Every time I see a low-fatter writing I find all kinds of connections to veganism and PETA.

[LC FP]

But what if the references exclude critical studies refuting Taubes' working hypothesis. How would I even know what has been excluded?
Ummm, you could do your own research, if you're really interested. Taubes says it's very doable thanks to the internet.

[Marillia]

Every time I see a low-fatter writing I find all kinds of connections to veganism and PETA.
Oh, good. I'm not the only one paranoid this way. :lol: