Very interesting. But, if cancer cells require glucose for fuel, why not put all people with at least beginning stage cancer on a zero carb diet?

Well, because the liver keeps manufacturing any required glucose the body needs.

Interesting research if it indeed can lead to programmed cell death or apoptosis. I would worry about the side effects though.

You would think they would catch on to this...there ARE cases of a ketogenic diet actually stopping the progression of and even reversing cancer. It essentially starves the cancer cells.

Compliance would probably be an issue for the people this would help the most. Addiction is a powerful thing, and being addicted to grains and sugar isn't any prettier than any other problem. My aunt has cancer and refuses to change anything about the way she eats, even if it would help.

Then the phamacy companies don't get money.

In Nursing School, they taught us that sugar feeds cancer and makes it grow faster!!!

jillybean Very true ! It all comes down to money !

Compliance is always an issue when you talk about dietary changes. But I still think it should be PRESENTED as an option for treatment, not just ignored. Just like it is often ignored as a treatment for type 2 diabetes, yet it often works wonders...how do you nkow someone will be noncompliant if you don't even suggest it in the first place?

But, I agree with the money comment, too. That's also where my sniffer goes in type 2 diabetes discussions - with ketogenic diets, most folks go off of insulin and/or oral meds, don't test as often (read: burn through fewer test strips), etc. Curing diseases is not what most of the medical community is about anymore.

I am one of the cases! Though I must say that it happened mostly by accident.

I sent my sister a copy of Protein Power in 2002. She and her husband had impressive reductions in their weight and triglycerides, so I thought I should start following the PP diet since my triglycerides had been in the 180 to 230 range for at least ten years. I started PP about three months after my annual physical labs came back with a PSA that was double the previous year and went up in a recheck two weeks later.

About six months after the physical I had a prostate biopsy which was positive - 7% in one of six cores. I had learned of a man at work that had a PSA of 117 and was active in a Prostate Cancer support group at a near by hospital. From him I found about supplements that were associated with better treatment results so started with the ones he mentioned and added others that I found out by searching the internet.

Four weeks after the biopsy I went back to my Doc (an Internist) and asked for a new PSA test. It came back a little lower than the retest after the physical, so I said to the Doc, "I have some time to decide what treatment to choose." About a month later a PSA test came back still lower which it did over the next two tests (about every 5 to 6 weeks) so that at the end of the year it was lower than the two years before the first high reading. Here is a chart ending in 2007 showing the test results.

Actually I did nothing other than go low carb and add supplements that had some research evidence of reducing cancer. My analysis of what happened is that the low carb diet keep the blood glucose level low so the cancer had a restricted fuel supply. Growing new cells takes a lot of energy which the cancer no longer had available. True, there was always glucose available, BUT not in large amounts. As an analogy think of a house fire. Most of what a house is made of and the things in it will burn. But many times the fire does not get so big before the fire department arrives that the fire cannot be put out. Contrast that to a fire where someone keeps throwing gallon jugs of gasoline into the house. That makes the fire MUCH harder to put out, IF it CAN be put out with new fuel being constantly added.

My not adding fuel energy for the cancer to use and then using supplements to disrupt the cancer growth is the one-two punch technique to kill the cancer. Inability to continue to rapidly grow allows the body to marshal it's defenses to cause the cancer cells to commit apoptosis (programed cell death) and thus go away. The supplements (when carefully chosen) enhances the apoptosis of the cancerous cells.

Larry , Do you mind telling what supplements you added ? Tks Ron *

Where's the "Like" button when you need one??

And carb-loading super-athletes like Lance Armstrong have the fast-growing type of prostate cancer... correlation?

I have cancer, endometrial, Stage III (it moved to fallopian tubes). I had a radical hysterectomy and hopefully all the cancer was removed with the affected organs. 35 lymph nodes and cytology wash were clear. I'm in the midst of chemo now and radiation begins next week. The idea here is to prevent recurrence. I had mixed feelings about further treatment, but the stats for Stage III versus Stage I cut the survivial rate in half. These are 10 year old stats when women were being treated much less aggressively. I'm concerned about the treatment doing more harm than good, especially as there may well be no cancer left that is being treated, but I didn't think I could take that gamble.

Anyway, when I had my chemo counseling I was only advised to eat a "balanced diet". I laughed and said I'd never eaten a balanced diet in my life and wasn't likely to start (don't like vegetables except the ones I shouldn't!). I told her I was already eating low carb for recently diagnosed diabetes and would continue to eat that way as much as I can. I also asked my endo to increase the Metformin which I think was a really good thing as it reduces circulating blood sugar and also increases insulin sensitivity.

I find very low carb quite intolerable. I tried it re Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution for some weeks but when I rec'd the cancer diagnosis I decided I wasn't willing to continue to endure that level of suffering. Even though I may not be eating a strict "ketogenic diet", I am eating no sugar, no grains and much much less carbs in general than I would if I were following a "normal" diet. Most of the cancer diet recommendations I've seen, such as in "Anticancer: A New Way Of Life" by David Servan-Schreiber or Dr. Michael Murray's book on treating/preventing cancer naturally did mention avoiding sugar and refined carbs but also recommended eating fruits and vegetables and more disappointingly, whole grains. Which was more than I rec'd from my oncologist.

I think the medical establishment is very remiss in not talking about the cancer and sugar connection (if I'm any indication). Even if people don't want to go low carb, meaning 50 carbs or less say, they could at least be encouraged to go much lower carb than they're already probably eating. And if they have an actual tumor or have been considered uncurable (which I will be if the cancer recurs) then they should be encouraged to go very low carb.

This is an interesting discussion http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource....ic_disorder.pdf that mentions EECG (green tea) to suppress glutamine and increasing essential fatty acids among other things. It also addresses something that some people may wonder about, which is advising a ketogenic diet to people who are already struggling with cancer cachexia (anorexia, weight loss, muscle atrophy, anemia)

By targeting the glycolytically
active tumor cells that produce pro-cachexia molecules,
restricted diet therapies can potentially reduce tumor
cachexia [278,287]. These therapies could be supplemented with omega-3 fatty acids, which can also reduce
the cachexia phenotype [285]. Omega-3 fatty acids from
fish oil also have the benefit of maintaining low glucose
while elevating ketone levels. Once the tumor becomes
managed, individuals can increase caloric consumption
to achieve weight gain.

I found that on this website http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource....ses-cancer.html which has a whole section on What Causes Cancer?

I think the biggest impediment to oncologists recommending a ketogenic diet is the general "Nutrition Establishment". They would be bucking the usual advice that carbs are necessary, low fat is healthy and all that crap in general. Unless they could point to specific studies that were done for that particular cancer -- and prostate cancer is one that has been studied, along with brain -- then they might be worried about going out on that limb.

Just another example of how patients have to take their health into their own hands.

JLx Thanks for your great post , just what I was looking for (: I wish you the best on getting better ! Tks again !
Ron*