Definitely follow the link at the bottom of the article to see the gif animation of the PET scan of a person with several tumors. My bolding in the article.



http://medphyzz.blogspot.com/2011/0...graphy-and.html

You obviously can't rid your blood stream of all glucose, but you don't have to load it up with glucose either and give the cancer a rich, nutrient bath in the stuff.

Strictly speaking from non-scientific observation with an N=2: I've had two dogs with hemangiosarcoma, an extremely aggressive form of cancer. Normally by the time it's discovered it has metastasized and there is little to be done. Life expectancy post-diagnosis without treatment is maybe 6 weeks or less (with treatment about 6 months or less). In both cases I put the dogs on a nearly all-meat diet, but did not opt for treatment (in the first case I thought is was hopeless, in the second the tumor was on her heart and she was not in condition to withstand the surgery and treatment). The first lived for 4 months, the second is now at 5 months post-diagnosis.

Even eating very little carbohydrate my blood sugar tends to be too high (I suspect I could be outright diabetic on a typical high carb diet). Since I'm not eating the glucose I assume my body must be manufacturing what glucose it thinks it needs, but why so much of it that my blood sugar's still above optimum, I don't know. If a person's like this and has cancer, I don't know if a low carbohydrate diet could really be a cure, but certainly an improvement as Nancy said.

As long as the pancreas still works, the body is usually very good at keeping it's blood glucose within a narrow range. The cancer taking out glucose would be similar to exercise make the muscles burn glucose. In either case, the blood glucose level would be kept constant.

If having high blood glucose was beneficial to cancers, then diabetics should have a very high cancer rate. I am not aware of this being so.

People with diabetes more likely to get cancer (Reuters)
More than twice as many cancers than non-diabetics and 40% more likely to die of cancer. It's an association so hard to say exactly what the cause is... excess insulin or excess blood sugar or something else? Maybe diabetics are less likely to have the healthy user effect going.

To me there is no question that cancers find the high carb body conducive to their growth. There's just too much going on:

• the pediatric studies where a ketogenic diet shrank tumors
• the high incidence of cancer in diabetics
• obesity associated with higher cancer rates
• the near absence in populations eating low carb traditionally
• the documented metabolic disorders associated with grains and sugar

The liver makes plenty of glucose from the amino acids from protein (gluconeogenesis), stimulated by pancreatic glucagon. The liver can also use the lactic acid from tumor cells to make glucose. So the tumor and your liver can get a nice little two-man game going. The tumor takes in glucose and secretes lactic acid, and the liver takes in lactic acid and secretes glucose. Around and around she goes. Eating low carb won't affect this much. But the ketones you generate may slow down tumor glycolysis a bit, which might help.