I'm sorry if this has already been posted -- I've just become aware of it and I'd like to hear the thoughts of some of the more scientifically minded members.

Cancer Cells Feed On Sugar-Free Diet

ScienceDaily (Jan. 10, 2012) — Cancer cells have been long known to have a "sweet tooth," using vast amounts of glucose for energy and for building blocks for cell replication.

Now, a study by a team of researchers at Johns Hopkins and elsewhere shows that lymph gland cancer cells called B cells can use glutamine in the absence of glucose for cell replication and survival, particularly under low-oxygen conditions, which are common in tumors. ... read more here

Glenda, I haven't seen this particular study posted here, so thank you.

We have seen many other studies that also confirm that cancers feed on glucose, such as this one: Scientists Spot How Sugar 'Feeds' Tumors and "Glycemic load" of diet tied to breast cancer risk as well as High blood glucose increases stomach cancer risk. You can find many more such links in the sticky at the top of this forum.

Rosebud, thanks for the response and yes, I've seen most of the studies linked to here about cancer feeding on glucose. It's the one in that post about some kinds NOT feeding on glucose but on glutamine instead. I'm kind of curious if there's a dietary way around keeping glutamine away from any cancer cells? And are B cells specific to lymphatic cancers?

I think it's kind of hard to avoid glutamine as it is an amino acid, which your body needs. I think it's one your body can make.

http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/glutamine-000307.htm

D'oh! I missed that the article was saying "Cancer cells feed on sugar FREE diet". Sorry 'bout that.

I seem to recall something about glutamine and cancers recently in my forays through the depths of the Research Archives, so will keep looking.

Meanwhile I found this extremely long winded, high powered article: http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource....ic_disorder.pdf
Not sure if the following snippet will leave you as confused as I am, but here it is:

Hmm, one from Nancy: Feeding brain cancer that might be of some help.

All I can say is that it seems to be working for my dog.

In May he wasn't feeling well. The vet took one look at him and proclaimed that she had no doubt that he had lymphoma. But she wanted to run some tests, "to be sure". He had his follow up visit yesterday. After two biopsies and multiple blood tests, she is freaking out because everything came back normal. And even though he is totally feeling and acting better than ever, she is having a hard time accepting this. UGH.... BTW, I have always kept him on a pretty healthy, low sugar diet. (He's a Chihuahua.) Just thought I would share my good news.

I remember Dr. Seyfried mentioning this in his podcast interview with Jimmy Moore. As I recall, that's why a ketogenic diet is particularly helpful for brain cancer. I guess the brain doesn't contain much glutamine, so a low calorie, ketogenic diet starves the tumor. But he cautioned that in other parts of the body, the tumors could use glutamine. This is all from memory, so I might be misspeaking. Here is the link to the interview.

http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/...re-episode-302/

In vitro. Before this mechanism can be proven to occur, it must be tested in vivo.

One day all this will be a bad memory. We will understand why cells go rogue and be able to stop it. For now... we do what we can on our side of the equation, eat healthy.

plant and animal DNA have aeons of evolution to have developed ways of using energy, and much of that is still lurking in the genome. Practically speaking some of us think that lower glucose may help stave off cancer, but those mutant cells can bring other means of energy. There is little or no evidence that one can control active cancer with diet - maybe slow it down......

The study showed that the cells fed on glutamine when sugar wasn't available, not glutamine preferentially - they'd still rather have sugar, but they'll take glutamine in its absence.

The question is whether glutamine can be blocked without harming the rest of body. I also can't see in the article anything about differences in growth rate between sugar and glutamine.

Lee

I have to admit that I do not understand how limiting sugar, and substances that turn into sugar, from the diet affects cancer cells. The body is very good at keeping the blood glucose level up, even with zero carb intake. Don't the cancer cells get fed from blood?

On a medical ketogenic diet (so protein-restricted, and maybe calorie restricted as well) the cancer may well likely starve. This article says this type of cancer cell can use glutamine in the absence of glucose, so that implicates protein intake as well as carb intake, hence the KD as opposed to Atkins, for example.

Our bodies do regulate BG level pretty well. But cancer cells as well as somatic cells will have to use that BG. And most of our somatic cells can run on ketones and fatty acids, even preferentially. Ketoadaptation will reduce the need for BG in the organism. The tissues that still need the glucose will get it, and the cancer will have to share. But cancer cell growth is a really energy-intensive endeavor. What little glucose/glutamine the cancer gets from the blood won't be enough to sustain aggressive growth, so it will slowly starve to death, bastard.

On the other hand, if the cancer is aggressive enough, meaning well-enough established and pervasive enough in using body resources for its own growth, the medical KD may not be sufficient to control or starve it.

Also, cancers seem to come in tons of different "flavors". for example, there's some specific cancer (I want to say a type of breast cancer, but I just can't remember well enough) that can use one of the ketone bodies for energy. I have no citation, can't remember where I saw this (PubMed? Somehwere else?). So a situation like this would warrant manipulating the ketogenic diet so as to produce less of one ketone body, if possible. Some of them can interconvert, so that might be tricky, I don't know.

There's evidence that suggests that cancer can "evolve" to a lmited extent, to use other resources. Here it can use glutamine. For glutamine to enter the TCA that's going to cost the cancer cell energy, so even if it can use glutamine, it probably won't be an optimal energy source for it.

What he said. Also, since insulin goes down and now all non-cancerous cells have access to much more fuel, the immune system is now stronger. It's stronger still by virtue of not being suppressed by all the carbs coming in. It's like taking weight from one side of the scale and putting it on the other side.

I posted about how carbs can cause cancer a few times before. Insulin and IGF-1 are anabolic. Advanced Glycated End-products, i.e. corrupted proteins; The enzyme that cleaves DNA is a protein. Cancer cells can only use glucose for fuel. The immune system is suppressed by carbs. That's the recipe for the creation of cancer.

The elimination of cancer thus requires that insulin and IGF-1 drop, AGE's are removed by ketosis and CMA, the fuel source is reduced, and the immune system returns to full strength. All of which are achieved through low-carb.