Cancer & Sugar - Strategy for Selective Starvation of Cancer

Cancer and Sugar - Strategy for Selective Starvation of Cancer

According to researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, sugar poses a health risk—contributing to around 35 million deaths globally each year. So high is sugar's toxicity that it should now be considered a potentially toxic substance like alcohol and tobacco. Its link with the onset of diabetes is such that punitive regulations, such as a tax on all foods and drinks that contain "added'' sugar, are now warranted, the researchers concluded. They also recommend banning sales in or near schools, as well as placing age limits on the sale of such products.

Sugar's harmful effects do not stop at diabetes, metabolic syndrome, hyper- and hypoglycemia, GERD and heart disease. Sugar and cancer are locked in a death grip, yet oncologists often fail to do what's necessary to stop their patients from feeding their cancers with sweets.

Whereas many within the mainstream medical community insist on promoting the belief that the link between certain types of food with an increased risk of cancer is "weak" or only "nominally significant." They believe that research "linking foodstuffs to cancer reveals no valid medical patterns." We also find such superficial attitudes promoted in the medical press-all of which lack any kind of medical depth.

An increasing number of medical scientists and many alternative practitioners know that the most logical, effective, safe, necessary and inexpensive way to treat cancer is to cut off the supply of food to tumors and cancer cells, starving them with a lack of glucose. The therapeutic strategy for selective starvation of tumors by dietary modification (ketogenic diet) is one of the principle forms of therapy that is necessary for cancer patients to win their war on cancer.

Researchers at Huntsman Cancer Institute in Utah were one of the first to discover that sugar "feeds" tumors. The research published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said, "It's been known since 1923 that tumor cells use a lot more glucose than normal cells. Our research helps show how this process takes place, and how it might be stopped to control tumor growth," says Don Ayer, Ph.D., a professor in the Department of Oncological Sciences at the University of Utah.

Dr. Thomas Graeber, a professor of molecular and medical pharmacology, has investigated how the metabolism of glucose affects the biochemical signals present in cancer cells. In research published June 26, 2012 in the journal Molecular Systems Biology, Graeber and his colleagues demonstrate that glucose starvation—that is, depriving cancer cells of glucose—activates a metabolic and signaling amplification loop that leads to cancer cell death as a result of the toxic accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS).[1]

Refined sugars are strongly linked to cancer, not only as a cause of it but also as something that feeds the cancer cells once a person has the disease—Nothing could be more important to consider in the attempt to improve the outcome of cancer treatments. The kinds of sugar so prevalent in today's standard American diet lead to cancer directly by causing inflammation throughout the body but in some places more than others depending on the individual and their constitution. Listen to this video and hear how simple this all really is. Once cancer cells are established in the body, they depend on steady glucose availability in the blood for their energy; they are not able to metabolize significant amounts of fatty acids or ketone bodies,[2]. so they need sugar.

Suppress/ Delay/ Slow/ Kill Cancer

Carbohydrates of one of the three macronutrients—the other two being fats and protein. There are simple carbohydrates and complex carbohydrates. Simple carbohydrates include sugars found naturally in foods such a fruits and fruit juices, sodas, some vegetables, white bread, white rice, pasta, milk and milk products, most snack foods, sweets, etc. But let us not forget the simple sugars added to foods during processing and refining that we may have no awareness of. It's the simple sugars that get most of the credit for causing the insulin response and glycation-associated inflammation that can lead to cancer.

Thus by reducing the amount of simple carbohydrates in the diet, the emergence of cancer can be suppressed or delayed, or the proliferation of already existing tumor cells can be slowed down, stopped and reversed by depriving the cancer cells of the food they need for survival.

Drs. Rainer Klement and Ulrike Kammerer conducted a comprehensive review of the literature involving dietary carbohydrates and their direct and indirect effect on cancer cells, which was published in October 2011 in the journal Nutrition and Metabolism, concluding that cancers are so sensitive to the sugar supply that cutting that supply will suppress cancer.[3] "Increased glucose flux and metabolism promotes several hallmarks of cancer such as excessive proliferation, anti-apoptotic signaling, cell cycle progression and angiogenesis."

Also, eating white sugar (or white anything) causes magnesium mineral deficiencies because the magnesium has been removed in the processing, making sugar a ripe target as a major cause of cancer because deficiencies in magnesium are not only pro-inflammatory but also pro-cancer.

More Ways to Cause Cancer with Sugar

High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) causes cancer in a unique way because much of it is contaminated with mercury due to the complex way it is made. High fructose corn syrup causes selenium deficiencies because the mercury in it binds with selenium, driving selenium levels downward. Selenium is crucial for glutathione production and its deficiency in soils tracks mathematically with cancer rates. Selenium and mercury are also eternal lovers having a strong affinity to bond with each other.

Already touched on briefly, excess sugar spikes insulin levels and insulin's eventual depletion. High insulin and insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) are needed for the control of blood sugar levels that result from chronic ingestion of high-carbohydrate meals (like the typical American diet, that is full of grains and sugars). Increased insulin levels are pro-inflammatory and pro-cancer and can directly promote tumor cell proliferation via the insulin/ IGF-1 signaling pathway.

Dr. Christine Horner has a lot to say to women about insulin and breast cancer:

When it comes to breast cancer, insulin is no friend. One of the biggest reasons is due to the fact that both normal breast cells and cancer cells have insulin receptors on them. When insulin attaches to its receptor, it has the same effect as when estrogen attaches to its receptor: it causes cells to start dividing. The higher your insulin levels are, the faster your breast cells will divide; the faster they divide, the higher your risk of breast cancer is and the faster any existing cancer cells will grow.

There's also another detriment that high insulin levels can inflict. It makes more estrogen available to attach to the estrogen receptors in breast tissue. Insulin regulates how much of the estrogen in your blood is available to attach to estrogen receptors in your breast tissue. When estrogen travels in the blood, it either travels alone seeking an estrogen receptor, or it travels with a partner, a protein binder, that prevents it from attaching to an estrogen receptor. Insulin regulates the number of protein binders in the blood. So, the higher your insulin levels are, the fewer the number of protein binders there will be and therefore the more free estrogen that will be available to attach to estrogen receptors.

In other words, when your insulin levels are up, free-estrogen levels are up, and both of them speed up cell division. That's why high insulin levels increase your risk of breast cancer so much. Eating sugar increases your risk of breast cancer in another way. It delivers a major blow to your immune system with the force of a prizefighter.

Dr. Horner talks about a study conducted by Harvard Medical School (2004) that found that women who, as teenagers, ate high-glycemic foods that increased their blood glucose levels had a higher incidence of breast cancer later in life. "So, encouraging your teenage daughter to cut back on sugar will help her to lower her risk of breast cancer for the rest of her life," she said.

Sugar, Inflammation, Angiogenesis & Cancer

Sugars and the inflammation and acidic environments they create are important constituents of the local environment of tumors. In most types of cancer inflammatory conditions are present before malignancy changes occur. "Smoldering inflammation in tumor microenvironments has many tumor-promoting effects. Inflammation aids in the proliferation and survival of malignant cells, promotes angiogenesis and metastasis, subverts adaptive immune responses, and alters responses to hormones and chemotherapeutic agents."[4]

Continue to Page 2

Pages :
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Why wait till you get cancer?



Why wait to get cancer in the first s place and then try to starve it? The Cure and Prevention of All Cancers, 2007, Clark H R, PhD ND, gives us ALL the precisely identified causes of all cancers; these are the specific parasites, bacteria, viruses, heavy metals, dyes, moulds, radioactive compounds, food allergens etc. and their pathways.We can today interrupt these pathways and stop a malignancy, and ..prevent. Dr Clark's works since 1995 are based on over half a million repeatable, so scientifically VALID bio-resonance tests. The fact that mainstream refuses to 'recognise' the work of Dr Clark does NOT invalidate the science, nor indicate harm or in-effectiveness. It merely protects the 1/10th trillion $ annual Cancer Industry, and,makes it illegal for your doc to even mention it, and for scientists to include these facets in their work.

In 30+ years of medical transcription



In 30+ years of medical transcription, I never ONCE had a doctor dictate that he had asked a patient about their diet. If mentioned at all, it's a vague admonition to an already-diabetic patient to 'eat right'. I think everyone presumes that everyone else eats like they do; whether they survive on Twinkies, soda pop and potato chips from the corner store in an inner city food 'desert' or they have a stay at home wife in a gated community who can shop for the best organic vegetables and spends hours lovingly preparing the evening meal... I was just diagnosed a few weeks ago with breast cancer and just finished watching the movie 'Pink Ribbons, Inc.' last night. The amount of money being wasted in corporate shilling masquerading as 'Run for the Cure' or some such nonsense is horrifying; meanwhile women are never told of the alternative, common sense treatments that could prevent and treat cancer; only of the horrifically expensive, painful and toxic 'standard of care' slash, burn and poison treatments. Cancer is treated like a Viking invader to be repelled at all costs even including the destruction of the local village (notice the statistics rarely say someone died of cancer, it's usually kidney failure from the toxic chemo, conveniently 5+ years after the first diagnosis). Try to bring up selenium supplements, high dose Vitamin C or cannabis and you'll find out that you're in a no-man's-land of taboo subjects. If the statistics were not massaged by BS about '5 year survival rates' that are artificially high because of 'early detection' (meaning the countdown starts earlier, not that more are 'cured') I wonder how successful the corporate medical model would actually be? How many women have been told they are cured only to find out a few months later that their cancer has now come back with a vengeance, untreatable by any means, and yet for statistical purposes, they are considered a cure?

Cancer & Sugar: simple carbohydrates



This is an excellent article. However, I would like to point out that wheat, any wheat, whether highly refined white flour or so-called "healthy whole wheat" has a higher glycemic index rating than white table sugar (sucrose). Modern wheat has been so hybridized in order to make better yields that it is, basically, a genetically modified food now. Even whole wheat will be turned into glucose faster than most other foods and spike your insulin levels. And, since sugar feeds cancer, a wise person would get all wheat out of his or her diet. Secondary benefits would be weight loss, control or elimination of diabetes, and other auto-immune diseases. In his excellent book, "Wheat Belly," Dr. William Davis (a preventative cardiolgist) explains all this and more. This is another reason why I am following "modern" paleo diet. No, I don't hunt and gather. But I have given up all grains and limit my legumes and potatos. I eat a high fat--natural, healthy saturated fats--moderate protein, and low carbohydrate diet, with plenty of fresh garden vegetables and leafy greens. From a human evolutionary standpoint when it comes to diet, there is no such thing as a healthy whole grain.

Shocking "medical" use of sucrose in infants



Excellent article!

On an additional note: many hospitals and healthcare providers have started to recommend feeding concentrated sugar solutions to infants as "pain medication" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23045554

No wonder we create another generation of "I want" children early trained to addiction.

Are we still surprised that childhood obesity, metabolic disease, cancer etc. rates are up?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to write a comment