HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post

dlaxague · 06-24-2007, 06:03 AM

Hi, this thread interests me as I've eaten low carb for years - since before cancer (thus not a very good poster child for low carb r/t cancer). My first point is that I don't think the discussion of cancer r/t simple sugar intake has to do much with glucose levels - it's the insulin levels that are probably more relevant to cancer stimulation. Insulin is a growth factor. In response to large boluses of simple carbs, the body (the pancreas) tends to overshoot in its response - large amounts of insulin enters the circulation, the glucose is metabolised, and leftover insulin remains. Over time, the cells become resistant to the insulin, because if they allow the insulin to process all the glucose, they die - glucose is essential for life. As they become resistant, more insulin is needed for basic metabolism, and more insulin remains in circulation all the time. Unless you're talking frank diabetes, glucose levels in the blood of most of us does not vary much - there is always enough to sustain metabolism of both normal cells and cancer cells.

My second point is simply observational. Each of us inhabit bodies that are distinctly different from each other, in all ways but for this discusssion - think about metabolism. We probably all know people who become ill if they don't eat frequent meals. OTOH, people like me can go all day without food and not notice much of a physical difference, although mentally we may think we're hungry because we miss the pleasure of eating. There's something fundamentally different about how our bodies use and store food. I assume that we've evolved differently, some more capable of sustaining health during periods of (involuntary) fasting, some less tolerant of that (perhaps because our tribe always experienced abundance?), some evolving to digest/metabolise certain kinds of diets that others could not (ie: eskimos living almost excusively on meat/fat). So a fast could have drastically different effects, depending on our body's own unique capabilities of metabolism. At least it seems so to me.

Debbie Laxague

06-24-2007, 06:03 AM	#13
dlaxague Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 221	Two points Hi, this thread interests me as I've eaten low carb for years - since before cancer (thus not a very good poster child for low carb r/t cancer). My first point is that I don't think the discussion of cancer r/t simple sugar intake has to do much with glucose levels - it's the insulin levels that are probably more relevant to cancer stimulation. Insulin is a growth factor. In response to large boluses of simple carbs, the body (the pancreas) tends to overshoot in its response - large amounts of insulin enters the circulation, the glucose is metabolised, and leftover insulin remains. Over time, the cells become resistant to the insulin, because if they allow the insulin to process all the glucose, they die - glucose is essential for life. As they become resistant, more insulin is needed for basic metabolism, and more insulin remains in circulation all the time. Unless you're talking frank diabetes, glucose levels in the blood of most of us does not vary much - there is always enough to sustain metabolism of both normal cells and cancer cells. My second point is simply observational. Each of us inhabit bodies that are distinctly different from each other, in all ways but for this discusssion - think about metabolism. We probably all know people who become ill if they don't eat frequent meals. OTOH, people like me can go all day without food and not notice much of a physical difference, although mentally we may think we're hungry because we miss the pleasure of eating. There's something fundamentally different about how our bodies use and store food. I assume that we've evolved differently, some more capable of sustaining health during periods of (involuntary) fasting, some less tolerant of that (perhaps because our tribe always experienced abundance?), some evolving to digest/metabolise certain kinds of diets that others could not (ie: eskimos living almost excusively on meat/fat). So a fast could have drastically different effects, depending on our body's own unique capabilities of metabolism. At least it seems so to me. Debbie Laxague