If you starved cancer of glucose..

[fullofbeans]

how long would it take for the cancer cells to die?

Ok I know it might be a silly question. But I am wondering, if one was to fast (or go on an Atkins diet, I would definitly not advise this) would it starve off the cancer cells since cancer cells can only use glucose and since cancer is glucose greedy and require a lot of it, would it not die off after a reasonably short time? it seems so simple but conceptually quite sound..

There are some research being carried out and clinical trial researching this 'cancer buster' path for example by interfering with glycolysis:
http://www.thresholdpharm.com/sec/pipe_2deoxyglucose

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cg...ull/62/14/3909


Research is quite clear that elevated blood glucose is cancer factor as we all already know

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...=pubmed_docsum

I noticed that a lot of the supplement indicated for cancer (e.g. Reishi mushroom)have a tendency to reduce blood glucose

Any feedback on fasting/ breast cancer very welcome but for everyone the following is well worth reading;
http://faculty.washington.edu/ely/JOM1.html

Extract:"
Aggressive Glycemic Control in Humans and Animals
This simple Glucose Ascorbate Antagonism theory gives rise naturally to "Aggressive Glycemic Control" (AGC) as a modality that, properly used, appears to have much value against the disorders named above. The main features were: (1) planned ³primitive diet² with reduction of caloric intake (and minimizing refined carbohydrate, rCHO); (2) ascorbic acid (40 milligrams/kg or more, tid); and (3) planned increase in exercise to bring blood glucose into the 75 mg% range (or as low as possible without stress). In 1978 and 1979, two stage-4 breast cancer patients with large tumor burdens, worsening rapidly ("one month" prognoses) although already on chemotherapy, elected to use AGC and both became tumor free in six months (reaching normal weight by losing 40 and 60 pounds respectively) and were still alive in 1992. At least three other humans have been observed to experience rapid tumor-free recoveries from advanced cancer while undergoing insulin-coma therapy, originally planned for their psychoses (Koroljow 1962; and pvt. commun.). An American Cancer Society Institutional Research Committee (at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the University of Washington) approved AGC as a research topic in 1983. We were able to reproduce the human result strikingly in an animal model showing strong glycemic modulation of tumor tolerance (Santisteban 1985). The very significantly different (p<.005) mortalities in three groups of mice, 70 days after injection with an aggressive mammary tumor, were: (1) 16 of 24 (slightly) hyperglycemic mice (GHb 5.36); 8 of 24 normoglycemic (GHb 4.67); and (3) only 2 of 20 hypoglycemic (GHb 3.69)."


Many thanks for your comments

[Becky]

However, all food ingested gets converted to glucose - it is the only fuel all cells of the body use - normal cells and cancer cells. Everything you eat - meat, cheese etc gets converted. The conversion is faster (sweets, fruit, refined carbs), moderate (whole grains, veggies, beans, squashes) or slow (meat, eggs, fats). Slow conversion is what one wants in order to be able to better regulate insulin output in the body - therefore moderate and slow foods with low glycemic index are best. And eatting high glycemic foods (to include fruit) should be done with the slower foods to get a mashed "mix" in the stomach to slow down the sugar rush into the bloodstream.

So, if you really try to starve cancer, you might also starve yourself.

[fullofbeans]

Thanks for your answer Becki, but I am afraid I have to disagree;

Glucose is regarded as the preferred energy source for all cells in the body with ketosis (fat burning) being regarded as a crisis reaction of the body to a lack of carbohydrates in the diet.

Glucose is be used by all cells but in order to burn fat you need to enter the krebs cycle (aerobic process). Most cancer cells only uses anaerobic processes (Glycolysis).

Once glycogen store have been used up after about 48 hours, the adult brain starts burning ketones in order to more directly utilize the energy from the fat stores that are being depended upon, and to reserve the glucose only for its absolute needs, thus avoiding the depletion of the body's protein store in the muscles.

Alaska Angel posted about this trial a while ago, where they put people on an Atkins diet (kind of), so I would not be so quick at dismissing whole idea if they have bothered studying this idea:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/gui...4054?order=100

This kind of diet high fats and proteins medically can be referred to as ketogenic diet as the effect of reproducing body under fasting condition. Please at this point fasting (use of fatty reserves) must not be confused with starvation.

Secondly Anaerobic pathways (without oxygen) yield 2 ATP’s per unit of glucose. This is the type of pathway that most cancers utilise. Aerobic pathways (with oxygen) yield 32 ATP’s, a much more efficient system. Normal cells utilise the aerobic pathways, therefore in period of low blood sugar your normal body cells should survive much much longer than abnormal cells.

Other benefit of fasting includes regeneration of organs such as liver through rest, increase of immune system (80% usually used in digestive purpose).
I think have just convinced myself..:-)

[R.B.]

http://faculty.washington.edu/ely/JOM1.html

Is the "primitive diet" not multifactoral in its impact?. Clearly metabolism change (which involves a host of mechanisms) will be one impact , but there will be a host of others for most to including lipids, sodium, acid balance etc.

Dietary change is clearly a recognised potential strategy for risk reduction, and some of the suggested risk reduction factors are not insignificant 50-70% for various facets.

There are lots of posts on diet on this site. Balancing omega three and six is another area you might find interesting.

Please discuss any significant dietary changes with your medical adviser.


RB

[fullofbeans]

Dear R.B

I agree about balancing omega 3 &6. As I agree about eating veg and fruits for antioxidant etc..

And of course I agree with all the previous postings regarding sustainable long term diet (complex sugar, veg etc..). and agree with Becki to keep a low blood sugar, & about GI
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...=pubmed_docsum


However i must insist that fasting is a total different discussion in nature to the above, it is about a short (few weeks) 'treatment'.

Since posting I have found accounts of autolytic disintegration of tumours inc. malignant (absorbed by the body as food during fasting). I know 'accounts' as oppose to trials will not count as valid on this site and I agree one should always be careful about these. However issues about sugar & cancer as mainly been ignored by the medical world until quite recently. In my first thread in this post I have mentioned a few studies starting to use this weakness. Only 2 ATP (energy unit) from Glycolisis (fermentation) makes cancer cell very sugar hungry indeed (PET scan principle) compared to 32 ATP derived from Kreps cycle.

My chemo was to give an extra 13% chance that cancer would not recur..I do not think that fasting is the answer at 100% but perhaps it may work sometimes which would explain cases of remission when people are close to death (and close to starvation). Fasting as been use since antiquities to heal and is part of many religious practice.

Regarding asking my doctors. The last time I saw my surgeon he said to me 'you will recur', which I thought it was really nasty and uncessary, especially when he knows how much I invested myself to become a NED (I designed my own prog was told that nothing could be done). When I saw my oncologist and asked him what monitoring program was planned he said that they would scan when I could feel something is wrong, they stopped doing blood samples and I had to request to carry on with scans and tumour markers. Brain MRI is a no no and I will have to fake a headache, this is the UK you know.. Pet scan is a unreachable dream..Cancer patients have much less chance of long term survival here than in the US or Western Europe..The food available in the wards consist of sugary treats and white bread sandwiches with more E numbers than toppings...

[Carolyns]

Full of Beans,

It sounds interesting. Are you planning on fasting? I have only done it for very short periods.

Interesting topic.

Love, Hope, and Peace,

Carolyns

[Mary Jo]

Yes, I would agree. This is a very interesting post. It's something I've often pondered as well. I remember my oncologist at our first meeting together. She asked me if I had thought about the why to cancer. I only vaguely remember what she said at that time, but I'll always remember her statement saying "next to not starving yourself is the next best thing." I'm not sure if this is how she said it, but I think that was the gist of what she wanted to get across. I've always thought on that statement.

Mary Jo

[fullofbeans]

Hi Carolyns & Marejo,

Yes I am actually thinking about fasting, and interesting comment from your onco indeed.

It has been in my mind for quite a while and somewhat I sense & feel that for me at least, it is the right plan of action. I think that it is much healthier to fast than to go on a Atkins type of diet (as per the clinical trial mentioned above).

Considering also that my liver is looking like swiss cheese. I think that giving a rest to my liver can only be beneficial too.

The vaccination program I am currently enrolled with would be boosted since it is well reported in medical paper that fasting enhance immune system.

I think there are a lot of people worried as soon as you mention fasting because they associate it with yoyo diet, anorexia and starvation as oppose to using up your reserve.

How long in human history has it been since we (westerners only) have been able to feed on three meals a day? We are basically equipped to fast and many beneficial protectrice molecules are created during fasting. It is a great detox.

The only thing I do no know is how long I should fast for. Accounts mention 7 to 30 days.
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201...020127.ch5.htm

extract:"
Bernarr Macfadden says: "My experience of fasting has shown me beyond all possible doubt that a foreign growth of any kind can be absorbed into the circulation by simply compelling the body to use every unnecessary element contained within it for food. When a foreign growth has become hardened, sometimes one long fast will not accomplish the result, but where they are soft, the fast will usually cause them to be absorbed."
A small tumorous growth which had existed for more than twenty years was absorbed during Mr. Pearson's longest fast and did not return thereafter. Dr. Hazzard records the recovery, during a fifty-five days' fast, of a case diagnosed by physicians as cancer of the stomach. Tilden, Weger, Rabagliati and many others record many such cases.
I have seen repeated instances of the absorption of tumors in my own patients. I had one complete recovery in the case of a uterine cancer during a thirty days' fast. I have seen numerous small tumors completely absorbed and large ones greatly reduced in size.
"

I also think that the reason it may not work is that as reported by the news scientist (sometimes last year I think) is that some cancer cells were initially stem cells which makes them extremely resistant and are able to go dormant.

I had past experience of kind of fasting in the past when I was emotionally strained. For example during my final exams at school I lost my appetite for about two to three weeks, only forcing myself to eat few bits, I was fine (I passed with honours!). I remember feeling v. energetic and very well after. I think it will be hard, but planning on starting next week, will report later!!

[mamacze]

Kxxx,
I have been very interested in fasting as well; but worry about getting other necessary nutrients at the same time. I have consequently given "green juice" and wheat grass juicing a try with great success; and feel it is realistic to go on a long fast as long as I stay hydrated with this healthy alternative.
What will you be drinking during your fast? Keep us posted on your progress please! Your thoughts are intriquing and motivating!
Love Kim from CT

[R.B.]

Dear Fullofbeans,

Your original post did not suggest that fasting was the only option on your mind. It suggested the general subject of sugars and cancer, and hence I suspect the direction of replies.

I know nothing about fasting at a biology level.

As you observe you will be using up reserves. Presumably the intention is to take the body back to some earlier state by ridding of of toxins etc and denying the cancerous cells nutrition if you have any at the present time .

I do not understand cancer cell energy metabolism or the Krebs? cycle well enough to comment.

In fasting common sense would suggest that you will liberate what ever is in your fat reserves which will include a reflection of your historic fat intake. If you had an omega three six imbalance you will be running the body on that imbalance. A high six ratio supports higher levels of inflammatory products. The body protects DHA in the brain and eyes but where DHA is used it will be replaced by omega six which is less beneficial.

An absolute fast will also loose you the benefit of positive elements of diet, and could aggravate a nutritional deficit if any.

A very restricted diet combined with monitoring would be another alternative, and prepare the body for a fast if that was a later decision.

If you do fast or dietary restrict I would give serious thought to maintaining some omega three intake to balancing your omega six as it is drawn down. I know nothing about fast but have read a lot about fats.

There are different levels of fast.

Here is a link on fast which I have just searched.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psycho...ology/fast.htm

A fast is a very serious step particularly for somebody coming out of treatment where there are a great many unkowns in terms of nutritional statues, impact on the body of treatments, aromatase inhibitors etc etc. Fasting will change your hormone levels etc.

You clearly must discuss this with your medical advisor, and should so far as possible monitor everything you can.

I wish you well what ever your decision.

[Mary Jo]

Yes, R.B., you are right. My interest in the original post was peaked by the sugar/cancer connection and "starving" our bodies, as it were of the sugar. After reading Becky's post however, I came to realize that yes, she is correct in her response and that the types of sugar we put into our bodies and at what time is most important.

I still think on what I posted earlier. I think what my oncologis was trying to say to me was "eat to live." NOT "live to eat" as most of us used to do or continue to do. Our bodies truly are complex machines and they do not require all the "crap" that is out there (don't you love my medical lingo - hehe) ~ a simple, back to nature diet, sunshine and exercise is what's best for all of us.

The fasting thing has always been something that is intriguing to me BUT I surely couldn't do it for any length of time, nor would I want to try. Honestly, I don't think I could function. I have thought of a 24 hour fast though just for cleansing effect but haven't done that either.

Oh well - just chiming in.

Mary Jo

[fullofbeans]

Hi all,

Yes juice fast is an alternative that must work if little is consumed however the article from R.B above is clear:

"Ketosis is subdued by drinking plenty of fruit juices, which provide simple carbohydrates for energy and cellular functioning. "

Which is what we are trying to avoid!!

we want only fatty acids as a food source with I would think little carbohydrate such a some wheatgrass (a shot or 2)and perhaps a small glass of green juice. These would be used in priority for the brain. All other part of our body can function on fatty acids for years!

Of course one should not do this if they do not have sufficient fat reserves, but hey I do so it will be a nice side effect aswell...

Also http://www.thresholdpharm.com/sec/targeting
extract"When these cells shift energy production to glycolysis, they must increase the levels of the proteins needed to transport and metabolize glucose. Metabolic Targeting takes advantage of these metabolic differences to selectively target certain diseased cells."

And guess what? in 2004 they identified increased level (overexpression) of glucose transporter protein on breast cancer cells especially in the agressive cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...&dopt=Abstract

This is not surprising considering that they obtain only 2ATP from Glycolysis..as oppose to 32 ATP (in the citric acid cycle i.e. krebs ) in normal cells..the contrary would have been surprising in fact..if they are to grow they will need sugar. law of nature. The only worry is that some cancer have the ability to send messages to start protoletic(? spelling) process (cachexia) and therefore obtain food whatever you eat, 40% of cancer cases die of starvation actually. But Cachexia is extremely rare in breast cancer.

I will have to print this post and read it every morning to keep on track during the fast..I repeat I do not think that it works for all they are many complex issues around cancer. But hey chemo does not often work for us either. What I find amazing is the fear surrounding fasting but hey yes put some mustard gas (chemo) through your vein no problem..By the way since it is free to fast so there will never be a trial to test this and I, for one, would not only pursue this option as an ultimate treatment.

[dlaxague]

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

[AlaskaAngel]

Lots of good discussion on this board over time about sugar and cancer. Debbie's comments about insulin help. I tend to think of carbs as being more of a "boost" for any lurking cancer, or a "fast food" for cancer to access when eaten to any degree of excess, so I avoid carbs and in particular simple carbs.

Besides, why take in anything that taken in excess will create the fat that produces more aromatase?

I think it is important to use every natural weapon we have against recurrence (buying organic; exercise; sunshine/vitamin D; and diet). Cancer is complicated and the answers probably are too.

A.A.

P.S. What would be the effect of fasting plus some increased exercise?

[Leslie's sister]

this is a very interesting thread. I am a long distance runner and I have to say what Becky has explained in her post is right. Everything we eat gets converted into glucose, even protein and fats. Simple carbohydrates are just a quicker way raise the blood sugar because they don't have to be converted like fats and proteins. I'm explaining it very simplistic because I'm not an expert but if you google the topic there is a myriad of information out there on it. If glucose is bad, we are all in trouble because glucose is the fuel our body uses to keep us alive.

[fullofbeans]

Thanks Debbie

I agree about insuline problem and indeed Diabetics have an increase incidence of cancer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...=pubmed_docsum
. But here I am presuming no insuline problem. Although we refer to blood sugar there are various type of sugar in the blood and in fact these can varie quite a bit in fact in range 70 to 150mg/dL and that is the normal range! and secondly yes we are all different and more importantly our cancer cells are different we each of us have cells that have mutated in one way or another with some commun features such as Her2. I never said that fasting is useful 100% of the time, nothing is as we know.

Anyhow I will finish with this post but hopefully will let some pounder on the following

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...=pubmed_DocSum
study in 1985

Three groups of BALB/C mice were injected with an aggressive mammary tumor and placed on three dietary regimens designed to produce three different glycemic levels. Mortalities 70 days after injection were 16 of 24 hyperglycemic mice, 8 of 24 normoglycemic, and 1 of 20 hypoglycemic (chi-square p less than .005). Taken together with other experiments and human data discussed briefly, this result suggests that glycemic modulation of tumor tolerance should be evaluated in human trials.

They never were any follow up.. there are no money to be made in fasting.

However I am looking forward to the result of the current study (mention above) which is putting people on a high fat low carb diet (ketogenic diet) and measuring the size of their tumours with PET scan after 4 weeks. If there is no basis in what I said I would be grateful for someone to explain why they would have such a clinical trial?

[AlaskaAngel]

Additional thoughts on your original question:

I too am interested in the PET scan results in that trial.

What do you do if fasting "works" to some degree, but can't kill all the cancer cells without killing the human? Periodic fasting?

Would the fasting manage to kill enough cancer cells to reduce the tumor burden enough to allow the immune system to do its natural function of maintaining health?

Would it work at all for those who have already damaged their immune system response and bone/blood maintenance system with chemotherapy?

[fullofbeans]

Glucose vs fats (Leslie's sister and Becky):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatty_acid
Most of the natural fatty acids have an even number of carbon atoms, because their biosynthesis involves acetyl-CoA, a coenzyme carrying a two-carbon-atom group (see fatty acid synthesis).

And
Acetyl-CoA Acetyl-CoA is produced during the second step of aerobic cellular respiration, pyruvate decarboxylation, which occurs in the matrix of the mitochondria. Acetyl-CoA then enters Krebs Cycle.

In brief fats are used in the Krebs cycle (aerobic process) only in normal cells. In even more simple term cancer cannot use fats! at least this is what I understand. Should you not agree or have any further info I would appreciate a backed up response to your argument, thank you. To me this is why the trial of high fat diet is being carried out, what else?

Yes AlaskaAngel I am interested about result too.

Regrading your question of how long before killing them off goes back to my initial question. But I have now think that there is no answer to that since it is likely to depend on the particular mutation of the cancer cell. On your question about immune system, I think that by simply cutting off or reducing severly carbohydrate (complex and simple) is the main idea behind this. However enhance immune system when fasting can only be a bonus. Immune system is not systematically damaged by chemo thanks god.

Again I insist I do not think it is a cure and it might work o.1% of the time but hey..

[R.B.]

This is fascinating. It is great to have somebody so knowledgeable about.

You are helping me clarify things I do not understand or had only partially grasped.

Can you clarify when the body burns fats and when it burns glucose in normal conditions in lay terms?

In this link http://www.thresholdpharm.com/sec/targeting there is a picture of a cancer green (no oxygen)and red surrounding area labelled "rapidly dividing".

Is the rapidly dividing what is referred to as the stromal bed, a sort of cancer nursery?

Is this red area able to burn fats. IF it is able to burn fats (or glucose) could this be the area they are trying to target in the "Atkins diet" trial.

Would not the burning of fats produce things like "peroxides" which might then be able to zap the cells in the red area?.

Do the green cells (no oxygen) retain the ability (dormant) to burn fats but do not for some reason eg;
Do not have access to the right fats ?
Have damaged fat transportation in the cell membrane?
Have they mutated or the mitochonria been damaged? etc.


Do they know why non oxygen burning cancer cells do not burn fats?

Many thanks

RB

[R.B.]

The flow of events is sometimes beguiling.

I ask a question raised by your post go off to look for something else and up it pops or at least part.

It does recognise BC lines have abnormal energy utilisation.

There are several trials on fats and BC herceptin consideration of lipid rafts etc. So it would look as if fats and particularly omega three and six are part of this some how.

I have only skimmed this but it seems to be saying that the boundaries between non-oxygen and fat burning cancer is not as clear cut as commonly suggested - AND that whilst some may be irreparably damaged some my just have had the fat supply line cut / higher demand / insufficient supply.


More questions than answers - There are not enough hours in the day to read everything!

RB


http://content.febsjournal.org/cgi/c...ull/274/6/1393

"In early studies on energy metabolism of tumor cells, it was proposed that the enhanced glycolysis was induced by a decreased oxidative phosphorylation. Since then it has been indiscriminately applied to all types of tumor cells that the ATP supply is mainly or only provided by glycolysis, without an appropriate experimental evaluation".....................

"All tumor cell types show an enhanced glycolytic flux; however, not all have a diminished mitochondrial metabolic capacity. Therefore, the take-home message is that not all tumor cell types depend exclusively on glycolysis for ATP supply; some may equally or predominantly rely on oxidative phosphorylation. In consequence, the driving force for the enhanced glycolysis in tumor cells cannot be an energy deficiency induced only by a damaged oxidative phosphorylation. The accelerated cellular proliferation may also impose an energy deficiency (as well as a higher demand for glycolytic and Krebs cycle biosynthetic intermediaries), which can only be covered by an increased glycolysis together with an unperturbed oxidative phosphorylation."