scratch-mark

More on Cancer

I previously blogged about a couple of different cancer therapies a couple of weeks ago. That was to call attention to two previous posts dealing with what I'll just call a pretty obvious way to prevent cancer in the first place, or treat existing ones.

If indeed this evolutionary, ancestral, primal way of eating, going hungry, and engaging in activity represents an effective treatment for cancer, then what do you suppose that says as to the validity of this evolutionary approach, and how might you suspect this approach to living works to prevent cancer?

Now Dr. Eades blogs about this issue. Actually, it turns out to be about one of the articles I alerted my readers to way back in April.

Cancer cells get their energy, not like normal cells, from the mitochondrial oxidation of fat, but from glycolysis, the breakdown of glucose withing the cytoplasm (the liquid part of the cell). This different metabolism of cancer cells that sets them apart from normal cells is called the Warburg effect. Warburg thought until his dying day that this difference is what causes cancer, and although it is true that people with elevated levels of insulin and glucose do develop more cancers, most scientists in the field don’t believe that the Warburg effect is the driving force behind the development of cancer.

But it stands to reason that it can be used to treat cancer that is already growing. Since cancers can’t really get nourishment from anything but glucose, it stands to reason that cutting off this supply would, at the very least, slow down tumor growth, especially in aggressive, fast-growing cancers requiring a lot of glucose to fuel their rapid growth.

[…]

If you understand the Warburg effect and the metabolism of cancer cells, it’s easy to see why this therapy works, even in patients who at at death’s door. Since the cancers can use only glucose, and since glucose is made in the cancer cells slowly and inefficiently, the cancer cells have to rely on outside glucose to provide nourishment for their rapid growth and replication. People on very-low-carb diets produce ketones, which take the place of glucose in other cells that can use these ketones for fuel. But cancer cells can’t use the ketones since ketones have to be burned in the mitochondria, which are dysfunctional in cancer cells. If you can keep blood sugar low, then growth of the cancer cells may be held in check long enough for the body’s own previously overwhelmed immune system to rally and beat the vulnerable cancer back.

Just imagine it. How strange; and unlikely, eh? You take a diet that approximates that of pre-agricultural man, i.e., the diet he ate for 2.5 million years vs. the last ten thousand years, and you can slow or beat cancer in many cases. And if you fast three days prior to having chemo, contrary to not "building up your strength," it actually sets up your healthy cells to be five times more resistant to the chemical poisoning of chemotherapy than cancer cells.

No miracles or silver bullets. Just a simple and nutritious existence, and doing what animals do when they get sick: stop eating.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

1 Comment

  1. More on Sugar and Cancer | Free The Animal on August 18, 2009 at 15:35

    […] More on Cancer […]

Leave a Comment





Pinterest118k
YouTube798
YouTube
Follow by Email8k
RSS780