Welcome to the new Cancer Survivors Network website! Existing members can click HERE to review the changes and new features on CSN.

Lemonade?

Buckwirth
Buckwirth Member Posts: 1,258
edited April 2011 in Colorectal Cancer #1
«1

Comments

  • pepebcn
    pepebcn Member Posts: 6,331
    Lemon, strawberry,asparagus , what else?
    I eat tons of both in my life !
    Take care !
  • pepebcn said:

    Lemon, strawberry,asparagus , what else?
    I eat tons of both in my life !
    Take care !

    This comment has been removed by the Moderator
  • thxmiker
    thxmiker Member Posts: 1,278
    I love citrus fruits and
    I love citrus fruits and live where they grow like weeds. (NW of Los Angeles) We also eat various citrus fruits all year long in abundance, and yet I still had cancer.

    I could not stomach citrus fruits when I was on chemo at all. A small sweet variety tangerine I could stomach. (Cuties or Tangeolos) A half of a glass of citrus juice and I was running to the toilet. Now that Chemo is over I am eating oranges and even had a glass of Grapefruit juice. I have not dared to eat a lemon yet. (I love the miller lemons.)

    Best Always, mike
  • SisterSledge
    SisterSledge Member Posts: 332
    Different strokes for different folks
    One thing to keep in mind, since we all react to individually to things...the reaction one person has to a treatment may be entirely different than another will experience. To me, it makes sense to try things on your body that seem likely to be helpful and non-harmful even if there is not consensus on the efficacy...it might work for me :)
  • Buckwirth
    Buckwirth Member Posts: 1,258

    Different strokes for different folks
    One thing to keep in mind, since we all react to individually to things...the reaction one person has to a treatment may be entirely different than another will experience. To me, it makes sense to try things on your body that seem likely to be helpful and non-harmful even if there is not consensus on the efficacy...it might work for me :)

    Charles Huggins
    Was a young Urological surgeon at University of Chicago in the late 1920's. Having no real experience with operating on bladders, kidneys, genitals or the prostate, he was having difficulty finding patients, so he set up a lab to study prostatic fluid, which he extracted from the prostates of dogs.

    He noticed that if the dog was fixed, the prostrate was shriveled, but that if he injected the animal with testosterone it revived to its full glory.

    Many of the dogs came to him with cancer of the prostate (something that only happens in humans, dogs and lions) and initially, since all he wanted was the fluid, he thought these useless. However, he tried castrating one of the animals he found that the cancer shriveled with the prostate!

    In the 1890's George Beatson had noticed something similar with breast cancer (it was actually something he garnered listening to the local dairy farmers discussing their cattle, he just decided to see if his human patients reacted the same way). If the uterus is removed almost 2/3rds of the time the cancer dies. Of course at this time no one knew what estrogen was, and the experiment was quickly forgotten.

    Turns out there are at least two kinds of breast cancer, ER positive and ER negative (ER stands for Estrogen Receptor) that is why it did not work for all the patients. In 1962 a patent was filed in England for what was supposed to have been a birth control pill, however, instead of the intended effect of enhancing Estrogen, it stopped it cold, and was considered of no use as a drug, until its creators remembered the bit about ER Positive tumors and wondered if it could be used in the fight against cancer... Thus was born Tamoxifen, the first drug to target a specific pathway in the tumor itself rather than a general cellular poison that destroyed indiscriminately.

    So yes, you are correct that there are differences. Even those who seemingly have the same cancer, in the same location can have differences, and what works for one may not work for another.
  • Kathryn_in_MN
    Kathryn_in_MN Member Posts: 1,252
    Have always loved citrus
    My mother was amazed that I loved lemons as a baby. All my life I have eaten a lot of lemons, limes, and grapefruit. Unfortunately I still got colon cancer. I stopped eating red meat at age 17. I had a huge organic garden and froze and canned most of what we ate out of season. Non-smoker. Never overweight. Moderate to heavy exercise all my life.

    I don't think citrus can hurt at all. And I still have as much as I can tolerate. But I don't think it can be a cure for me. Might work for someone else though. We all react differently.
  • Buckwirth
    Buckwirth Member Posts: 1,258
    "However, the best that can
    "However, the best that can be said at this point is that citrus fruits may potentially harbor anti-cancer properties that could help ward off cancer. No reputable scientific or medical studies have reported that lemons have been found to be a "proven remedy against cancers of all types," nor has any of the (conveniently unnamed) "world's largest drug manufacturers" reported discovering that lemons are "10,000 times stronger than chemotherapy" and that their ingestion can "destroy malignant [cancer] cells." All of those claims are hyperbole and exaggeration not supported by facts. "
  • thxmiker said:

    I love citrus fruits and
    I love citrus fruits and live where they grow like weeds. (NW of Los Angeles) We also eat various citrus fruits all year long in abundance, and yet I still had cancer.

    I could not stomach citrus fruits when I was on chemo at all. A small sweet variety tangerine I could stomach. (Cuties or Tangeolos) A half of a glass of citrus juice and I was running to the toilet. Now that Chemo is over I am eating oranges and even had a glass of Grapefruit juice. I have not dared to eat a lemon yet. (I love the miller lemons.)

    Best Always, mike

    This comment has been removed by the Moderator
  • thxmiker
    thxmiker Member Posts: 1,278
    unknown said:

    This comment has been removed by the Moderator

    Miller Lemon
    Miller Lemons have thick skins similar to a grapefruit and the are the size of an orange. They have a really bright yellow skin and are much sweeter and have larger pulp then normal lemons. Millers are a popular citrus tree in SoCal for a private yard. There are some commercially grown, but a small percentage of the overall commercial lemon crop.

    Best Always, mike
  • PGLGreg
    PGLGreg Member Posts: 731
    zest
    The first part of the article (as far as I read) attributes anticancer activity to lemonene, which it says is in lemon zest. Unless you make lemonade in an unusual way, that doesn't imply that lemonade would be helpful in fighting cancer.

    --Greg
  • Buckwirth
    Buckwirth Member Posts: 1,258
    PGLGreg said:

    zest
    The first part of the article (as far as I read) attributes anticancer activity to lemonene, which it says is in lemon zest. Unless you make lemonade in an unusual way, that doesn't imply that lemonade would be helpful in fighting cancer.

    --Greg

    ?
    The title is a play on words, nothing more.
  • Buckwirth said:

    ?
    The title is a play on words, nothing more.

    This comment has been removed by the Moderator
  • pete43lost_at_sea
    pete43lost_at_sea Member Posts: 3,900
    unknown said:

    This comment has been removed by the Moderator

    thanks blake and graci
    i'll add some lemon to my jiucing when i get home.
    i was advised to have a lemon jiuce every morning by naturopath #3 but never rely got into it.
    its tasty and does not hurt and my father in law has a lemon tree.

    hugs,
    pete
  • lselasco
    lselasco Member Posts: 5
    unknown said:

    This comment has been removed by the Moderator

    lemons
    Hi Gracie,
    I think they're Meyer Lemons, they grow out here in California. Really nice, not as bitter/sharp tasting as regular lemon.

    http://meyerlemontree.com/
  • PGLGreg
    PGLGreg Member Posts: 731
    PGLGreg said:

    zest
    The first part of the article (as far as I read) attributes anticancer activity to lemonene, which it says is in lemon zest. Unless you make lemonade in an unusual way, that doesn't imply that lemonade would be helpful in fighting cancer.

    --Greg

    limonene
    Sorry, I should have written "limonene" for the agent in lemon zest said to be therapeutic.
  • Buckwirth
    Buckwirth Member Posts: 1,258
    PGLGreg said:

    limonene
    Sorry, I should have written "limonene" for the agent in lemon zest said to be therapeutic.

    Sir,
    Given the day, I think you can consider yourself forgiven.

    :)

    Hopefully you are having a happy Easter. Though the weather is nice here in So Cal, it would be nice to be there in Hawaii!

    Blake
  • Buckwirth said:

    Sir,
    Given the day, I think you can consider yourself forgiven.

    :)

    Hopefully you are having a happy Easter. Though the weather is nice here in So Cal, it would be nice to be there in Hawaii!

    Blake

    This comment has been removed by the Moderator
  • Yaziza
    Yaziza Member Posts: 14
    unknown said:

    This comment has been removed by the Moderator

    Why are you all wanting to put sugar in the lemon juice
    Doesn't that defeat the purpose. Cancer LOVES Sugar. Stevia is a better choice.
  • AnneCan
    AnneCan Member Posts: 3,673
    unknown said:

    This comment has been removed by the Moderator

    40ml
    1 cup = 250 ml, so 4o ml is a very small amount. 1Tbsp = 15 ml and a tsp = 5 mL.
  • John23
    John23 Member Posts: 2,122
    Buckwirth said:

    Charles Huggins
    Was a young Urological surgeon at University of Chicago in the late 1920's. Having no real experience with operating on bladders, kidneys, genitals or the prostate, he was having difficulty finding patients, so he set up a lab to study prostatic fluid, which he extracted from the prostates of dogs.

    He noticed that if the dog was fixed, the prostrate was shriveled, but that if he injected the animal with testosterone it revived to its full glory.

    Many of the dogs came to him with cancer of the prostate (something that only happens in humans, dogs and lions) and initially, since all he wanted was the fluid, he thought these useless. However, he tried castrating one of the animals he found that the cancer shriveled with the prostate!

    In the 1890's George Beatson had noticed something similar with breast cancer (it was actually something he garnered listening to the local dairy farmers discussing their cattle, he just decided to see if his human patients reacted the same way). If the uterus is removed almost 2/3rds of the time the cancer dies. Of course at this time no one knew what estrogen was, and the experiment was quickly forgotten.

    Turns out there are at least two kinds of breast cancer, ER positive and ER negative (ER stands for Estrogen Receptor) that is why it did not work for all the patients. In 1962 a patent was filed in England for what was supposed to have been a birth control pill, however, instead of the intended effect of enhancing Estrogen, it stopped it cold, and was considered of no use as a drug, until its creators remembered the bit about ER Positive tumors and wondered if it could be used in the fight against cancer... Thus was born Tamoxifen, the first drug to target a specific pathway in the tumor itself rather than a general cellular poison that destroyed indiscriminately.

    So yes, you are correct that there are differences. Even those who seemingly have the same cancer, in the same location can have differences, and what works for one may not work for another.

    Tamoxifen

    Re:
    "the first drug to target a specific pathway in the tumor itself
    rather than a general cellular poison that destroyed indiscriminately. "


    More research would have indicated otherwise. Tamoxifen is apparently
    unable to "target a specific pathway", but rather it "blocks the effects of
    the estrogen hormone in the body."


    Tamoxifen isn't without it's cautions and hazards, since it can't
    isolate (target) cancer cells specifically. It can cause indiscriminate
    damage to our body, just as any other toxic chemical can!

    It should also be noted, that Tamoxifen is a known carcinogenic,
    and is responsible for many "second cancers", or cancers that
    are not related to the initial dx.

    Here's some easy reading about Tamoxifen from the Mayonnaise Clinic

    Be well; stay well.

    John
  • John23
    John23 Member Posts: 2,122
    Yaziza said:

    Why are you all wanting to put sugar in the lemon juice
    Doesn't that defeat the purpose. Cancer LOVES Sugar. Stevia is a better choice.

    Sugar
    Re:
    "Doesn't that defeat the purpose. Cancer LOVES Sugar. Stevia is a better choice."

    *Stevia

    If you attempt to "starve" cancer cells by withholding sugar/glucose,
    you will starve your good cells first.

    Cancer steals glucose from your body, you'll kill yourself quicker
    doing what's not natural.

    Good grief. The industry makes life so complicated and confusing.

    Ask any 80+ year old if they got that old thanks to eliminating things
    like sugar, salt, and the host of other items you're hearing about, that
    are now called "bad".

    Eat and drink whatever you are in the mood for, but do everything
    in moderation.

    High fructose corn syrup is now FDA approved to be called
    "corn sugar"; the industry paid for that change! And HFCS is in
    everything we eat and drink. It's cheaper to use than cane sugar,
    so the industry paid for "studies" to show you how terribly bad
    cane sugar is.

    Following the money trail can often bring you to the truth faster
    than following the "designated" path.

    Moderation is the key.

    (I thought momma taught that to us)

    Better health wishes,

    John
  • Buckwirth
    Buckwirth Member Posts: 1,258
    John23 said:

    Tamoxifen

    Re:
    "the first drug to target a specific pathway in the tumor itself
    rather than a general cellular poison that destroyed indiscriminately. "


    More research would have indicated otherwise. Tamoxifen is apparently
    unable to "target a specific pathway", but rather it "blocks the effects of
    the estrogen hormone in the body."


    Tamoxifen isn't without it's cautions and hazards, since it can't
    isolate (target) cancer cells specifically. It can cause indiscriminate
    damage to our body, just as any other toxic chemical can!

    It should also be noted, that Tamoxifen is a known carcinogenic,
    and is responsible for many "second cancers", or cancers that
    are not related to the initial dx.

    Here's some easy reading about Tamoxifen from the Mayonnaise Clinic

    Be well; stay well.

    John

    funny thing
    Did you know that the birth control pill may be carcinogenic? Of course it is not the pill itself, but the schedule of three weeks on one week off, something that was done to appease the church, not because it had any health benefit. (turns out women who have lots of children (and thus fewer menstrual cycles) have lower incidence of BC.

    Hormones are tricky things, but they are not a "Toxic Chemical" of the class of 5FU.

    What is the point? This was a change in the way researchers looked at cancer and ways of holding it back. Personally I find this kind of discovery interesting, mostly because it changes the game. We have some drugs that popped up in the last decade or so that are a direct result of this kind of change in thinking (Erbitux comes to mind).
  • Yaziza
    Yaziza Member Posts: 14
    John23 said:

    Sugar
    Re:
    "Doesn't that defeat the purpose. Cancer LOVES Sugar. Stevia is a better choice."

    *Stevia

    If you attempt to "starve" cancer cells by withholding sugar/glucose,
    you will starve your good cells first.

    Cancer steals glucose from your body, you'll kill yourself quicker
    doing what's not natural.

    Good grief. The industry makes life so complicated and confusing.

    Ask any 80+ year old if they got that old thanks to eliminating things
    like sugar, salt, and the host of other items you're hearing about, that
    are now called "bad".

    Eat and drink whatever you are in the mood for, but do everything
    in moderation.

    High fructose corn syrup is now FDA approved to be called
    "corn sugar"; the industry paid for that change! And HFCS is in
    everything we eat and drink. It's cheaper to use than cane sugar,
    so the industry paid for "studies" to show you how terribly bad
    cane sugar is.

    Following the money trail can often bring you to the truth faster
    than following the "designated" path.

    Moderation is the key.

    (I thought momma taught that to us)

    Better health wishes,

    John

    There is so much sugar naturally in food
    My dad has had stage 4 colon cancer for 4 years also. DX around June or July 2007. He eats Sugar. Mom buys a couple of pies and ice cream every week. So anytime we can avoid adding sugar we do. I have heard to keep the body's sugar level at 90 and below would be the most beneficial for the person with cancer. Yes I have seen several places that the cancer will still from the body and send to the liver to make a source of food to feed on. I have also heard that by keeping the body alkaline that this will help to prevent this.
  • Buckwirth
    Buckwirth Member Posts: 1,258

    thanks blake and graci
    i'll add some lemon to my jiucing when i get home.
    i was advised to have a lemon jiuce every morning by naturopath #3 but never rely got into it.
    its tasty and does not hurt and my father in law has a lemon tree.

    hugs,
    pete

    Links
    > Cancer Cause

    > Something to ponder on a rainy day... (credit to Phil)

    > Can it Cure?...
  • Buckwirth
    Buckwirth Member Posts: 1,258
    Yaziza said:

    There is so much sugar naturally in food
    My dad has had stage 4 colon cancer for 4 years also. DX around June or July 2007. He eats Sugar. Mom buys a couple of pies and ice cream every week. So anytime we can avoid adding sugar we do. I have heard to keep the body's sugar level at 90 and below would be the most beneficial for the person with cancer. Yes I have seen several places that the cancer will still from the body and send to the liver to make a source of food to feed on. I have also heard that by keeping the body alkaline that this will help to prevent this.

    Ahh, Alkaline again
    The "theory" you speak of says that cancer loves an acidic environment and dies in an alkaline environment (btw, all from the same Nobel prize winner mentioned before).

    For a moment, let's assume this to be true. The most alkaline portion of the body should therefore be cancer free, and the most acidic should be, at the very least, a prime spot for cancer.

    The most alkaline: courtesy of the pancreas it is the colon

    The most acidic: the stomach

    Colon cancer is the #3 killing cancer

    Pancreatic is the #4 killing cancer

    Stomach? Not sure, but it is not 1 or 2.

    You cannot change the alkalinity of the body, it is a highly regulated function, if it did change, up or down, you would get ill and die. The alkalinity of urine can be changed, as that is the bodies way of disposing of its excess.


    As John pointed out, nothing wrong with healthy diet: cutting back the sugar and getting off the SoFas certainly can't hurt.
  • Buckwirth
    Buckwirth Member Posts: 1,258
    John23 said:

    Sugar
    Re:
    "Doesn't that defeat the purpose. Cancer LOVES Sugar. Stevia is a better choice."

    *Stevia

    If you attempt to "starve" cancer cells by withholding sugar/glucose,
    you will starve your good cells first.

    Cancer steals glucose from your body, you'll kill yourself quicker
    doing what's not natural.

    Good grief. The industry makes life so complicated and confusing.

    Ask any 80+ year old if they got that old thanks to eliminating things
    like sugar, salt, and the host of other items you're hearing about, that
    are now called "bad".

    Eat and drink whatever you are in the mood for, but do everything
    in moderation.

    High fructose corn syrup is now FDA approved to be called
    "corn sugar"; the industry paid for that change! And HFCS is in
    everything we eat and drink. It's cheaper to use than cane sugar,
    so the industry paid for "studies" to show you how terribly bad
    cane sugar is.

    Following the money trail can often bring you to the truth faster
    than following the "designated" path.

    Moderation is the key.

    (I thought momma taught that to us)

    Better health wishes,

    John

    For the record
    John and I are on the same page here.

    The sugar connection to cancer comes from a scientist named Otto Warburg, who won the Nobel Prize (not for cancer research, rather for discovering the respiratory enzyme, An enzyme, such as oxidase, that transfers electrons from its substrate to molecular oxygen during cellular respiration) in the first half of the twentieth century, at a time when NO CANCER WAS CONSIDERED CURABLE and less than a century after leukemia had been identified as a named disease, though not yet a cancer (1847). By the second half (1960's) all of his conclusions about cancer had been disproved and were dropped by reputable science, and our current understanding of Cancer was in a kind of golden age (something John and I probably disagree on).

    On the Mayo Clinic page dealing with sugar and cancer it also lists two other myths:

    Good people do not get cancer and Cancer is contagious

    Mayo and Sugar on Toast

    Kind of puts it in perspective.

    This country's food policy, factory farming (something we used to make fun of when the Soviet Union did it), and dependence on a single food source (corn) is a huge subject, akin to global warming. Personally I have no desire to tackle it on this site.
  • AnneCan said:

    40ml
    1 cup = 250 ml, so 4o ml is a very small amount. 1Tbsp = 15 ml and a tsp = 5 mL.

    This comment has been removed by the Moderator
  • plh4gail
    plh4gail Member Posts: 1,238
    I love citrus :)
    Very interesting Blake! I printed out the article. I'm going to ask my onc what he knows. And I'm going to Target to look for a citrus supplement :)

    Love and hugs, Gail
  • Buckwirth
    Buckwirth Member Posts: 1,258
    unknown said:

    This comment has been removed by the Moderator

    Graci,
    "I want the real thing!"

    And that is why we love you!
  • Nana b
    Nana b Member Posts: 3,030
    plh4gail said:

    I love citrus :)
    Very interesting Blake! I printed out the article. I'm going to ask my onc what he knows. And I'm going to Target to look for a citrus supplement :)

    Love and hugs, Gail

    I have also read this before
    I have also read this before and will order a lemonade. I have also read that tangerine skins are great anti cancer fruit, so I have juiced it in with my juices. I've tried blend it and whoa, it is too too bitter. Yikes!