Starve cancer cells

oriontechno

The cancer cells affinity for glucose is well known "The warburg effect". Every one says normal cells need glucose. My question is why cant we substiture with pyruvate?. Normal cells can use pyruvate in the Kreb/Citric acid cycle while cancer cells have deficient mitochondria and just convert pyruvate to lactic acid.

So here is my thought, please critique.
Go on a low sugar (High protein, low carb) diet. Also supplement pyruvate.
Cancer cells will not readily get glucose.
Normal cells will have pyruvate to produce ATP.
Take sucrase suppressing stuff (Acetic acid, green tea, L-arabinose etc)

stayingcalm

Well
Hope it works for you =/

soccerfreaks

sugar
I spoke to OncoMan this week about the sugar debate. His response was that, yes, cancer cells 'eat' more glucose, but that normal cells need glucose as well, and that without glucose normal cells would die...even before the more energetic cancer cells, since they don't have as much 'energy'. (I am paraphrasing.)

The reason the cancer cells eat more of the glucose is because they have more energy. It is NOT that the glucose is enabling them.

That resolves the issue for me.

He said to eat all of the candy bars I wanted, given that they might create other health problems not associated with cancer.

Hope this helps.

Take care,

Joe

oriontechno

soccerfreaks said:

sugar
I spoke to OncoMan this week about the sugar debate. His response was that, yes, cancer cells 'eat' more glucose, but that normal cells need glucose as well, and that without glucose normal cells would die...even before the more energetic cancer cells, since they don't have as much 'energy'. (I am paraphrasing.)

The reason the cancer cells eat more of the glucose is because they have more energy. It is NOT that the glucose is enabling them.

That resolves the issue for me.

He said to eat all of the candy bars I wanted, given that they might create other health problems not associated with cancer.

Hope this helps.

Take care,

Joe

pyruvate
The point of pyruvate supplement in my posting is to feed the normal cells, which will absorb and use pyruvate much more efficiently. Cancer cells mostly convert pyruvate to lactic acid and can not get any energy from them. Still questioning why this wont work.

congoody

oriontechno said:

pyruvate
The point of pyruvate supplement in my posting is to feed the normal cells, which will absorb and use pyruvate much more efficiently. Cancer cells mostly convert pyruvate to lactic acid and can not get any energy from them. Still questioning why this wont work.

Here we go again...
to oriontechno et.al.

do you all not think that if a special diet or an herbal potion or a special wrist band actually cured cancer that maybe this would be the end of the discussion - suffice to say I would betcha it will not be the end - I betcha we have not yet found a cure for cancer - I think we might all have heard the news -

the fact remains that those who do not receive treatment for lung cancer die -

so if you want to eat a low sugar diet or take vitamin x or meditate while standing on your head for goodness sake go ahead if it is cleared by your physicians not to interfere with your medical treatment -

to pretend that any of these things will on their own be a panacea or will replace the much dreaded "cancer clinic" is irresponsible and worse than misleading -

connie.

NayPaul

studies
I'm sure this is being studied.... or derivatives of this, but know of no such studies being done in humans and do not think in the form you are suggesting this would work.

I am all for trying things, as long as it does not take the place of documented effective therapies...until it becomes a documented effective therapy. If not, then it's just a bunch of us hypothesizing on a discussion board.

JohnBinDC

congoody said:

Here we go again...
to oriontechno et.al.

do you all not think that if a special diet or an herbal potion or a special wrist band actually cured cancer that maybe this would be the end of the discussion - suffice to say I would betcha it will not be the end - I betcha we have not yet found a cure for cancer - I think we might all have heard the news -

the fact remains that those who do not receive treatment for lung cancer die -

so if you want to eat a low sugar diet or take vitamin x or meditate while standing on your head for goodness sake go ahead if it is cleared by your physicians not to interfere with your medical treatment -

to pretend that any of these things will on their own be a panacea or will replace the much dreaded "cancer clinic" is irresponsible and worse than misleading -

connie.

Meditating
I was standing on my head and meditating last night and it made it really hard to get on the computer or to even watch TV. Have you ever stood on your head and tried to do any of your daily tasks? I was also a long distance runner and doing that while standing on my head led to not qulifying for this year's Boston Marathon. So, from my personal perspective, standing on your head and meditating, while it may cure cancer, has unwanted side effects, such as slowing you down when you are trying to run a marathon. It's all about quality of life. Would you rather stand on your head and be cured, thus never be able to run a marathon in a respectable time, or would you rather enjoy the running by remaining upright. This is but one dilemma I face as I fight the dreaded big "C".

So, I will get advice from OncoMan (Joe, I used your name for the oncologist, because I like it) about treatment, and have been modifying my diet in an effort to improve my overall health. I believe these two efforts together, coupled with a good sense of humor and a positive outlook, will help as I move along through tretment. There may be a little bit of the placebo effect when trying unconventional remedies, but I still am of the belief that the science of medical treatment holds the most hope.


Thus, when I visit OncoMan on Wednesday, I may stand on my head for the appointment, but I do have some fear that if I do so, OncoMan may not take me seriously.

Have a great day and remember to smile.

John

oriontechno

congoody said:

Here we go again...
to oriontechno et.al.

do you all not think that if a special diet or an herbal potion or a special wrist band actually cured cancer that maybe this would be the end of the discussion - suffice to say I would betcha it will not be the end - I betcha we have not yet found a cure for cancer - I think we might all have heard the news -

the fact remains that those who do not receive treatment for lung cancer die -

so if you want to eat a low sugar diet or take vitamin x or meditate while standing on your head for goodness sake go ahead if it is cleared by your physicians not to interfere with your medical treatment -

to pretend that any of these things will on their own be a panacea or will replace the much dreaded "cancer clinic" is irresponsible and worse than misleading -

connie.

not cure just slow down
Let me be clear. I am not saying it is a cure or advocating it as an alternative to proven traditional stuff. All I am hypothesizing/asking for comments is that if we adhere to a low carb or other special diet etc in addition to all the stuff from the Onco will it help slow down, possibly reduce chances of recurrence etc. That is all. If my posting mislead anyone I apologize. I was just looking for anyone that has tried any special diet in addition to all the Onco recommended treatment.
thanks and sorry for any confusion.

oriontechno

NayPaul said:

studies
I'm sure this is being studied.... or derivatives of this, but know of no such studies being done in humans and do not think in the form you are suggesting this would work.

I am all for trying things, as long as it does not take the place of documented effective therapies...until it becomes a documented effective therapy. If not, then it's just a bunch of us hypothesizing on a discussion board.

Agreed
I am looking for inputs comments on any studies done on positive effects of special diets followed long term after diagnosis. Anything that improves the odds by even a few points is worth trying in my humble opinion.

openmind

Pyruvate
I think the fact that you are trying to logically come up with something that will give the body the necessary energy that glucose does while not "FEEDING" the tumor is commendable because I am very tired of people who think that the physician is all knowing when the treatment that they recommend either only postpones the inevitable or causes other health issues and science is not open to finding a real cure for cancer. It is out there, I am absolutely certain that cancer research is only going as far as the "pharmaceutical" companies will allow; if they can't make money from it; it just ain't going to get attention. I am sorry to offend anyone, but I am a 17 year breast cancer survivor and a daughter of a cancer victim and a friend of someone who is dealing with lung Ca metastasized to the brain so I say that if someone wants to use Pyrvuvate, or any other natural means whether it is a supplement or meditating; let them be; as long as there is nothing that will stop the effectiveness of their treatment. Please give this guy a break; all I saw were people who wanted to shut him up; he has a point; and as far as your body needing glucose; yes it does, but you can get glucose from vegetables and fruit; you don't need to eat candy bars to get it (look at the other ingredients in that candy bar) its not the glucose that is the problem.....we are killing ourselves with all of the "crap" that is in processed foods, chemicals, dyes, artificial things, this is what is causing all of the cancer, not to mention the cigarettes! Why isn't someone banning the use of cigarettes!!!!~

medi_2

openmind said:

Pyruvate
I think the fact that you are trying to logically come up with something that will give the body the necessary energy that glucose does while not "FEEDING" the tumor is commendable because I am very tired of people who think that the physician is all knowing when the treatment that they recommend either only postpones the inevitable or causes other health issues and science is not open to finding a real cure for cancer. It is out there, I am absolutely certain that cancer research is only going as far as the "pharmaceutical" companies will allow; if they can't make money from it; it just ain't going to get attention. I am sorry to offend anyone, but I am a 17 year breast cancer survivor and a daughter of a cancer victim and a friend of someone who is dealing with lung Ca metastasized to the brain so I say that if someone wants to use Pyrvuvate, or any other natural means whether it is a supplement or meditating; let them be; as long as there is nothing that will stop the effectiveness of their treatment. Please give this guy a break; all I saw were people who wanted to shut him up; he has a point; and as far as your body needing glucose; yes it does, but you can get glucose from vegetables and fruit; you don't need to eat candy bars to get it (look at the other ingredients in that candy bar) its not the glucose that is the problem.....we are killing ourselves with all of the "crap" that is in processed foods, chemicals, dyes, artificial things, this is what is causing all of the cancer, not to mention the cigarettes! Why isn't someone banning the use of cigarettes!!!!~

in defense of candy bars
One day I walked into a friends apartment and he was eating a nectarine. I asked if he was eating a peach or a nectarine and he said that it didn't matter which, it was all diet food .
Granted, you can get glucose from veggies or fruit, but we are a junk food nation and some would rather have a candy bar (or that powdery drink mix I dare not mention ). If a patient won't eat anything BUT candy bars etc...I would say 'Let them eat', they usually need the calories.
As to cigarettes, well we are also a nation of addicts. It's always somethin'. And no one is going to ban cigarettes while there is still big money to be made. Besides, people would find a way to smoke. Weed is not legal, yet plenty of people smoke it .
One more thing: I do not believe that Doctors are 'all-knowing', but most know a helluva lot more than me and I going with the Docs.
Peace!
Medi

stayingcalm

medi_2 said:

in defense of candy bars
One day I walked into a friends apartment and he was eating a nectarine. I asked if he was eating a peach or a nectarine and he said that it didn't matter which, it was all diet food .
Granted, you can get glucose from veggies or fruit, but we are a junk food nation and some would rather have a candy bar (or that powdery drink mix I dare not mention ). If a patient won't eat anything BUT candy bars etc...I would say 'Let them eat', they usually need the calories.
As to cigarettes, well we are also a nation of addicts. It's always somethin'. And no one is going to ban cigarettes while there is still big money to be made. Besides, people would find a way to smoke. Weed is not legal, yet plenty of people smoke it .
One more thing: I do not believe that Doctors are 'all-knowing', but most know a helluva lot more than me and I going with the Docs.
Peace!
Medi

Hear, hear!
One more thing: I do not believe that Doctors are 'all-knowing', but most know a helluva lot more than me and I going with the Docs.

My thoughts, too. Nor do I believe that the Pharmaceutical Companies and all the doctors all around the world are hiding a cure, I can't imagine such a universal collusion about such an earth-shattering find Impossible to hide such a thing, except maybe in a Michael Crichton novel, :0 !

stayingcalm

congoody

medi_2 said:

in defense of candy bars
One day I walked into a friends apartment and he was eating a nectarine. I asked if he was eating a peach or a nectarine and he said that it didn't matter which, it was all diet food .
Granted, you can get glucose from veggies or fruit, but we are a junk food nation and some would rather have a candy bar (or that powdery drink mix I dare not mention ). If a patient won't eat anything BUT candy bars etc...I would say 'Let them eat', they usually need the calories.
As to cigarettes, well we are also a nation of addicts. It's always somethin'. And no one is going to ban cigarettes while there is still big money to be made. Besides, people would find a way to smoke. Weed is not legal, yet plenty of people smoke it .
One more thing: I do not believe that Doctors are 'all-knowing', but most know a helluva lot more than me and I going with the Docs.
Peace!
Medi

Count me in...
Could not agree more girlfriend- I for one am happy to be alive and well enough to enjoy the angel food cake I am now having for dessert -I am very grateful to my team - surgeon, pulmonologist, oncologist and family doc - and all my new friends here - enjoy the season including the egg nog -Peace - connie - from the Big Easy but on my way to family in Canada for Christmas.

melaniechilders1

Sugar and cancer
This is interesting, but I'm just now beginning to study this. WHY do normal cells need glucose? I think that they can take proteins and fats and metabolize them into pyruvate, can't they? Correct me, please, if I'm wrong.

I like your idea, but remember that the liver has the process of gluconeogenesis. That's the reason for cachexia, in later stages of cancer. The cancer can has its source of glucose from this process. Remember hydrazine sulfate? It suppressed gluconeogenesis and stabilized cancer growth, but it was not patentable so no one followed it up. If you want to starve the cell of glucose, you've got to stop this process, as well.

melaniechilders1

stayingcalm said:

Hear, hear!
One more thing: I do not believe that Doctors are 'all-knowing', but most know a helluva lot more than me and I going with the Docs.

My thoughts, too. Nor do I believe that the Pharmaceutical Companies and all the doctors all around the world are hiding a cure, I can't imagine such a universal collusion about such an earth-shattering find Impossible to hide such a thing, except maybe in a Michael Crichton novel, :0 !

stayingcalm

They are not hiding a cure, but the system does not allow for
the provision of one. It is set up to stay the course. We have been burning, poisoning and cutting up cancer patients for over 50 years, to what avail? You don't NEED collusion when the system is set up to treat cancer as a chronic (and therefore money-producing) disease.

melaniechilders1

openmind said:

Pyruvate
I think the fact that you are trying to logically come up with something that will give the body the necessary energy that glucose does while not "FEEDING" the tumor is commendable because I am very tired of people who think that the physician is all knowing when the treatment that they recommend either only postpones the inevitable or causes other health issues and science is not open to finding a real cure for cancer. It is out there, I am absolutely certain that cancer research is only going as far as the "pharmaceutical" companies will allow; if they can't make money from it; it just ain't going to get attention. I am sorry to offend anyone, but I am a 17 year breast cancer survivor and a daughter of a cancer victim and a friend of someone who is dealing with lung Ca metastasized to the brain so I say that if someone wants to use Pyrvuvate, or any other natural means whether it is a supplement or meditating; let them be; as long as there is nothing that will stop the effectiveness of their treatment. Please give this guy a break; all I saw were people who wanted to shut him up; he has a point; and as far as your body needing glucose; yes it does, but you can get glucose from vegetables and fruit; you don't need to eat candy bars to get it (look at the other ingredients in that candy bar) its not the glucose that is the problem.....we are killing ourselves with all of the "crap" that is in processed foods, chemicals, dyes, artificial things, this is what is causing all of the cancer, not to mention the cigarettes! Why isn't someone banning the use of cigarettes!!!!~

Pyruvate etc.
I agree with you completely. And, by the way, I know that this is a response to a message that is old. But it is of utmost importance that this discussion continue, I believe.

Look--we've got the internet. And, on that internet is all the information you need about glycolysis, the Krebs cycle, and oxidative phosphorylation. Suppose Warburg was right? No one has proved him wrong yet. They have simply ignored further research on applying his idea. Totally ignored it.

Suppose it is correct and the way to cure cancer is to starve the cancer cell of glucose? I am not really sure whether the question should be if we should stop the source of glucose, because I am not sure whether you have to have glucose in order to continue making ATP. I'm not sure if just pyruvate would do the trick.

But the question needs to be studied. And you have the wherewithal to study it.

melaniechilders1

NayPaul said:

studies
I'm sure this is being studied.... or derivatives of this, but know of no such studies being done in humans and do not think in the form you are suggesting this would work.

I am all for trying things, as long as it does not take the place of documented effective therapies...until it becomes a documented effective therapy. If not, then it's just a bunch of us hypothesizing on a discussion board.

Not studied very effectively, though.
Remember dichloroacetate? That scientist had to go to the internet, to get funding. The INTERNET! That's shameful. And that other scientist, who came up with 3 bromopyruvate, an analog of lactic acid. They STOLE her patents!

I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but you don't need a conspiracy when the system is set up to make money for those who practice the science and practice the medicine in a certain way. Watch the movie, "Bryzynsky." It's an eye opener.

melaniechilders1

NayPaul said:

studies
I'm sure this is being studied.... or derivatives of this, but know of no such studies being done in humans and do not think in the form you are suggesting this would work.

I am all for trying things, as long as it does not take the place of documented effective therapies...until it becomes a documented effective therapy. If not, then it's just a bunch of us hypothesizing on a discussion board.

Not studied very effectively, though.
Remember dichloroacetate? That scientist had to go to the internet, to get funding. The INTERNET! That's shameful. And that other scientist, who came up with 3 bromopyruvate, an analog of lactic acid. They STOLE her patents!

I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but you don't need a conspiracy when the system is set up to make money for those who practice the science and practice the medicine in a certain way. Watch the movie, "Bryzynsky." It's an eye opener.

melaniechilders1

oriontechno said:

not cure just slow down
Let me be clear. I am not saying it is a cure or advocating it as an alternative to proven traditional stuff. All I am hypothesizing/asking for comments is that if we adhere to a low carb or other special diet etc in addition to all the stuff from the Onco will it help slow down, possibly reduce chances of recurrence etc. That is all. If my posting mislead anyone I apologize. I was just looking for anyone that has tried any special diet in addition to all the Onco recommended treatment.
thanks and sorry for any confusion.

I don't remember who did the studies, but they tested the
ketogenic diets on children with glioblastoma somewhere in Europe. They used terminal patients and several of the patients are still living, still on the diet, years and years later. I don't know if they are cancer free or not, but their tumors are stable. And this is a particularly invasive and aggressive type of cancer.

melaniechilders1

congoody said:

Here we go again...
to oriontechno et.al.

do you all not think that if a special diet or an herbal potion or a special wrist band actually cured cancer that maybe this would be the end of the discussion - suffice to say I would betcha it will not be the end - I betcha we have not yet found a cure for cancer - I think we might all have heard the news -

the fact remains that those who do not receive treatment for lung cancer die -

so if you want to eat a low sugar diet or take vitamin x or meditate while standing on your head for goodness sake go ahead if it is cleared by your physicians not to interfere with your medical treatment -

to pretend that any of these things will on their own be a panacea or will replace the much dreaded "cancer clinic" is irresponsible and worse than misleading -

connie.

Irresponsible and worse than misleading....
Meh. Don't think so. What IS irresponsible and worse than misleading, though, is NOT studying the Warburg Effect for over SEVENTY years. What's worse is spending millions and millions of dollars trying to find an "oncogene," and at best coming up with a gene that plays a part in the switch from oxidative phosphorylation (which happens in the mitochondria, an organelle which just so happens to contain the instructions for programmed cell death--remember: cancer cells are IMMORTAL) to cytosolic glycolysis, for the production of ATP.

There are a lot of things irresponsible and worse than misleading, but what ISN'T is asking the questions. If our scientists are not being funded by big pharma (who, by the by, makes a killing on current therapies), when THEY ask these questions, then it is up to the patients to ask them. In fact, you have no choice but to ask them.

melaniechilders1

soccerfreaks said:

sugar
I spoke to OncoMan this week about the sugar debate. His response was that, yes, cancer cells 'eat' more glucose, but that normal cells need glucose as well, and that without glucose normal cells would die...even before the more energetic cancer cells, since they don't have as much 'energy'. (I am paraphrasing.)

The reason the cancer cells eat more of the glucose is because they have more energy. It is NOT that the glucose is enabling them.

That resolves the issue for me.

He said to eat all of the candy bars I wanted, given that they might create other health problems not associated with cancer.

Hope this helps.

Take care,

Joe

Normal cells need glucose? Not sure that's true.
Normal cells, that is, cells whose mitochondria are working, can convert both protein and fat to ATP. It is ATP that normal and cancer cells need, in order to live; glucose 9in the form of carbs), protein, and fats are only the fuels that make the ATP. Cancer cells make ATP from glucose, in the cytoplasm of the cell, by splitting glucose into two molecules of pyruvate. This yields two ATP, and is a very inefficient and energy costly process (and is thought to be the reason for cachexia in later stage cancer patients). Your cell can make MUCH more ATP through the process of oxidative phosphorylation and both protein and fat can be used in this process. It yields about 29 ATP molecules, and takes place in the mitochondria, which interestingly enough, also contains the instructions for programmed cell death. These mitochondria are turned OFF in cancer cells. Is it any wonder that cancer cells are immortal?