Lifestyle changes

Steve.Adam

todd121 said:

Dysfunctional Cancer Cells

They are dysfunctional, but the body's immune system doesn't recognize them as dysfunctional. That seems to be the place things break down. There are several systems in the body that monitor for foreign cells and bad/dead/dysfunctional cells and are supposed to attack those cells. In the case of cancer, the body's immune system fails to recognize these bad cells and doesn't take action.

The progress that has been made in fighting kidney cancer has come in 2 areas. The first attacks those bad cells' ability to build a blood supply for themselves. As the cells form a mass, they need additional blood supply and somehow they even get the body to build them an extra blood supply to feed them. These are the so-called anti-angiogenisis drugs like votrient, sutent, etc. The second area there've been a lot of advances (more recently) is in the area of helping the body to identify the bad cells so the body's immune system can identify and attack them.

I'm not aware of any studies that show that adjusting the blood sugar within normal limits has any effect on cancer growing in the body. The body is pretty good at keeping blood sugar levels within a range of acceptable limits regardless of diet (unless you're diabetic). Where the sugar idea has popped up is in labs where they noticed that certain types of cancer metabolize sugars faster than other cells. Some imaging scans use radio-isotopes tagged to sugars to help identify tumors (PET scans, for example).

Is anybody aware of any actual studies on patients with active cancer that fasting helps reduce tumors or slow the spread of tumors?

Best wishes,

Todd

Low glucose + ketones

Researchers seem to be investigating ketones more than blood sugar. Search youtube for 'Angela Poff targeting cancer with therapeutic ketones' and you'll find a very interesting talk.

I think that all cancer cells need a lot of glucose, not just some of them. But apparently certain types of cancer cells, to varying degrees can get energy from other sources.

While there is a limit to how far I can lower my blood glucose, I certainly don't want it to be high. That is surely a cancer promoting environment. Since I am diabetic my blood sugar can go very high and stay high for a long time if I eat carbohydrates. Just before starting on my low carb diet my blood glucose was often over 20mM (360 mg/dL).

My blood sugar has been quite low for the past 2 weeks. My average is about 3.3mM (60 mg/dL) and my lowest so far was 2.6 mM (47 mg/dL). If I was a type 1 diabetic I would be running for the jelly beans!

Steve.

Footstomper

I'm really sorry

But this sounds rather dangerous and not supported by science.

Abunai

Sugars / Low Carb

At one point, back in the early 2000s, I weighed 330 pounds and decided to try the Atkins diet.

I adhered strictly to the diet and lost 130 pounds in a couple of years time and got in pretty good shape. My blood pressure went down, my cholesterol numbers were great, I was doing 5K runs every week, etc. Since about 2008, my weight has crept back up (still 80 pounds below my heaviest) because I haven't been nearly as strict, and I drank a LOT of Diet Dr. Pepper after being totally bored with several years of nothing but water.

Now, after discovering my cancer, I've read about the angiogenic (and anti-angeogenic) approaches to nutrition...including now the ketonics focus. One of the Atkins practices to determine if your diet was effective in the "induction phase" was to use ketone urinalysis sticks to determine whether or not you were in "ketosis"....i.e. burning fat for fuel as opposed to sugar.

So, it's interesting to me that my cancer was possibly growing inside of me while I was on a strict, low-sugar, low-carb diet. It most definitely was growing inside of me during my 2 to 3 liter per day Diet Dr. Pepper phase for years. I'm not making any conclusions here, just rambling about my personal, anecdotal experience.

I'm contemplating going back to a strict adherence to Atkins.

Steve.Adam

Footstomper said:

I'm really sorry

But this sounds rather dangerous and not supported by science.

Don't be sorry

Fasting might not help the tumour but it is not dangerous. I am in perfect health apart from the kidney and overweight. I'm not at risk. Actually I have lost 8 kg in 2 weeks and my bmi is still over 27.

Anyway... I will let you know what happens.

I'm editing this post to agree that fasting is potentially dangerous. But I am not at high risk and I am being careful.

Steve.Adam

Abunai said:

Sugars / Low Carb

At one point, back in the early 2000s, I weighed 330 pounds and decided to try the Atkins diet.

I adhered strictly to the diet and lost 130 pounds in a couple of years time and got in pretty good shape. My blood pressure went down, my cholesterol numbers were great, I was doing 5K runs every week, etc. Since about 2008, my weight has crept back up (still 80 pounds below my heaviest) because I haven't been nearly as strict, and I drank a LOT of Diet Dr. Pepper after being totally bored with several years of nothing but water.

Now, after discovering my cancer, I've read about the angiogenic (and anti-angeogenic) approaches to nutrition...including now the ketonics focus. One of the Atkins practices to determine if your diet was effective in the "induction phase" was to use ketone urinalysis sticks to determine whether or not you were in "ketosis"....i.e. burning fat for fuel as opposed to sugar.

So, it's interesting to me that my cancer was possibly growing inside of me while I was on a strict, low-sugar, low-carb diet. It most definitely was growing inside of me during my 2 to 3 liter per day Diet Dr. Pepper phase for years. I'm not making any conclusions here, just rambling about my personal, anecdotal experience.

I'm contemplating going back to a strict adherence to Atkins.

I know what you mean

I've been low carb since February 2015. I have also been lax at times. I assume my kidney tumour was there before this and a low carb diet obviously did not make it go away.

Going for a day without food every now and then works very well with a low carb diet.  It seems to act like a reset getting you back on track. It's also a good antidote for any extra carbs you eat.

Steve.Adam

Abunai said:

Sugars / Low Carb

At one point, back in the early 2000s, I weighed 330 pounds and decided to try the Atkins diet.

I adhered strictly to the diet and lost 130 pounds in a couple of years time and got in pretty good shape. My blood pressure went down, my cholesterol numbers were great, I was doing 5K runs every week, etc. Since about 2008, my weight has crept back up (still 80 pounds below my heaviest) because I haven't been nearly as strict, and I drank a LOT of Diet Dr. Pepper after being totally bored with several years of nothing but water.

Now, after discovering my cancer, I've read about the angiogenic (and anti-angeogenic) approaches to nutrition...including now the ketonics focus. One of the Atkins practices to determine if your diet was effective in the "induction phase" was to use ketone urinalysis sticks to determine whether or not you were in "ketosis"....i.e. burning fat for fuel as opposed to sugar.

So, it's interesting to me that my cancer was possibly growing inside of me while I was on a strict, low-sugar, low-carb diet. It most definitely was growing inside of me during my 2 to 3 liter per day Diet Dr. Pepper phase for years. I'm not making any conclusions here, just rambling about my personal, anecdotal experience.

I'm contemplating going back to a strict adherence to Atkins.

Great effort

By the way, losing 130 pounds is a great thing. I'm down about 60 from 2 years ago, including what I've lost in the last 2 weeks. But I'll gain some of that back.

Steve.Adam

15 days

I am breaking the fast. I went for a walk earlier and didn't feel right. So I bought some V8 veggie juice on the way home and sipped a couple of mugs of it. It tasted really, really good. So that's the end of that except that I need to choose a healthy diet to follow it up and make it worthwhile.

Steve.

Steve.Adam

todd121 said:

Dysfunctional Cancer Cells

They are dysfunctional, but the body's immune system doesn't recognize them as dysfunctional. That seems to be the place things break down. There are several systems in the body that monitor for foreign cells and bad/dead/dysfunctional cells and are supposed to attack those cells. In the case of cancer, the body's immune system fails to recognize these bad cells and doesn't take action.

The progress that has been made in fighting kidney cancer has come in 2 areas. The first attacks those bad cells' ability to build a blood supply for themselves. As the cells form a mass, they need additional blood supply and somehow they even get the body to build them an extra blood supply to feed them. These are the so-called anti-angiogenisis drugs like votrient, sutent, etc. The second area there've been a lot of advances (more recently) is in the area of helping the body to identify the bad cells so the body's immune system can identify and attack them.

I'm not aware of any studies that show that adjusting the blood sugar within normal limits has any effect on cancer growing in the body. The body is pretty good at keeping blood sugar levels within a range of acceptable limits regardless of diet (unless you're diabetic). Where the sugar idea has popped up is in labs where they noticed that certain types of cancer metabolize sugars faster than other cells. Some imaging scans use radio-isotopes tagged to sugars to help identify tumors (PET scans, for example).

Is anybody aware of any actual studies on patients with active cancer that fasting helps reduce tumors or slow the spread of tumors?

Best wishes,

Todd

Ancient cancer

For another interesting talk search youtube for 'Ron Rosedale Early Ancestral Connection'.

About 5 minutes into the talk he explains how cells evolved. Very interesting, especially to us.

I'll give you my summary. When cells first formed they had no mitochondria and their only energy source was from fermentation. There was no oxygen in the atmosphere so their environment was anaerobic. These primitive cells reproduced endlessly and never died.

 Then bacteria appeared that generated oxygen. At some point some oxygen burning bacteria were incorporated into cells. This was the origin of mitochondria. They produced energy much more efficiently and this allowed the cells to form multicellular organisms.

This fits well with Thomas Seyfried's idea that cancer is a disease of damaged mitochondria. Mitochondrial damage causes cells to revert to their primitive behaviour, which is to reproduce endlessly.

True or not it does make perfect sense.

Steve.

Thuvia

Steve... May I suggest

Steve... May I suggest something like a 40/35/25 macronutrient balance? Carbs, fat, protein. This way you're getting well balanced but not too high on the carbs. I suggest this because you are trying to lose weight (I am too-need to lose 15 more and then hold it) I'm 5'2", 140 pounds right now. I've lost 48 pounds in the past year. Went sugar free a year ago and lost the bulk of it then. My kidney cancer was found by accident after I had a adverse liver reaction to Prometrium... a female progesterone. Caused jaundice and sky rocket triglycerides. All normal now.  Snowballed from there. Went lower carb, and now in high sight I think my protein intake was too high. My fatty liver has been mostly reversed by the weight loss and THAT is excellent news!

My Urologist has referred me to a Nephrologist next week and also a Registered Dietician. The key for me will be keeping calories at about 1200-1300, and the above macronutrient. And keeping sugar intake low. I felt so much better with the low sugar!

 

Steve.Adam

Thuvia said:

Steve... May I suggest

Steve... May I suggest something like a 40/35/25 macronutrient balance? Carbs, fat, protein. This way you're getting well balanced but not too high on the carbs. I suggest this because you are trying to lose weight (I am too-need to lose 15 more and then hold it) I'm 5'2", 140 pounds right now. I've lost 48 pounds in the past year. Went sugar free a year ago and lost the bulk of it then. My kidney cancer was found by accident after I had a adverse liver reaction to Prometrium... a female progesterone. Caused jaundice and sky rocket triglycerides. All normal now.  Snowballed from there. Went lower carb, and now in high sight I think my protein intake was too high. My fatty liver has been mostly reversed by the weight loss and THAT is excellent news!

My Urologist has referred me to a Nephrologist next week and also a Registered Dietician. The key for me will be keeping calories at about 1200-1300, and the above macronutrient. And keeping sugar intake low. I felt so much better with the low sugar!

 

Close to zero carbs

Because of my t2 diabetes it's best for me to keep carbs as close to zero as possibly. They can't be entirely eliminated, of course. Even when fasting my blood glucose stayed quite constant, though a little lower than normal. I've decided to lower my protein to minimal levels too and see how I go.  I find measuring this stuff a bit too tedious, so I'll just be eating smaller servings of meat and more or less playing be ear.

What that all means is that I'll be eating a lot of salad drowned in olive oil, I guess.

sblairc

todd121 said:

Dysfunctional Cancer Cells

They are dysfunctional, but the body's immune system doesn't recognize them as dysfunctional. That seems to be the place things break down. There are several systems in the body that monitor for foreign cells and bad/dead/dysfunctional cells and are supposed to attack those cells. In the case of cancer, the body's immune system fails to recognize these bad cells and doesn't take action.

The progress that has been made in fighting kidney cancer has come in 2 areas. The first attacks those bad cells' ability to build a blood supply for themselves. As the cells form a mass, they need additional blood supply and somehow they even get the body to build them an extra blood supply to feed them. These are the so-called anti-angiogenisis drugs like votrient, sutent, etc. The second area there've been a lot of advances (more recently) is in the area of helping the body to identify the bad cells so the body's immune system can identify and attack them.

I'm not aware of any studies that show that adjusting the blood sugar within normal limits has any effect on cancer growing in the body. The body is pretty good at keeping blood sugar levels within a range of acceptable limits regardless of diet (unless you're diabetic). Where the sugar idea has popped up is in labs where they noticed that certain types of cancer metabolize sugars faster than other cells. Some imaging scans use radio-isotopes tagged to sugars to help identify tumors (PET scans, for example).

Is anybody aware of any actual studies on patients with active cancer that fasting helps reduce tumors or slow the spread of tumors?

Best wishes,

Todd

None that I have seen about active cancer, just developing it

Nope. But there are some related to decreased risk of developing cancers in the first place I think (breast for sure I recall)