48 hr fasting before having chemo!????
Comments
-
oxaliplatinpeterz54 said:a few more things
working from memory here, which is likely faulty, but on the slim chance you are not aware of some of this and have the time to followup and validate...
if your wife is KRAS-Mut (will not let EGFR inhibitors work) it may be all the more important to dial down mTOR, which fasting and/or protein deprivation does. So, if she can tolerate fasting well, you are probably OK. In any case, the signaling path of which mTOR is part of, is implicated in aging and cell proliferation, and there is evidence (google scholar/pubmed) to suggest that inhibiting mTOR slows aging related diseases. There is research ongoing to create mTOR inhibitors for use in oncology but the literature also suggests that a number of polyphenols (plant chemicals) will help dial mTOR down as well, but degree unknown.
may also check out the angiogenesis foundation which has done good work to identify potential natural angiogenesis inhibitors in foods (mostly plants, again)
as for oxaliplatin, our ONC was not keen on calcium and magnesium infusions or glutamine usage to stave off neuropathy, a major side effect. but again, the literature suggest that they can help.
our ONC also suggests that of a year or more has passed then reintroducing former drugs is more likely to work, hence going back to oxaliplatin...
good luck....
Thanks.
I hope your ONC is right and the oxaliplatin will still work as it did back in 2008. The fasting part is the least of our worries because it has become so routine for her and she has been doing it for years. Everything is so relative. For us, a drug that works is much more of a concern than fasting for 48 hours.
Perhaps as more people do the 48-hour fast we will hear more first hand reports from people other than myself. I am willing to become the target of skeptics and critics who have more questions than answers, but it still comes down to making that all important personal choice. If people don't want to do it, they won't.
I will let you know if the oxaliplatin works and if the fasting suppresses the awful side effects. This will be interesting from a scientific standpoint.
I hope your wife does well whether she tries the fast or not.0 -
three cheers to the poineer spiritasuehiro said:Being Open-minded
Pete,
Thanks for your open-mindedness. There is a lot of fear and skepticism out there when it comes to cancer treatment. There are also a lot of scammers and people with screwball ideas. It is tough, especially for those people who are suddenly thrown into this vortex of information and misinformation. And I feel for those people who just want to do the right thing. It is not easy, but you just have to do the best you can.
I am fortunate to know people with heavy science backgrounds. My wife and I are also very fortunate to have an oncologist who is young, bright, inquisitive, and willing to go the extra yard for his patients. Many doctors become "set in their ways" or are forced to follow the standard guidelines of their hospital and will not waver from that direction. They would never recommend a patient to do a fast because it is not standard procedure. My feeling is that sometimes you have to take a chance if your life is at stake, but doing a fast is not the same as drinking a gallon of poison. In fact, when you think about it, the toxicity of chemo drugs is akin to pouring poison into one's body. It is very toxic stuff.
My wife is very important to me and I am using my best judgment and intuition to seek out the best and practical route for her to take under the circumstances. I also feel obligated, as a human being, to share my knowledge and experience with anyone who sincerely seeks it.
And as to those naysayers out there (and there will never be a shortage of them), do whatever you want. We are all grown adults and are free to do as we wish. Just imagine if in early America, the colonists believed the tales of horror and deprivation that awaited them west of the Rockies. Everyone would be crowded on the East coast and California wouldn't even be a state. The pioneer spirit doesn't always mean hitching up a wagon and heading to parts unknown, sometimes it just means using ggod judgment and taking a leap of faith.
as james t kirk said.
lets boldly go where no man has gone before.
thanks asuehiro, its nice to have a few kind comments about my beliefs.
i firmly believe in 10 years time, cancer patients on this amazing board will look back on our posts and say.
look at all those brave patients on chemo without all the natural and dietary supports.
they may ask themselves, why did it take medicine so long to get science.
for me the real issue is how can we fast track some of these out there ideas safely and effectively.
moving them from isolated anecdotes to something of more long term value.
just good health to you and your wife and to everyone here, regardless of how we face our challenges. those challenges well, i said it before, to me they are like climbing everest.
hugs,
pete
ps pioneering, compassion, tolerance and respect are all great values we share on the best colorectal forum in the world. its the only one i know of in detail. i love the people here.0 -
its not medical adviceasuehiro said:oxaliplatin
Thanks.
I hope your ONC is right and the oxaliplatin will still work as it did back in 2008. The fasting part is the least of our worries because it has become so routine for her and she has been doing it for years. Everything is so relative. For us, a drug that works is much more of a concern than fasting for 48 hours.
Perhaps as more people do the 48-hour fast we will hear more first hand reports from people other than myself. I am willing to become the target of skeptics and critics who have more questions than answers, but it still comes down to making that all important personal choice. If people don't want to do it, they won't.
I will let you know if the oxaliplatin works and if the fasting suppresses the awful side effects. This will be interesting from a scientific standpoint.
I hope your wife does well whether she tries the fast or not.
but i read tonight that someone doing a days fast on an ongoing weekly basis runs the risk of mineral depletion. so maybe some supplementation, certainly eyeballing your minerals maybe prudent. just all good Questions for the medical team, maybe your oncologist is even on that team. my onc is on my care team, as long as they have respect for the functional and integrative doctors that give me iv c.
hugs,
Pete0 -
its a great story blakeBuckwirth said:I had a similar experience
Most of the details are here:
My Story
I will say that Folfox is easier for me the second time around, no nausea, very little neuropathy, no bowel changes and no stomach cramping.
While I would not dream of intentionally fasting prior to chemo (I have appetite problems as it is) I am neither for nor against this as an option. My only point is that your oncologist should be consulted, and anyone telling a personal story be clear that it is just that, personal, and your mileage may vary.
and its not completed, you got a few more chapters left. hopefully long ones.
hugs,
pete0 -
and while we are on the topic of a brave new world...pete43lost_at_sea said:three cheers to the poineer spirit
as james t kirk said.
lets boldly go where no man has gone before.
thanks asuehiro, its nice to have a few kind comments about my beliefs.
i firmly believe in 10 years time, cancer patients on this amazing board will look back on our posts and say.
look at all those brave patients on chemo without all the natural and dietary supports.
they may ask themselves, why did it take medicine so long to get science.
for me the real issue is how can we fast track some of these out there ideas safely and effectively.
moving them from isolated anecdotes to something of more long term value.
just good health to you and your wife and to everyone here, regardless of how we face our challenges. those challenges well, i said it before, to me they are like climbing everest.
hugs,
pete
ps pioneering, compassion, tolerance and respect are all great values we share on the best colorectal forum in the world. its the only one i know of in detail. i love the people here.
I read somewhere (not sure where) that we may not have to do a 48-hour fast one day. You will only need to take a pill, perhaps a product of gene therapy, and your body will be tricked into "thinking" that it is in starvation mode without actually having to fast. Now I can see many of our skeptics and naysayers out there giving this a try because it doesn't take any effort on their part! So our shortage of "pioneers" may not hinder the fasting effort.
But even with the information explosion that we have today, it doesn't mean much if people don't take advantage of what is known. Just look at how many people, young and old, who are either diabetic or pre-diabetic. It is epidemic. And diabetes will lead to everything from blindness to amputation to death. It all goes back to that personal choice issue that I keep bringing up. We should know better, but knowing and doing are separated by a wide gap...like getting someone to exercise regularly. We know how that goes.
But you are correct, it takes time for things to sink in and for change to happen or be widely accepted. Heck, I'm still waiting for them to come up with the first flying car
I tell this to my wife whenever she asks me why we don't get a newer car. 0 -
Ohio State University and dopamine studypeterz54 said:a few more things
working from memory here, which is likely faulty, but on the slim chance you are not aware of some of this and have the time to followup and validate...
if your wife is KRAS-Mut (will not let EGFR inhibitors work) it may be all the more important to dial down mTOR, which fasting and/or protein deprivation does. So, if she can tolerate fasting well, you are probably OK. In any case, the signaling path of which mTOR is part of, is implicated in aging and cell proliferation, and there is evidence (google scholar/pubmed) to suggest that inhibiting mTOR slows aging related diseases. There is research ongoing to create mTOR inhibitors for use in oncology but the literature also suggests that a number of polyphenols (plant chemicals) will help dial mTOR down as well, but degree unknown.
may also check out the angiogenesis foundation which has done good work to identify potential natural angiogenesis inhibitors in foods (mostly plants, again)
as for oxaliplatin, our ONC was not keen on calcium and magnesium infusions or glutamine usage to stave off neuropathy, a major side effect. but again, the literature suggest that they can help.
our ONC also suggests that of a year or more has passed then reintroducing former drugs is more likely to work, hence going back to oxaliplatin...
good luck....
I don't know if you saw my reply to Karrie, but there is a possibly very important study going on at Ohio State University concerning blood vesel growth in tumors using the chemical dopamine. This is what I told her:
There is a study going on right now at Ohio State University that involves the chemical dopamine. It has been discovered that dopamine (which our body produces) causes blood vessels to grow within cancerous tumors. On first glance, you might think that it is a bad thing to make cancerous tissue more healthy by enabling it to grow new blood vessels so that the cancer can grow even faster. I thought so too, until I read that by developing more blood vessels the chemo drugs have a much better chance of invading the cancerous tissue and destroying the cancer cells. Cancerous tissue has blood vessels on the outside where it can find the nutrients to feed itself (and cancer likes to grow...and quicly), but the internal network of blood vessels is not as well developed or as extensive, so getting more chemo drugs into the tissue will naturally make the chemo more effective. I mentioned this to my wife's oncologist and he found it very interesting and will "keep his ear to the ground" concerning that research and keep an eye open for local clinical trials concerning dopamine.
My gut feeling tells me that this could one of those "breakthrough" discoveries that will make major waves in the world of chemotherapy. Something like this may certainly help people like your wife and mine. And curiously enough, it is not a miracle cure, but a possibly much more efficient way of applying our current technology. I am really amazed how clever these researchers are out there. I guess it is the old "work smarter not harder" methodology. And because dopamine has been in use for many years for other purposes and is not harmful in the typical chemo sense, clinical trials do not have to take many years to complete or win FDA approval (from what I understand).
Keep your eye on that ball because it bears watching. There is still hope for us.0 -
Eat
Chemo will make one lose their stomach contents. It did every time for me. I would rather pass it, then be weak and then my body trying to evacuate nothing. I even carried a banana and gatoraid with me. Most treatments had lunch delivered during the chemo treatment.
Our thoughts are with you and your father!
Best Always, mike
PS Whom ever said do not eat or starve before has not been through chemo!0 -
Fasting
Hi Gabrielle,
Many years ago I had put on a lot of weight and due to past injuries to my spine, it put me in a wheelchair. When I realized how heavy I'd got, I started to diet (no carb, low fat, high protein) and started doing water aerobics. I finally managed to drop 80 pounds and got to 145, then up again to a 160 medium range (plus or minus 5 pounds)and was very happy with myself at that weight.
Now I'm at 171 and I don't like it and want to shed about 10 pounds. When I mention this to my Onc he gets upset and tells me that I need to keep my weight up and when he finds out (from my care giver) that I might on occasion eat only one meal a day, he lectures me about maintaining a healthy weight. And I must confess that when I've three meals a day I do feel better than when I've skipped meals. This is especially so during my infusion day. Just out of curiosity, I will eat very light the two days prior to my next treatment on Tuesday (I just can't fast completely) and post how I feel that evening.
Ray0 -
Gabby are you still around???
Hope you and your dad are both well.
Recent comments on the thread are scaring me a great deal.
Please for anyone reading this thread and thinking of taking up the idea, please, please talk to your medical team first before you do such a thing. I can't even imagine fasting before chemo, oh my goodness the oxiplatian wooh not going there. But seriously how many of us who have done chemo actually felt like eating afterwards???? I know I didn't. So imagine fasting before hand arghhh. Plus some can not tolerate water etc and it has to be at room temperature, oh my arghh sorry getting flashbacks, so I have no idea how it would work fasting beforehand.
Pete and the guy who's wife are considering it, each to their own it's your decision.0 -
69-hour fastpeterz54 said:a few more things
working from memory here, which is likely faulty, but on the slim chance you are not aware of some of this and have the time to followup and validate...
if your wife is KRAS-Mut (will not let EGFR inhibitors work) it may be all the more important to dial down mTOR, which fasting and/or protein deprivation does. So, if she can tolerate fasting well, you are probably OK. In any case, the signaling path of which mTOR is part of, is implicated in aging and cell proliferation, and there is evidence (google scholar/pubmed) to suggest that inhibiting mTOR slows aging related diseases. There is research ongoing to create mTOR inhibitors for use in oncology but the literature also suggests that a number of polyphenols (plant chemicals) will help dial mTOR down as well, but degree unknown.
may also check out the angiogenesis foundation which has done good work to identify potential natural angiogenesis inhibitors in foods (mostly plants, again)
as for oxaliplatin, our ONC was not keen on calcium and magnesium infusions or glutamine usage to stave off neuropathy, a major side effect. but again, the literature suggest that they can help.
our ONC also suggests that of a year or more has passed then reintroducing former drugs is more likely to work, hence going back to oxaliplatin...
good luck....
Peterz54,
My wife fasted for a total of 69 hours prior to and during her chemo this Tuesday. Yes, she got hungry at one point but she held firm and just drank more water. She did have a headache, but took Excedrin and was OK. So far, no bad side effects from the Oxaliplatin. This is not to say that she won't have them. Too early to tell yet. Also, her ONC said he was going to start off with a lower dosage in the beginning and work it up depending on the severity of any side effects. There is also the issue of the cumulative effect of the chemo, so we will have to see what happens as she goes through more treatments. I hope things stay good for her. I think hair loss may be one indicator whether the fasting is really protecting her good fast growing cells. We will see.
Anyway, if the side effects don't appear I am sure her 48-hour fast will become the 69-hour fast! And for those people who think she has a lot of excess weight and can afford to fast that way, she is 5' tall and weighs only 103 lbs. She may lose 3-4 pounds during her fast, but she gains it all back in a couple of days. I am sure that in the world of fasting, 48 hours is really not that bad. [Offensive statement removed by CSN community manager.]
So far, so good.0 -
"I think hair loss may be one indicator whether the fasting is really protecting her good fast growing cells."asuehiro said:69-hour fast
Peterz54,
My wife fasted for a total of 69 hours prior to and during her chemo this Tuesday. Yes, she got hungry at one point but she held firm and just drank more water. She did have a headache, but took Excedrin and was OK. So far, no bad side effects from the Oxaliplatin. This is not to say that she won't have them. Too early to tell yet. Also, her ONC said he was going to start off with a lower dosage in the beginning and work it up depending on the severity of any side effects. There is also the issue of the cumulative effect of the chemo, so we will have to see what happens as she goes through more treatments. I hope things stay good for her. I think hair loss may be one indicator whether the fasting is really protecting her good fast growing cells. We will see.
Anyway, if the side effects don't appear I am sure her 48-hour fast will become the 69-hour fast! And for those people who think she has a lot of excess weight and can afford to fast that way, she is 5' tall and weighs only 103 lbs. She may lose 3-4 pounds during her fast, but she gains it all back in a couple of days. I am sure that in the world of fasting, 48 hours is really not that bad. [Offensive statement removed by CSN community manager.]
So far, so good.
You do know that Folfox has a very low incidence of hair loss, right?
"Just look at the Holocaust victims during World War 2..."
Apparently the six million who died don't count? Not sure what made you think this was appropriate...0 -
Amen to that!Sonia32 said:Gabby are you still around???
Hope you and your dad are both well.
Recent comments on the thread are scaring me a great deal.
Please for anyone reading this thread and thinking of taking up the idea, please, please talk to your medical team first before you do such a thing. I can't even imagine fasting before chemo, oh my goodness the oxiplatian wooh not going there. But seriously how many of us who have done chemo actually felt like eating afterwards???? I know I didn't. So imagine fasting before hand arghhh. Plus some can not tolerate water etc and it has to be at room temperature, oh my arghh sorry getting flashbacks, so I have no idea how it would work fasting beforehand.
Pete and the guy who's wife are considering it, each to their own it's your decision.
I agree with you, Sonia!
*hugs*
Gail0 -
That's what I said.Buckwirth said:"I think hair loss may be one indicator whether the fasting is really protecting her good fast growing cells."
You do know that Folfox has a very low incidence of hair loss, right?
"Just look at the Holocaust victims during World War 2..."
Apparently the six million who died don't count? Not sure what made you think this was appropriate...
Folfox can cause hair loss because my wife has lost 30% of her hair on Folfox. She wouldn't consider it low incidence. Did you just make that up?
When I mentioned the Holocaust I was making a reference to doing a 48-hour fast and survival under much more extended periods without food. Everything is relative. And what's with the six million who died reference? You are getting ahead of yourself. Really.0 -
asuehiro,asuehiro said:That's what I said.
Folfox can cause hair loss because my wife has lost 30% of her hair on Folfox. She wouldn't consider it low incidence. Did you just make that up?
When I mentioned the Holocaust I was making a reference to doing a 48-hour fast and survival under much more extended periods without food. Everything is relative. And what's with the six million who died reference? You are getting ahead of yourself. Really."Folfox can cause hair loss because my wife has lost 30% of her hair on Folfox. She wouldn't consider it low incidence."
Yep, because her experience must be universal (please don't make me define this...). You do understand that "low incidence" means it can happen, it is just not likely, right? And you do understand that therefore there is nothing in my statement for your wife to disagree with."Did you just make that up?"
Yep, that is what I do around here, make things up. It has nothing to do with personal experience, research, or the two years spent on this site (among others) reading posts from others that have been through the same thing. Nope, none of that, I just make it up.
Oh, and that personal experience thing? I notice that my side effects the second time around are somewhat different from my (or my wife's) memory of the first 12 rounds. Even then, the first four were different from the next eight, and the last two were different from the first 10. Of course that is just me, YMMV. Besides, I am just making that up.0 -
fasting update - so far great results!
Hello all, just an update.
We consulted with our oncology team and they were aware of the research and very supportive of the fasting as long as Dad kept his weight up. Dad fasted for 48 hours before the chemo treatment and about 6 hours after. So far we have had great results! We've only finished the first week of radiation/chemo combo (rad all week, chemo on wed.), but so far he has had zero symptoms. (There are two benefits to the fasting, according to the research - killing more cancer cells and less side effects.)
We'll see how things go next week, as I know chemo is cumulative. The benefits of fasting are getting around, though. One of my students came up to me after class today and said that his Dad is being treated for cancer at the Mayo clinic and that it was the doctors themselves who recommended it to them.
- Karrie0 -
Good for You (and your Dad)Karrie42 said:fasting update - so far great results!
Hello all, just an update.
We consulted with our oncology team and they were aware of the research and very supportive of the fasting as long as Dad kept his weight up. Dad fasted for 48 hours before the chemo treatment and about 6 hours after. So far we have had great results! We've only finished the first week of radiation/chemo combo (rad all week, chemo on wed.), but so far he has had zero symptoms. (There are two benefits to the fasting, according to the research - killing more cancer cells and less side effects.)
We'll see how things go next week, as I know chemo is cumulative. The benefits of fasting are getting around, though. One of my students came up to me after class today and said that his Dad is being treated for cancer at the Mayo clinic and that it was the doctors themselves who recommended it to them.
- Karrie
Karrie,
I am glad that your Dad had the moxie to do the fast. Few people will. At least now there will be others on this forum who can attest to the effectiveness of this fast. You may have to be the new standard bearer of the fasting theory because my role may be ending soon (read my last response on this forum and you will know why.
You and your Dad will be an inspiration to others and perhaps one other person shall benefit from your fasting experience. I believe that there is sure to come a time when fasting will be the recommended procedure to follow to avoid chemo's side effects. Fasting is not just fantasy, but is the real deal as you are now finding out.
As for myself and my wife, I need to investigate clinical trials out there because cancer cells have a disturbing proclivity to mutate and become resistant to chemo over time. And when that happens, whole groups of chemo drugs may also become ineffective. This has already happened to my wife once, so there is no reason for me to believe that it won't happen again.
Good luck to you and your Dad and make the most of your lives.0 -
fasting before chemoasuehiro said:Good for You (and your Dad)
Karrie,
I am glad that your Dad had the moxie to do the fast. Few people will. At least now there will be others on this forum who can attest to the effectiveness of this fast. You may have to be the new standard bearer of the fasting theory because my role may be ending soon (read my last response on this forum and you will know why.
You and your Dad will be an inspiration to others and perhaps one other person shall benefit from your fasting experience. I believe that there is sure to come a time when fasting will be the recommended procedure to follow to avoid chemo's side effects. Fasting is not just fantasy, but is the real deal as you are now finding out.
As for myself and my wife, I need to investigate clinical trials out there because cancer cells have a disturbing proclivity to mutate and become resistant to chemo over time. And when that happens, whole groups of chemo drugs may also become ineffective. This has already happened to my wife once, so there is no reason for me to believe that it won't happen again.
Good luck to you and your Dad and make the most of your lives.
I am glad more people are getting comfortable with fasting before chemo. I had vigorous chemo for Stage 3 breast cancer in 2009, and decided against my team's advice to fast 48 hours before each chemo session and about 6 hours after. They reluctantly agreed that I was strong enough to handle it, as I had not lost any weight and was quite energetic for my condition. After the fasting I eased into eating with soups, hot cereals, light food.
I did not find it as hard to fast as I expected -- when very hungry I drank a small glass of fat free milk, or an orange juice, which was only about once during the two days. I had NO NAUSEA AT ALL for the whole 6 months of chemo, didn't have to take the myriad medications, had 4 days of relative comfort after each session, then 4 days of agony. The one time I ate before chemo I was sick all 8 days.
Apparently, if I understand this correctly, fasting puts the body in starvation mode, i.e., the cells' metabolism slows down to save energy, so they consume less chemo poison. Cancer cells, however, are stupid and greedy, and slurp up the poison even more, since they have nothing else to eat. So, my own cells stay healthier, while the cancer cells poison themselves more. Once better clinical trials are completed, we will probably be able to increase the chemo dosage without causing more damage to our own body cells.0 -
Details of fastingasuehiro said:69-hour fast
Peterz54,
My wife fasted for a total of 69 hours prior to and during her chemo this Tuesday. Yes, she got hungry at one point but she held firm and just drank more water. She did have a headache, but took Excedrin and was OK. So far, no bad side effects from the Oxaliplatin. This is not to say that she won't have them. Too early to tell yet. Also, her ONC said he was going to start off with a lower dosage in the beginning and work it up depending on the severity of any side effects. There is also the issue of the cumulative effect of the chemo, so we will have to see what happens as she goes through more treatments. I hope things stay good for her. I think hair loss may be one indicator whether the fasting is really protecting her good fast growing cells. We will see.
Anyway, if the side effects don't appear I am sure her 48-hour fast will become the 69-hour fast! And for those people who think she has a lot of excess weight and can afford to fast that way, she is 5' tall and weighs only 103 lbs. She may lose 3-4 pounds during her fast, but she gains it all back in a couple of days. I am sure that in the world of fasting, 48 hours is really not that bad. [Offensive statement removed by CSN community manager.]
So far, so good.
Can you please advise whether the fasting should be 24 hours before chemo and 24 after or 48 hours before?
Your input has been a wonderful support.0 -
fastingbobivee said:fasting before chemo
I am glad more people are getting comfortable with fasting before chemo. I had vigorous chemo for Stage 3 breast cancer in 2009, and decided against my team's advice to fast 48 hours before each chemo session and about 6 hours after. They reluctantly agreed that I was strong enough to handle it, as I had not lost any weight and was quite energetic for my condition. After the fasting I eased into eating with soups, hot cereals, light food.
I did not find it as hard to fast as I expected -- when very hungry I drank a small glass of fat free milk, or an orange juice, which was only about once during the two days. I had NO NAUSEA AT ALL for the whole 6 months of chemo, didn't have to take the myriad medications, had 4 days of relative comfort after each session, then 4 days of agony. The one time I ate before chemo I was sick all 8 days.
Apparently, if I understand this correctly, fasting puts the body in starvation mode, i.e., the cells' metabolism slows down to save energy, so they consume less chemo poison. Cancer cells, however, are stupid and greedy, and slurp up the poison even more, since they have nothing else to eat. So, my own cells stay healthier, while the cancer cells poison themselves more. Once better clinical trials are completed, we will probably be able to increase the chemo dosage without causing more damage to our own body cells.
How long exactly does Dr. Valter Longo of USC recommend. He is the doctor who did the original research as I understand it. Does he recommend fasting before AND after? If so for how long?0 -
it's a real good questionjupiter said:fasting
How long exactly does Dr. Valter Longo of USC recommend. He is the doctor who did the original research as I understand it. Does he recommend fasting before AND after? If so for how long?
My unsolicited opinion considering the theory of fasting, would be it depends on glycogen stores.
It depends on fat stores, so many variables, one day I will research this.
I suspect an ketogenic diet focused on mcg maybe of benefit for some while stopping catabolism of muscle.
I suspect post chemo nutrition focused on gut rebuild, has always been the integrative approach.
Now personally I would go maybe even a day or two fasting after chemo, with a focus on gut healing.
Eating is such hard work on the GI track, I am not even a trained Naturopath but I know a few Buzz words.
A doc opinion is a guess, if guided by test results and bloods and urine then I think targeted low dose chemo may have benefit.
Easily digestible super smoothies might be handy post chemo.
Oh and the 2 day fast before well it depends on diet , your basal metabolic rate and exercise.
Great interesting question, I wish I had all the answers.
Hugs,
Pete0
Discussion Boards
- All Discussion Boards
- 6 CSN Information
- 6 Welcome to CSN
- 121.8K Cancer specific
- 2.8K Anal Cancer
- 446 Bladder Cancer
- 309 Bone Cancers
- 1.6K Brain Cancer
- 28.5K Breast Cancer
- 397 Childhood Cancers
- 27.9K Colorectal Cancer
- 4.6K Esophageal Cancer
- 1.2K Gynecological Cancers (other than ovarian and uterine)
- 13K Head and Neck Cancer
- 6.4K Kidney Cancer
- 671 Leukemia
- 792 Liver Cancer
- 4.1K Lung Cancer
- 5.1K Lymphoma (Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin)
- 237 Multiple Myeloma
- 7.1K Ovarian Cancer
- 61 Pancreatic Cancer
- 487 Peritoneal Cancer
- 5.5K Prostate Cancer
- 1.2K Rare and Other Cancers
- 539 Sarcoma
- 730 Skin Cancer
- 653 Stomach Cancer
- 191 Testicular Cancer
- 1.5K Thyroid Cancer
- 5.8K Uterine/Endometrial Cancer
- 6.3K Lifestyle Discussion Boards