Cakes, chocolates, ice cream, cookies, processed fruit juices and the likes...

foroughsh said:

My nutritionist said suger

My nutritionist said suger, fast food, faty foods, all processed foods, processed fruit juices shold be omitted from my diet list.  Even natural fruit juices aren't useful but fruits specially apple, orange, grip fruit, all red or purple fruits or vetgtables are great. Green tea, date, onion, Garlic are good too. But not too much. Beef isn't good but  I'm allowed to eat small slice daily but chicken is better. Fish specially Solomon and shrimp are the best but again not too much.  Salad without mayonese souce is a good thing to eat.  Organic foods are the best.  It's best to grill or put foods in the oven and use less oil. Pure olive oil is great but use it on salad as it is cold. Water,water,water.  It's best not to buy any ready  made foods from supermarket because  they include stabilizer. Also anything which includes added colours should be avoided. It's best to eat fresh foods. And also cookies which you buy aren't good at all but home made cookies with honey and no suger are acceptable but not recommended.

In moderation I love everything on your list. The problem is that all of us with less than 2 kidneys have less than perfect functioning kidneys and as we get older whether we like it or not we will have Stage 3 Chronic Kidney Disease. Being diadetic, overweight or having high blood pressure can trigger a heart issure. While our death certificate may say heart attack or diabities the loss of a kidney was a contributing factor.

Again enjoy in moderation.

Icemantoo

Yes it is true.  But not for the reasons touched on here so far.

All normal cells respire ("slow burn") glucose.  To do this they require molecular oxygen as well. Common table sugar - called sucrose - is made up of 50% glucose and 50% fructose.  Fructose can only be metabolized by liver cells and certain muscle cells.

Most tumor cells - especially renal carcinoma's - have highly dysfunctional cell metabolism.  They rely on fermenting that same glucose and/or other amino acids such as Glutamine.  Because the fermentation of glucose is so ineffecient these tumors tend to need about 10 to 50X the amount of glucose to get the same energy as they could by the normal respiration of glucose.

Regardless, the real problem are the spikes in the level of insulin whenever you ingest a lot of sugar(s) with no fiber, etc.  Insulin spikes promote the growth of all cells - but especially tumor cells.

Here is popular lecture circulating on YouTube that explains a bit more:

It is gven by Dr. Robert H. Lustig called, “Sugar – The Bitter Truth” and found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=dBnniua6-oM

Foroughsh and Nano are on point.  I have removed all processed foods/juices, and refined sugar from my diet.

NanoSecond said:

Terrific!

Congrats Phoenix!  These are two of the most important steps towards regaining control of insulin (and related hormones) that you can do for your body.  I am sure you will begin to feel the results in no time.

on a pizza and beer diet? Watching ones nutrition is something that everyone can have some control over. That being said, nutritionists also get cancer. More exercise is also important. But marathoners get cancer too. Influencing cellular biology in the laboratory is not the same as delivering a weight watchers low calorie menu. Our central nervous system operates only on glycogens. Not fats. Not protein. We would be unable to function if we reduced our glycogen levels to the point where we can control cellular metabolism. If you are, or know a diabetic, you know how critical it is to maintain appropriate blood sugars. Neither hypo nor hyperglycemia is healthy. Either extreme will cost you your life. In endurance sporting events like marathons, our glycogen levels must be within range. As glycogen levels diminish, our bodies enter what exercise physiologists refer to as the "Glycogen sparing mechanism." This means both fats and proteins are broken down to provide fuel for our bodies. It does this to ensure that a minimum level of glycogen remains in our blood to be available for our brain, central and peripheral nervous system to operate on. When one approaches the threshold for the glycogen sparing mechanism to kick in, something has to give. There is confusion, disorientation, loss of motor control and coordination. Bowel and bladder control is compromised. In endurance events the non- scientific term is "Bonking." In practical terms one can not minipulate a hypoglycemic state to influence neoplastic metabolism while maintaining a functional nervous system and healthy physiology. If it was possible, everyone would be doing it. It would be easier to get an anti-tumor sandwich than a Dunkin Donut.

NanoSecond said:

No one is claiming that diet alone can fight cancer

All true.  But just not to the point.  The issue is Insulin Resistance. Obesity and Type II Diabetes are recognized high risk factors for renal cancer.  Both of these "chronic" diseases begin (and end) with Insulin Resistance.

It is "easy" to prevent Insulin Resistance occurring in the first place by following a proper diet - so I guess paying attention to nutrition now may just be pissing in the wind for those of us who are at stage IV.  Still, to each his own. I think it helps enormously but mainstream medicine currently says it does not.

Although the videos linked to below are aimed at obese and/or diabetic patients - they are worth considering.  Meanwhile, if you can explain how consuming beer and pizza (on a regular basis) can reduce Insulin resistance in the least - or prevent it from occurring in the first place - then I will eat my hat.  No, better yet - I will gladly go back to eating pizza (alcohol is out because I have liver mets):

http://intensivedietarymanagement.com/category/lectures/the-aetiology-of-obesity-lecture-series/

Below is a quote from the Mayo Clinic on the link between sugar and cancer. I would assume the Mayo Clinic is reputable and would be the first to advocate cutting out sugar from your diet if there was a proven cause-effect relationship. I’m not saying processed food, junk food, sweets every day and gallons of soda are good for you and certainly am not advocating that poeple pig out on cookies and cake. But sadly, even eliminating them completely from our diet isn’t going to kill our cancer cells. I've always been huge on nutrition and always ate healthy, mostly veggies. I don’t like sweets and never drink soda, and only very rarely have dessert. Yet I ended up with cancer. Go figure. Okay, here’s the quote:

“Myth: People with cancer shouldn't eat sugar, since it can cause cancer to grow faster.

Fact: Sugar doesn't make cancer grow faster. All cells, including cancer cells, depend on blood sugar (glucose) for energy. But giving more sugar to cancer cells doesn't speed their growth. Likewise, depriving cancer cells of sugar doesn't slow their growth.

This misconception may be based in part on a misunderstanding of positron emission tomography (PET) scans, which use a small amount of radioactive tracer — typically a form of glucose. All tissues in your body absorb some of this tracer, but tissues that are using more energy — including cancer cells — absorb greater amounts. For this reason, some people have concluded that cancer cells grow faster on sugar. But this isn't true.

However, there is some evidence that consuming large amounts of sugar is associated with an increased risk of certain cancers, including esophageal cancer. It can also lead to weight gain and increase the risk of obesity and diabetes, which may increase the risk of cancer.”

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer-causes/art-20044714?pg=2

NanoSecond said:

Agreed

If you read my initial response you will see that I agree with this one-pointed statement.

You cannot "starve" cancer cells by cutting out sugar(s).

You CAN prevent insulin resistance and the insulin spikes that accompany excess sugar or carbohydrate consumption by cutting out sugar(s).

The Mayo Clinic represents consensus medicine.  That is one viewpoint which addresses the wrong question to begin with.

Here is the CEO/President of Memorial Sloan Kettering explaining the "real" reason for considering cutting back on sugar and carbs:

http://www.mskcc.org/education/high-school-outreach/why-we-all-don-t-get

Great video, thank you. But my understanding of it is that towards the end he was stressing obesity as the major problem and the overeating of carbohydrates; not the normal consumption of a bowl of pasta by an average non-obese individual, or drinking a glass of orange juice with your breakfast. That was really my point as well. Don’t overdo it, certainly, and gobble cakes, cookies, and white bread; but simply cutting it out of your diet is, IMO, placing unrealistic expectations for cancer and its remission.

BTW, please don't think I'm arguing with you. I am definitely into nutrition and always have been. And I do agree that insulin spikes are dangerous for inflamations and a whole host of other things. So I'm not advocating a high carb diet by any means.

APny said:

Great video, thank you. But

Great video, thank you. But my understanding of it is that towards the end he was stressing obesity as the major problem and the overeating of carbohydrates; not the normal consumption of a bowl of pasta by an average non-obese individual, or drinking a glass of orange juice with your breakfast. That was really my point as well. Don’t overdo it, certainly, and gobble cakes, cookies, and white bread; but simply cutting it out of your diet is, IMO, placing unrealistic expectations for cancer and its remission.

BTW, please don't think I'm arguing with you. I am definitely into nutrition and always have been. And I do agree that insulin spikes are dangerous for inflamations and a whole host of other things. So I'm not advocating a high carb diet by any means.

Yes, we are in agreement for the most part.  As I pointed out, these videos were not about cancer but about dealing with obesity and type II diabetes and were directed at those already sufferring.  Still, the main point is what started the process of decline?  Answer: Insulin resistance.  And what led to insulin resistance in the first place?  Years of eating the "standard American diet" consisting of excess sugars and certain carbohydrates.  Plus many other contributing factors such as switching to cooking in vegetable-seed poly-unsaturated fats instead of cooking in saturated fats such a butter; coconut oil; and beef tallow; etc. which cannot be oxidized when heated or exposed to sunlight.

I have a 55-page document that goes into detail regarding all these other reasons one might conclude that a low carb/high fat diet is optimal for avoiding cancer and/or for helping to fight it once it takes hold.

Every one is different. All I am interested in is getting the unblemished facts out to others who might be interested.  Yes, I have drawn my own conclusions based on those facts - but that does not mean I expect everyone else to agree with me (indeed, mainstream medicine does not - as yet). To be honest I don't trust mainstream nutritional advice as I believe it has been based on faulty (if not almost fraudulent) science for the past 40 years.  The result is what we can now see clearly all around us:  Obesity rates that are unheard of in history and still out of control; Type II diabetes and Type III diabetes (i.e. Dementia and Alzheimer's) climbing alarmingly; the rates of all of the "diseases of civilization" - expecially cancers - increasing yearly...

foxhd said:

Zager and Evans

This all reminds me of that Zager and Evans song..where people don't need their arms and legs, and we choose our children from a long glass tube. Or, one pill makes us stronger, one pill makes us tall, but the ones that mother gives us, don't do anything at all,..

There is a limit at which we can intervene in natures plan. We were designed to stay alive through homeostasis. The chemistry being nearly foolproof. That is why we are alive in the first place. Dietary differences and its effect on the body is apparent just by observing different cultures. The saying,"You are what you eat." has merit. But once a food source is broken down into useable molecules, it's all the same. However, making it a more efficient process is a worthy attempt. At this stage of cancer it certainly is too late. But at the other extreme one couldn't live a normal life being hypoglycemic from day one. So, "Everything in moderation still holds true. This topic is always fun. Where are the lurkers?

Zager and Evans?  I have an encyclopedic knowledge of hits from the 1960's and 1970's, and I had to look that one up.  Agree with Fox that moderation is the key.