Why special diets are recommended to treat cancer

[Darren2013]

You know why friends and family of a cancer patient recommend one of those special diets they read about online that claim to reverse cancer? Like alkaline or Gearson therapy or restricting sugar intake because they read that sugar feeds cancer.

 

Friends and family mean well but I think sometimes the reason they recommend those diets is because they are not ready to accept the likelihood that their loved one has an incurable condition. Understandable. I do not judge them for that. I mean if you or I had a best friend or close loved one or significant other who had cancer we may react the same way and be in denial for a time and we won't even be willing to think about the possibility that they are going to die in a matter of months from the cancer.

 

However when a patient is an advanced stage of cancer the top priority becomes keeping them as comfortable as possible. Part of that comfort involves giving them whatever they want to eat or drink or smoke. Even cancer doctors will tell a patient's loved ones to just give them whatever they want to eat or drink or smoke. Providing their favorite foods is an important part of the comfort care process.

 

Besides with advanced illness patients are losing weight without trying anyway and therefore it shouldn't matter what they are eating and the diet should be as permissive as possible.

 

Who wants to spend their last days on earth eating a raw green leafy diet in a last ditch attempt to detox the body of cancer cells? I wouldn't. It is much better to make sure patients enjoy whatever is left of their time. Priorities are different for them than healthy people who are presumed to live out a normal lifespan.

 

I saw an interview with Patrick Swayze. He was interviewed by Barbra Walters. He had pancreatic cancer. She asked him why he hasn't quit smoking. I liked his answer. He said that his cancer was too far advanced that he knew realistically stopping smoking at that stage is probably not going to make a bit of difference. So he told her that until it looks like he is going to live more than 5 minutes that he might as well enjoy his cigarettes. Quitting smoking he said is not a high priority at such an advanced stage.

 

I mean it is fine for friends and family to be in denial about what is happening to their loved one to a certain extent but there does come a point when that denial can be more harmful than helpful to a cancer patient who needs comfort more than anything else. It is okay if the patient does not feel like fighting anymore and they want to let go. We are all going to die anyway but we go to great lengths to delay the inevitable.

[Robert Z]

No one wants to see someone they care about give up. New information is constantly coming out and we all know that doctors often don't keep up. In fact many people only receive effective medical treatments after taking control away from their physician. They do their homework, get with the right doctors, and eventually get cured. So the fact is that we are smart to fight for life and to not readily accept that there is no hope.

 

I just experienced this myself in a small way. Apparently a spider bite led to an infection that led to two trips to the ER where I never received the proper treatment. I have a staph infection, which can be deadly. But I had to go to a dermatologist before I was finally prescribed the proper antibiotic. Because the doctors in the ER didn't do their job properly, I could have died over a spider bite.

 

Having experienced many health crises with family members who are mostly all gone now, I sympathize with and understand your frustration. There does come a time when we just need to make a dying person as comfortable as possible. I would do no less for my pets. But it is just as important to not give up too soon. Where there is life, there is hope. And there are new medical treatments coming out daily.

 

 

There is a lot of cutting-edge work under way in regard to cancers and diets. New papers are coming out constantly. It may be a paradigm change in cancer prevention and treatment.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Robert Z

[PogoStick]

There's no good science supporting either claim.

 

First off, the body regulates pH very tightly, no matter what is eaten. If one managed to turn their blood more basic, they would die.

 

Second, there is no way to starve the cancer without starving your entire body. Cancer metabolizes energy the same as everything else. Amino acids can be turned into glucose, and fats go through beta-oxidation to generate energy.

 

Furthermore! Weight loss is pretty much the worst thing you can do while fighting cancer. With cancer, losing weight = dying. The body uses lots of energy fighting the cancer, and repairing the damage from chemo and radiation treatment. That is the wrong time to be "starving".

 

BTW, My dad is currently fighting stage 4 lung cancer.

[Robert Z]

There's no good science supporting either claim. .

 

 

Great! Publish a paper.

 

Oh, you're not qualified. Sorry. This is just your uniformed opinion.

 

 

It takes five seconds to find the good science [people actually qualified to publish]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ketogenic+diets+and+cancer&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=oC87VKP-DoX6iwLnpoC4DA&ved=0CCYQgQMwAA

Edited October 13, 2014 by Robert Z

[SerCay]

Wow OP...time to pull your head outta the sand innit??? I'm glad that people are starting to get smarter about health..cause if we would all be thinking like you, we would only be feeding the pharma companies more and more...No thanks I prefer the budwig diet over chemo any day, we did a combination of sugar and carbs free diet and chemo and guess what she survived and is clean!!

Most people that die of "cancer" actually die from the side effects of the chemo, but no one tells you that do they? Go do your research on chemistry then come back please. These kinds of blindness upset me!

[ufo8mycat]

Great! Publish a paper.

 

Oh, you're not qualified. Sorry. This is just your uniformed opinion.

 

 

It takes five seconds to find the good science [people actually qualified to publish]

ketogenic diets and cancer - Google Scholar

 

There is no good evidence that supports that diet impacts or ameliorates the progression of cancer.

 

The link to google scholar you posted mostly references ketogenic diets and children with severe epilepsy that can't be controlled with medication - where there is clinical evidence for efficacy but without the foggiest idea why,. There is one article that also looks at the restricted ketogenic diet as an effective therapy for malignant brain cancer. It uses a mouse model. The introduction that describes while traditional therapies are ineffective is simply wrong. Chemotherapy is ineffective in brain cancer due to the blood brain barrier, not exclusively toxicity. So animal models are a good start but they are not validated evidence.

 

None of the articles in google scholar (and I didn't go past the first page) cite any clinical evidence.

 

I also went to pub med (where the real evidence is posted by people who are qualified to write it, then it has been peer reviewed prior to publication. Something that does NOT happen with many of the open access articles on goggle scholar).

 

Most of the studies are case series of VERY small numbers and a search failed to show any clinical trials with any sort of randomisation.

 

There are also articles circulating that "sugar causes cancer" and reference a quite good article that was published in a reputable journal. Dietary sugar doesn't cause cancer. Cancer cells, like all cells use sugar as part of the cell metabolism (glycolysis). Some cancer cells use more sugar than others - in tissue culture. It is all rubbish. Some cancer cells use more sugar to divide but sugar in your diet doesn't show any affect on this cell mechanism.

 

Cancer is still thought to be a disease of genetics rather than metabolism - but hey, stuff changes with good evidence.

 

It is true that the body has a very narrow pH window and interestingly, those that are critical ill do better with a wider window of blood glycemic variation that tightly controlled blood glucose levels.

 

Darren - eat well, look after yourself, make smart food choice and watch your weight doesn't drop too much. While diet won't cure cancer, you will feel much better for maintaining your physical and mental wellness as best you can.

 

(and ask your doctor before eating grapefruit!)

[ufo8mycat]

Most people that die of "cancer" actually die from the side effects of the chemo, but no one tells you that do they? Go do your research on chemistry then come back please. These kinds of blindness upset me!

 

No they don't. Most cancer patients actually die of infection.

 

All adverse events for chemotherapy drugs are reportable and available through government agencies (ADRAC in Australia) and SUSAR (serious unexpected adverse reactions) are reportable. Although there are many unpleasant side effects of chemotherapy, death is low on the list.

 

Most end of life cancer patients have also ceased active chemotherapy, although many still receive palliative radiation therapy as it is effective in pain control for bone mets and some space occupying tumours.

[writergal]

When my dad was diagnosed with multiple myeloma cancer, he changed his diet to be more nutritious but that didn't prevent him from getting lukemia from his interferon treatment, despite the fact that he had been in remission. It was the lukemia that took his life. Diet had no effect whatsoever. It wasn't the reason his cancer went into remission either, and he was treated at the Mayo Clinic. So he had top experts treating him. Yet their treatment didn't save him.

 

I think a healthy diet during cancer treatment is wise. Does that cure cancer? I'd have to see the clinical studies before I'd believe it. I don't buy into any of that organic propaganda out there now, about how food cures illness. Sure it helps and it's better to eat a salad than 20 Twinkies for lunch, but that's common sense. Processed food isn't good for the body.

[PogoStick]

Great! Publish a paper.

 

Oh, you're not qualified. Sorry. This is just your uniformed opinion.

 

 

It takes five seconds to find the good science [people actually qualified to publish]

ketogenic diets and cancer - Google Scholar

 

Ironically, what are you credentials? That's your proof? A google search without even checking any of the results!

 

From the American Cancer Society:

"other dietary regimens have been promoted as alternatives or adjuncts to cancer therapy. The evidence examining the effectiveness of these regimens during and after cancer treatment is sparse. A brief description of some of the more common regimens follows. None should be regarded as an alternative to standard cancer treatment."

[Darren2013]

Wow OP...time to pull your head outta the sand innit??? I'm glad that people are starting to get smarter about health..cause if we would all be thinking like you, we would only be feeding the pharma companies more and more...No thanks I prefer the budwig diet over chemo any day, we did a combination of sugar and carbs free diet and chemo and guess what she survived and is clean!!

Most people that die of "cancer" actually die from the side effects of the chemo, but no one tells you that do they? Go do your research on chemistry then come back please. These kinds of blindness upset me!

 

Do you know that doctors do away with ordering lipid profiles on cancer patients who have less than a year to live? Why? Because it isn't a high priority concern anymore to worry about their cholesterol account.

[Tayla]

Op, plain and simple. you are correct. had a family member in hospice care. my biggest regret was my immense denial . the family member who is in the last stages is encouraged to pass on with dignity. they even emphasize, honor their wishes... if they want a sundae , or a candy... give it. now i wouldnt say giving them an allergic foods is wise.

i cringe at folks here waving the medical banner. i've watched first hand time and again how limited medical science is ... and burying far more when listening to the "medical team" who only knew how to speed up the inevitable til it was too late...

and patrick swayze was right, there is a pt of positive surrender...

[Darren2013]

Wow OP...time to pull your head outta the sand innit??? I'm glad that people are starting to get smarter about health..cause if we would all be thinking like you, we would only be feeding the pharma companies more and more...No thanks I prefer the budwig diet over chemo any day, we did a combination of sugar and carbs free diet and chemo and guess what she survived and is clean!!

Most people that die of "cancer" actually die from the side effects of the chemo, but no one tells you that do they? Go do your research on chemistry then come back please. These kinds of blindness upset me!

 

 

To me there's no point spending so much of my time fighting to stay alive if I'm not really living. To me part of what makes life meaningful is to enjoy my favorite comfort foods even if they are processed food. You can spend so much time restricting your diet in a last ditch effort to stay alive but you are not really living. And besides I may die of something else in the process of doing one of those heavy detox diets.

 

It is an illusion to think we can control how long we will live on this planet. There's no way to predict whose turn it is to die next and it shouldn't surprise us anymore who ends up dying next considering the list of famous actors and singers who have died in the last 6 years. Back in 2008 who would have thought that Michael Jackson or Whitney Houston were going to die anytime soon?

 

We can follow all the rules of diet but that doesn't mean you won't die early of something else. As you said cancer patients can die from side effects of treatment if not the cancer itself.

[Hope Shimmers]

Most people that die of "cancer" actually die from the side effects of the chemo

 

This is completely and blatantly untrue.

[Hope Shimmers]

To me there's no point spending so much of my time fighting to stay alive if I'm not really living. To me part of what makes life meaningful is to enjoy my favorite comfort foods even if they are processed food. You can spend so much time restricting your diet in a last ditch effort to stay alive but you are not really living. And besides I may die of something else in the process of doing one of those heavy detox diets.

 

It is an illusion to think we can control how long we will live on this planet. There's no way to predict whose turn it is to die next and it shouldn't surprise us anymore who ends up dying next considering the list of famous actors and singers who have died in the last 6 years. Back in 2008 who would have thought that Michael Jackson or Whitney Houston were going to die anytime soon?

 

We can follow all the rules of diet but that doesn't mean you won't die early of something else. As you said cancer patients can die from side effects of treatment if not the cancer itself.

 

The problem is that we (patients, scientists, physicians) don't know when to "give up". The leaps and bounds that have been made in terms of targeted therapy for cancer in the LAST YEAR ALONE are astounding. So when do you give up?

 

Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions however. If Patrick Swayze wanted to continue smoking, then great. If he decided to quit, maybe it would have added a day to his life. Or a week. Or a month. We don't know. Maybe that week or month would have been enough for him to get a treatment that would have extended his life that much more and maybe even go into remission. That's how much things are changing.

 

Or maybe it was about quality of life, and yes, that matters too. Very much so, especially in the last days of life.

[LivingWaterPlease]

Re: sugar and cancer.

 

Easy for anyone who succumbs to colds to figure out whether or not diet impacts their immune system.

 

Start experimenting when you get a cold. Try not eating processed sugar or white flour at all. See what happens with your cold. Then, add processed sugar (through desserts) to your diet while you have a cold and see what happens with it.

 

We're all unique and probably YMMV.

 

However, many moms know that when their kids get sick if they withhold desserts/sugar from them, the kids get well faster. Sugar seems to impact the immune system in many, if not most, folks.

 

Possibly some folks have extremely powerful immune systems and can't tell a difference as to how fast they improve when sick whether they eat sugar or not, idk.

 

But, personally, I'm able to tell that sugar consumption definitely impacts my immune system.

 

And if I got cancer I would definitely change my diet in many ways and cut out sugar consumption. No brainer.

 

And what have you got to lose? A little pleasure at the start but many people adjust to sugar-free diets quite well and lose their taste for sugar after being off of it for just a short time.

 

There is a reason even a healthy person feels great when they go on a healthy diet eating lots of plant-based foods, drinking plenty of water, getting rest, etc. Cutting down (or cutting out) desserts. It's because that's the way our bodies function best.

 

And people who eat lots of sugar, fried foods, junk, etc., suffer consequences from it.

 

Look at all of the disease (diabetes for instance) that's the result of obesity. What fuels obesity? Some things are sugar, bad fats, sedentary lifestyle, etc.

[Darren2013]

The problem is that we (patients, scientists, physicians) don't know when to "give up". The leaps and bounds that have been made in terms of targeted therapy for cancer in the LAST YEAR ALONE are astounding. So when do you give up?

 

Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions however. If Patrick Swayze wanted to continue smoking, then great. If he decided to quit, maybe it would have added a day to his life. Or a week. Or a month. We don't know. Maybe that week or month would have been enough for him to get a treatment that would have extended his life that much more and maybe even go into remission. That's how much things are changing.

 

Or maybe it was about quality of life, and yes, that matters too. Very much so, especially in the last days of life.

 

 

Patrick Swayze had pancreatic cancer and that's one of those cancers that statistically has a very low cure rate. Most pancreatic cancer patients are terminal and his doctor said the pancreas is the worst place in the body to get it. Furthermore the cancer had already spread to his liver at the time he did that interview with Barbra Walters. So with metastatic pancreatic cancer the odds are that he wasn't going to live much longer and he came to terms with that. Odds are quitting smoking would not have changed anything.

[LivingWaterPlease]

This just in today - Relationship between diet (includes info on sugar consumption and cancer) and cancer

 

The Link Between Obesity and Cancer

Edited October 16, 2014 by LivingWaterPlease

[Darren2013]

But the cancer itself causes weight loss without trying so by that logic an obese person who has cancer can eat what they want while the weight continues to drop. How can obesity increase cancer risk when that cancer inevitably causes weight loss?

[LivingWaterPlease]

Darren, you posted two minutes after my post with link. Were you able to fully read and digest (excuse the pun) the article in two minutes?

 

If so, and you want more answers I suggest engaging at the end of the article with the many experts who either have or will reply to the article in the comments section and also with Dr. Mercola. These articles he writes draw comments from experts (yes, MDs, nutritionists, etc., from all over the world read and comment) and you might find answers there.

 

I don't explain nutrition or disease issues. I merely read what the experts have to say and form an opinion. I'd suggest doing some research to learn more from the experts and a good start would be thoroughly reading and comprehending this article! Then ask your questions to the guy who wrote it and some of those who will comment on it right below the article, a plethora of educated comments and answers awaits you!

[Darren2013]

I am a fast reader believe it or not.

[SerCay]

But the cancer itself causes weight loss without trying so by that logic an obese person who has cancer can eat what they want while the weight continues to drop. How can obesity increase cancer risk when that cancer inevitably causes weight loss?

 

SMH...there are also cancer types with a lot of hormones involved, that actually cause weight gain.

 

The link between cancer and obesity has everything to do with the sugar intake (including sugar in the form of carbs) and the effects of it.

[Darren2013]

Well I have lymphoma so I am only an expert on blood cancers.

[Hope Shimmers]

The link between cancer and obesity has everything to do with the sugar intake (including sugar in the form of carbs) and the effects of it.

 

Way too simplistic.

 

Sugar intake does not "cause" cancer. The link between obesity and cancer is complex and involves many factors too complicated to discuss in a post.

[Hope Shimmers]

How can obesity increase cancer risk when that cancer inevitably causes weight loss?

 

Obesity increases the risk of getting certain types of cancers. Weight loss due to cancer occurs as a result of the disease and by definition at that point it has nothing to do with cancer risk.

[Hope Shimmers]

Patrick Swayze had pancreatic cancer and that's one of those cancers that statistically has a very low cure rate. Most pancreatic cancer patients are terminal and his doctor said the pancreas is the worst place in the body to get it. Furthermore the cancer had already spread to his liver at the time he did that interview with Barbra Walters. So with metastatic pancreatic cancer the odds are that he wasn't going to live much longer and he came to terms with that. Odds are quitting smoking would not have changed anything.

 

No, quitting smoking would not have reversed his cancer, and no one can blame him for wanting quality of life at that point. Quitting might have increased his survival time a little, and it might not have. At that point though, he was terminal and nothing was going to change that.

 

However, this is just one (extreme) example that can't be extrapolated to everyone and all situations.