Guest Guest66881 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 In February last year, a month before my wedding, the unthinkable happens. I am diagnosed with thyroid cancer. My acupuncturist, Sue Cheetham, finds a lump on a routine visit. It’s totally unexpected: at 42, I’m reasonably fit and healthy. As the news sinks in and I struggle to come to terms with what lies ahead, I wonder what I can do to give my body the best chance of responding to the treatment. A week before the wedding, I’m in bed recovering from surgery to remove my thyroid gland. Following the wedding, I’ll receive radioactive iodine treatment and will have to go into solitary confinement for three weeks to protect people around me from my radioactive state. It’s not exactly the honeymoon I was hoping for. I look around for ways of mentally preparing myself for the treatment. Sue gives me a book called Anticancer: A New Way of Life by Dr David Servan-Schreiber, and I’m riveted. Dr Servan-Schreiber was a neuroscientist who developed an interest in integrative medicine when he was diagnosed with a brain tumour in his thirties (which, sadly, killed him in his forties). “All of us have cancer cells in our bodies. But not all of us will develop cancer,” he explains in the book, which was published three years ago and became a bestseller, before going on to describe theories about how certain factors can encourage cancer to take root. These include the typical Western diet, stress and lack of exercise. All of these are present in my life to some degree. I decide to tackle my diet and as I extend my research, one theme jumps out at me: sugar. I have a seriously sweet tooth and it may not be doing me any favours. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/features/giving-up-sugar-could-you-go-cold-turkey-9089146.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Pom Queen Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 We have a member on here Nigel Wareing (think that's right) who helped cure his cancer by diet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOL Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 First of all, all the best to you. Living sugarless...I wonder if it is healthy. There are many types of sugar. Here's an interesting read: http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2013/06/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-sugar/ I do believe we eat way too much sugar (and unsaturated fat). I personally cut down sugar to: * A bit of it in my cereal * Daily fruits * Sometimes a fresh fruit drink (not too often) * Maybe a liquorish a day * Once a week desert/icecream Other than that I try to stay away from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newjez Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I did watch a very interesting program on tv the other day on fat and sugar. It was not so much the fat or the sugar that was bad. It was the fat and sugar in combination. It seems to turn off our ability to know we are full. All the foods which we find irresistible contain fat and sugar, usually in equal combinations - ie ice cream, chocolate. I would be interested as to how diet can help cure cancer. I'm sure your diet can give you cancer, and may be of benefit to those with cancer. But I'm interested to see how it can cure cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest16631 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 .........we all have cancer cells I believe...... ..........it's what triggers their ability to multiply and destroy healthy cells...... ...........the sugar /fat .....theory has been linked to the fact this is often an ingredient of processed food.... ..........a healthy diet of clean fresh food has been promoted for health.... ...........but what of air pollution....? ...........the clothes we wear,........shampoo.....soap........even packaging and eating utensils.... ..............so many unknowns..... ................we can only try IMO.......and when it's experienced.........hope and pray its curable or at least manageable.... .................too many cases of cancer occurring......with little or no known reason for it......ime....... ........I eat little sugar....... .........as did my father.......he ate little processed food..... .........but died before 60 ......from cancer.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdad84 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 'Cancer cells' don't exist. Cancer cells are normal cells whose growth is uncontrolled. I would sincerely hope people don't place too much stock in the dietery aspect of cancer, well i mean focussing on it at the expense of all the evidence to the other aspects which have an actual evidence base (genetics, smoking etc).... I'm all for theories/hypotheses...as long as people don't ignore the well established truth of what we know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest16631 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 ....I'm pleased to hear that thanks...... .....I thought we all had them.....or precancerous..... ......and could be diet related..... .......so many theories ,....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyHeart Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Not quite true that we dont have 'cancer cells'. We all have tumour causing and tumour preventing genes in our bodies. Oncogenes and tumour suppressor genes. Cancer forms in some cases where the gene is permanently switched on or off when it shouldn't be. Lots more to it than that but in all reality the reason cancer forms is unknown. Advancing age means cells have multiplied often..increasing the risk of spontaneous genetic mutations leading to tumour formation...exposure to carcinogens..radiation from the sun. .tobacco smoke...dietary factors are implicated in some cancers but there is no definitive evidence to say diet causes or cures cancer. World Health organization says low fat high fibre diet may help reduce incidence of some GI cancers but once diagnosed...diet pretty irrelevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Not quite true that we dont have 'cancer cells'. We all have tumour causing and tumour preventing genes in our bodies. Oncogenes and tumour suppressor genes. Cancer forms in some cases where the gene is permanently switched on or off when it shouldn't be. Lots more to it than that but in all reality the reason cancer forms is unknown. Advancing age means cells have multiplied often..increasing the risk of spontaneous genetic mutations leafing yo tumour formation...exposure to carcinogens..radiation from the sun. .tobacco smoke...dietary factors are implicated in some cancers but there is no definitive evidence to say diet causes or cures cancer. World Health organization says low fat high fibre diet may help reduce incidence of some GI cancers but once diagnosed...diet pretty irrelevant This is why i love nurses:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdad84 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Not quite true that we dont have 'cancer cells'. We all have tumour causing and tumour preventing genes in our bodies. Oncogenes and tumour suppressor genes. Cancer forms in some cases where the gene is permanently switched on or off when it shouldn't be. Lots more to it than that but in all reality the reason cancer forms is unknown. Advancing age means cells have multiplied often..increasing the risk of spontaneous genetic mutations leading to tumour formation...exposure to carcinogens..radiation from the sun. .tobacco smoke...dietary factors are implicated in some cancers but there is no definitive evidence to say diet causes or cures cancer. World Health organization says low fat high fibre diet may help reduce incidence of some GI cancers but once diagnosed...diet pretty irrelevant Good explanation....my point being that there is no distinct perpetrator 'cancer cell' like there is with an infective pathogen, its the sum of several factors that results in uncontrolled growth of 'normal' cells. So the idea that one can 'cure' this distinct cell ignores the series of factors that result in a solid tumor, and potentially puts those who are gullible/desperate in an awful position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fairystar32 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Best wishes to you, I hope your fully recovered. In 2012, I was found accidentally, to have have a 4cm tumour in my neck (MRI for something else) I had numerous scans and tests including a PET/CT which used radioactive sucrose as Cancer cells will 'suck up' the sugar, if they use this to detect cancer, it makes sense that sugar feeds it. This test found one in my thyroid too and the other sidde of my neck. I was a mess, my youngest was 4 at the time. I read all I could and completely changed my diet, It was suspected lymphoma or thyroid cancer and was told after surgery it was likely lymphoma. By this time, I had removed all sugar, made sure all meat was organic, removed packet foods, home cooked everything, ate tons of raw foods (nuts, seeds, coconut oil) and took multiple suppliments. Started meditation and relaxation techniques, saunas and yoga. I was eventually diagnosed with a super rare disease called Castlemans and my thyroid nodule was classed as OK. Now much furthur on in my journey, I still eat VERY little sugar, only in treats such as dark chocolate and limited fruit. I had removed my amalgams and root canals pre surgery, so I routinely detox with vit c, clay and magensium baths I only eat organic meat, veg and fruit unless we go for a rare meal out or its in a shell which is unlikely to be contaminated such as bananas, melons etc.. I try to keep as healthy as I can but have laxed and eat crisps!! I keep up with vit c and black seed oil, iodine and magnesium, selenium and tumeric. I no longer worry as much and enjoy my life. I am a great believer in the power of food and nutrition. however, I think there is a LOT more to it than just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest littlesarah Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 In terms of sugar 'feeding' cancer - it doesn't really work that way (though that particular myth is found a lot on various websites). Cancer cells tend to replicate more quickly than non-cancerous cells (which is a result of the DNA damage that is part of the formation of a malignant cell), and it is this that PET scanning relies on to detect areas of tissue in which cell replication is abnormal. If elevated blood sugar caused or contributed to the development of cancerous cells, we would expect to see a higher incidence of cancers in people with diabetes (particularly in those individuals who have a history of poorly-controlled blood glucose); but higher cancer rates are not seen in people with the condition. It is also incorrect to assume that dietary intake of sugar directly affects blood glucose concentration - for any individual blood glucose is maintained around 4-7 mmol/l most of the time (except during fasting periods, e.g. overnight) by a series of negative and positive feedback loops that release or store glucose as required. In addition, sugars are liberated from the digestion of all carbohydrate-containing foodstuffs - which includes complex carbs and some types of fibre. Many proponents of a 'low-carb' diet actually consume far more carbohydrate than they count because they don't include fibre (which ignores those types of fibre that break down to glucose during digestion). The reality is that cancer prevalence increases with age, and that our forebears didn't live long enough to suffer from cancers; and of course diagnosis of many types of cancers was just not possible until relatively recently. It's also worth noting, IMHO, that 'cancer' is not one condition/disease - the word encompasses a good many disease processes, which behave differently and require different interventions (and likely have differing 'causes'). Many of the alleged 'cancer-causing' substances that are bandied around on the internet and by purveyors of alternative/complimentary therapies are not supported by any evidence whatsoever, and the notion that everything 'man-made' is inherently bad, whilst everything 'natural' is harmless or good for us is a complete and utter nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fairystar32 Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Why do they use radiactive glucose for the PET scan then? I was told it was due to the 'cancer' cells taking up the glucose solution. Which makes sense if 'sugar feeds cancer' I also lost weight and feel much better on almost no sugar, I will never add lots of it again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gee13 Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Did you give up sugar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Was just reading this article the other day about sugar and how the sugar lobby ended this scientist's career after he started warning about the dangers back in the 70s. http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/john-yudkin-the-man-who-tried-to-warn-us-about-sugar-20140212-32h03.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest littlesarah Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Why do they use radiactive glucose for the PET scan then? I was told it was due to the 'cancer' cells taking up the glucose solution. Which makes sense if 'sugar feeds cancer'I also lost weight and feel much better on almost no sugar, I will never add lots of it again All cells use glucose as fuel, & like I said in my post, cancer cells replicate faster than non-malignant cells; which means that they need to take up more glucose to fuel that increased replication. So it's a case of using the cells' increased glucose uptake to detect areas of possibly malignant cells. It's not possible to 'starve' cells of glucose without developing ketoacidosis; & usually only people on insulin and some other antidiabetic medications will get blood glucose levels low enough for that to happen. Believe me when I say that one feels pretty horrible when one has hypoglycaemia, & I get an overwhelming urge to do something to feel better ASAP! Restricting sugar intake is ever likely to lead to weight loss, because there is much energy in sugar & it's easy to consume a massive amount with relatively little nutrition. Most of us could do with eating fewer simple sugars & instead eating complex carbs with greater nutrient density. I don't advocate a high-GI diet, but I think it's important to apply an understanding of human physiology when evaluating nutritional choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.