LowCarb Diets Benefit Cancer Patients
 

Tuesday October 16,

Press Release
SOURCE: A.P. John Institute for Cancer Research


The October Issue (Volume 57, Number 4, Pages 429-431) Of The Journal Medical Hypothesis Appears An Article About The Dysfunctional Mytochondria

This Article Reveals An Extraordinary ``Cutting Edge'' Perspective On Approaches To Cancer Research And On One Of The Cancer Killing Function Of A Promising Treatment Called Controlled Amino Acid Therapy

GREENWICH, CT --(INTERNET WIRE)--Oct 16, 2001-- Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Otto Warburg, discovered decades ago that cancer cells produce inordinate amounts of lactic acid. Over the years, cancer scientists have paid little attention to this biological phenomenon.

In a report published in the October 10th issue of Medical Hypothesis, (Volume 57, Number 4, pages 429-431), cancer scientist, Angelo P. John, Director of the A.P. John Institute for Cancer Research, of Greenwich, CT., presents scientific evidence to show why cancer cells produce extraordinary amounts of lactic acid, and the impact his findings have upon the future treatment of all cancers.

In the article titled, Dysfunctional Mitochondria and Oxygen Insufficiency Causes Cancer Cells to Produce Inordinate Amounts of Lactic Acid, an overwhelming amount of scientific data shows that the excess production of lactic acid is caused by injuries sustained in cancer cells to their cellular structures called the mitochondria. The mitochondria are compartments that produce most of the energy necessary to maintain all of the chemical activities of a cell. Without sufficient energy neither normal, or cancerous cells can sustain life.

Normally, cells derive approximately 70 percent of their daily energy needs from the mitochondria and approximately 20 percent from another process called glycolysis. The article also points out that if cancer cells cannot utilize their mitochondria they must rely almost totally upon glycolysis for their major supply of energy. This defect in the mitochondria, places cancer cells at a big disadvantage which cancer scientists and oncologists can now capitalize on.

These findings now open up an entirely new front that pharmaceutical companies can target for attacking cancer. Until now, most of the drugs developed to treat cancer, were designed to injure DNA or prevent its synthesis. Now scientists can diversify their research and develop drugs that can kill off cancer cells by attacking glycolysis and shutting of their daily energy supply.

Oncologists can also take advantage of these new findings and help shut down the energy supply to cancer cells through diet and nutrition. Dr.Chi Van Dang, a researcher at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, reports (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Feb 17, 1998) the benefits of a low carbohydrate diet for most cancer patients.

Alow carbohydrate diet reduces the availability of glucose to cancer cells. All carbohydrate foods are broken down by digestive enzymes into glucose. Glucose is the only food that can be broken down into energy by glycolysis. Without sufficient glucose, most cancer cells can not survive. Equally important, is the fact that shutting off the glucose supply to the body does not harm normal cells because they can still derive all of their energy needs from their otherwise healthy mitochondria.

When carbohydrates or glucose is reduced in the diet, normal cells must burn body fat. This automatically increases the levels of ketones in the blood. It has long been known and reported in every text book on biochemistry, that ketones inhibit the activities of an enzyme in the cells called phosphofructosekinase. This enzyme plays a critical key role in glycolysis. Without the actions of this enzyme, glycolysis would shut down completely.

With the new added benefits from a low carbohydrate diet alone, we can expect to see a gradual and continual reduction in the mortality rate of cancer patients in this country, which presently exceeds more than 500,000 per year.

To review the actual article please visit www.apjohncancerinstitute.org/doctor.htm

A.P John Institute for Cancer Research
67 Arch Street
Greenwich, CT 06830

http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/011016/09033028_1.html

By gosh, this is amazing stuff! I'm bumping it up because of that suit against Dr. Atkins...

Does anyone know anything about this organization and this doctor? It seems to me that if this was "discoverd" in 2001, that if subsequent trials backed it up, that you'd be hearing more about it.

Skeptically,
plane crazy

I once worked on an IV team at a hospital. My job was to mix the IVs. My boss, a pharmacist, and I went to the same highschool so we talked alot. He had said to me that it is possible to find a cure for cancer. The problem with a cure is there is no money in it! There is more money in the treatment than there is in a cure.

I think I remembed reading something about this in the The Schwarzbein Principle. I may be wrong, it's been a long time. But I do know that I read somewhere that low-carbing starves cancer cells. Although, from this article, it looks like it would be necessary to go very low carb, like induction, to get it to work.

As far as that suit goes, the woman who died from cancer may not have stayed as low-carb as necessary to help fight her cancer. There's also the possiblity it was just too far along when she started treatment.

Has it occured to anyone that this would go a long way towards explaining why primitive societies do not seem to be riddled with cancers as we are ?

In less then a year you will so a lot of low carb foods everywhere, its gonna take over that dumb low fat products that just dont work.

Subways has the low carb wraps, and now even mcdonads have there low carb breakfast.

Here in canada i saw last week that carbo lite has arrived and a lot of there product are available at loblaws.

Here's an amazing quote from the actual referenced article!!:


"It has been well established that caloric restriction in the daily diet reduces tumor size in laboratory animals. Kritchevsky's studies with rats show that just a ten percent caloric restriction reduced tumor size and that a forty percent caloric restriction caused tumors to disappear completely. (l5) I contend one reason that caloric restriction results in tumor shrinkage is that it contributes to the increase of ketones in the blood. This in turn inhibits the activity of phosphofructokinase an enzyme that plays a key role in the regulation of glycolysis.


We learn in our textbooks that ketones can inhibit the functions of phosphofructokinase. (l6) On a restricted caloric intake, especially one reduced by 40%, the body must burn its own fat as a source of fuel. Fats are converted into ketones by the liver and then deposited into the blood for distribution to cells throughout the body. Normal cells can burn fats and ketones in their Krebs cycle and can survive without glycolysis. Cancer cells, however, would have difficulty surviving without a functional phosphofructokinase in glycolysis. While a forty percent reduction in calories may not be practical to reduce tumor size in humans, the same benefits may be realized with a low carbohydrate, ketogenic diet".

Error Error

Cut out sugar and do cesium ph therapy. Ive seen it work when the operating Dr. insisted on chemo. He got all pissed off and called it hogwash. He's the hoghead; she's healthier than she has been in years, with no sign of cancer in her blood test after two months.

Cancer loves sugar
 

I read all about this several years ago. It has simply been ignored by the media, Big Pharma, etc. If cancer sufferers started curing themselves by eating low carb, or at least improving their conditions, can you imagine the monetary losses this idea could inflict on our drug pushers? The Cancer Industry is huge.

Here is a very good discussion of this topc:

http://www.lowcarbluxury.com/newsle...3-no04-pg2.html


Here's another article on the same subject.

http://www.mercola.com/article/sugar/sugar_cancer.htm

P.S. Warburg got the Nobel Prize for his discovery.

Low Carb - Cancer
 

My DH is battling NonHodgkins lymphoma. He has seen me lose weight on the Akins plan by doesn't believe in it. He wants his potatos, sugar and starches.

Before he has his next PET scan he has to eat a low carb diet for three days. Then they give him a sugar drink with radioactive ions. The cancer will "eat" the first sugar first and get a dose of radioactive ions. Where the sugar goes will show up on the scan. That is how a PET scan is done. Any cancer left after the Chemo will show up glowing from the radioactivity.
So the cancer eats sugar first. Yikes! I try to get my husband to eat a low carb diet so the cancer has less to "eat"... The problem is that he has lost so much weight that the doctors want him "put it on" by eating: milkshakes, donuts, candy, deserts. Anything "fattening" It seems to me that he is feeding the cancer in his attempt to gain more weight. Of course he will listen to the doctor, and not my suggestion. I worry about him! :cry:

Sorry to hear that Tweedy. Did you read that first article by the woman who was told to feed her mother tons of sugar as she was struggling with cancer? Sure sounds to me as if that was bad advice.

I just remembered something else about cancer and sugar. I've read that in Europe, doctors frequently use cancer cells' love of sugar to help the effectiveness of chemo treatments. First they dose the patient with lots of sugary junk. Cancerous tumors lap it up and put on a burst of growth. During this rapid growth phase the cancerous cells are actually more vulnerable to the chemo agents and so the treatments are more effective.

Just think about that. The doctors know that if they load up their patients with sugar, the tumors will grow rapidly. Really scary.

Tweedyshaw, I am so sorry to hear that. :(

I am at great risk for breast cancer and I've been researching it for some time now, I really don't want to die at 46 like my mother did. A quick summary of what I've read goes like this: sugar feeds cancer, yes, but giving a cancer patient a high sugar diet so as to avoid or delay wasting by cachexia is just the wrong way to do it since the cancer feeds not only on sugar but also needs fats and proteins to build new cancer cells, eventually depriving the healthy cells of protein and fat and resulting in cachexia. Furthermore, most [healthy] cells in your body don't need carbs for energy, cancer cells do. If fat is the primary energy source the healthy cells will have what they need to work and cancer cells will be starved.
Many good wishes to you and your DH.

I'm sorry for you Tweedyshaw; us bullheaded guys are a pain.
It was just going through my head that Dr. is killing your husband and getting paid for it. And to think that people are sueing Atkins. The information is out there to stop cancer, has been for years. Dr. Keith Brewer (I think that's the correct name) did a study with terminal patients-like 20 or 40 people- about 20 years ago and was able to save like half of them even though they were far gone and the money grabbers had given up on them.
If you are interested in reading about this, have google search for cesium-cancer.
Good luck

My only suggestion Tweedy is to show your husband articles suchs as the one posted by turtle. They might impress him more if they are coming from an scientific source than coming from you.

Also maybe you could try to search the net to find doctors who believe in nutritional therapies who might be able to convince your husband's doctor of a different approach.

Tonight, in the news journal on Flamish TV they've talked about extremely high rates of cancer in Flanders. It appears that Flanders is the region with the highest percentage of cancer patients (1 in 3 Flamings get cancer some time in their life :( ) in the European Union. The most common types of cancer in men are colon, prostate and lung cancer; in women - breast, colon and uterus cancer. The ONLY explanation to such a phenomenal number of people suffering from cancer was a short interview with a woman from Flamish League Against Cancer or the Flamish Ministery of Public Health (not sure which of the organizations, missed that part). It was something like this: "I think it's all change in our lifestyle. We've started to eat more meat, more fat... We move less..." Those are basically the exact words she said... Needless to say, I got enraged with those words!!! Why haven't they mentioned REALLY bad ecology over here??? The ground waters in Belgium were recognized as the dirtiest in the world, according to a UN report. Why not all that smog produced by cars and factories that people inhale every day? :mad: So, if I eat French fries (or Belgian fries, to be more historically correct), chocolate and pastries every day I will lessen the risk of getting cancer??? :rolleyes: i frankly don't think so!!!!!!!! And after all they wonder why people in other European countries have jokes about stupid Belgians... :bash:

Perhaps you were thinking of "Life Without Bread" ?-- there's an interesting chapter on low-carb and cancer. Allan and Lutz discuss the connection between cancer, insulin and growth factor IGF-1. Both insulin and IGF-1 are lowered on a low-carb diet, even if calories remain the same. They also provide some evidence that oestrogen is lowered on low-carb, which may be important for oestrogen-sensitive cancers like breast cancer. They also say that the fatty acid butyrate, found mainly in butter, differentiates cancer cells (make them more like normal healthy cells).

Nope, never read that book. But clearly, it's been out there for a while and addressed in various publications.

Hi Deb! Since you look very knowledgeable about low carb, I suggest you read Dr Lutz and Allan's excellent book (Life Without Bread).
Definitely a must read!
Also, try Dr Jan Kwasniewsky's Optimal Nutrition and Homo Optimus (available only by the Polish publisher:
http://www.wgp.com.pl/Kwasniewski-eng.html

Those are some of the best low carb books I have read! And I have a lot!

Try them and give me some feedback!

Mitch, I appreciate your suggestions, but my reading list is already so full that I'm not sure I want to add another two books to it. It's all I can do to keep up with the great posts here on the forum (if I didn't have downtime at work while I wait for computers to finish processing my procedures, I wouldn't have more than a few hours a week for the forum).

As far as reading books, my current focus is on evolution, biology, and sociology, along with some fiction for diversion. Although lately, my time for reading has diminished greatly with all the other acivities I've added (biking, dancing, discussion groups, socializing, etc.). :cool:

I've just finished reading 'Life Without Bread' and have to agree that it's the most informative LC book I've read so far. What did you like about 'Optimal Nutrition'?

About the Optimal Nutrition book, I liked the biochemical information the most, along with the numerous historical/social references. Very clearly explained, along with a thorough discussion of the origins of diseases.
However, I was a little put off by the religious tone on Homo Optimus, and with the strict ratios to maintain between protein/fat/carb advocated by Dr Kwasniewski. But all in all, very good books.
But Life Without Bread still gets my vote for the best so far!

Thanks TBone

Are Optimal Nutrition and Homo Optimus two separate books?

Lif Without Bread
 

Life Without Bread is an excellent book. Frankly, I've always thought the title was kind of hokey and wish they had come up with a better name. If you're put off by the title, like me, don't let that dissuade you from reading it. It's a very good read.

Yes, Optimal Nutrition and Homo Optimus are 2 separate books.

sorry to here about your DH's illness, Tweedy, I wish him well.

my aunt, my mother's twin and like a second mom to me, was diagnosed with ovarian cancer two years ago. She's been through several treatments and continues to do well. The fact she's lived two years with ovarian cancer gives us hope.

she revealed to me recently though that she craves sugar (a problem for our whole family, my grandmother developed on-set diabetes) and is indulging her cravings like she never has before, because as she said "why not indulge myself while I'm sick and need to put on weight anyway?"

I had a 'gut feeling' this wasn't a good idea, but didn't have the info to tell her why it wasn't. Now I do. Thanks, Angeline and Turtle!

she also told my mother that she is feeling extreme fatigue lately (wonder why?)

I've printed the Mercola article and will send it to her snail mail. She's in her 80s and has a computer but never turns it on!