First realize that even without being diagnosed with cancer, we all have at least a few cancerous cells floating around in our “inner terrain”. A decent immune system residing in a slightly alkaline or neutral pH inner terrain is able to fend them off and keep them from colonizing into tumorous masses.
On the other hand, those who indulge primarily in the SAD (Standard American Diet), which includes lots of factory farmed meat and junk foods saturated with refined sugars or high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which processed foods use even with their non-sweet products to keep you addicted, along with all those refined carbs in refined grain baked products, are adding fuel (literally) to the fire of cancer.
Mainstream oncology ignores this 1930s Nobel Prize discovery by Otto Warburg, aka the “Warburg Effect”: When normal cells begin to lack oxygen respiration to utilize glucose and nutrients metabolically for cellular energy, they depend on fermenting sugar to thrive without oxygen and become cancerous.
Instead oncologists administer chemo IV therapies while giving their patients ice cream and cookies as the poison is injected into them. Big profits from the treatment and selling those toxic drugs at a profit also. “Cancer cells consume sugar about 19x faster than healthy cells.” – Dr. Murray Susser, MD
Mainstream medicine refuses to look into diet as a function of potential metabolic dysfunction that helps promote and maintain cancer while asserting genetic disposition as a primary cause of cancer.
Their hubris and incredible profits thrive from toxic interventions such as chemotherapy and radiation. The first concern with preventing or eliminating cancer should be what you put into your body. That gives you control over cancer.
It’s a no-brainer when it comes to avoiding sodas, juices with added sugars, pastries, candies, and processed foods that use processed grains and even add sugar or HFCS to foods that are not even sweet. That’s to keep you addicted even if you can’t taste it. Refined sugar is actually addictive, some claim it’s even as addictive as cocaine.
A Recent Study That Makes Sugar Carcinogenic
But now it’s even worse. Green Med Info has uncovered a study that seems to be hidden from the public eye and is certainly not welcome within our orthodox oncology system. It would cramp the food and soda business’s profits if refined sugar is seen as carcinogenic.
The study, “Increased sugar uptake promotes oncogenesis via EPAC/RAP1 and O-GlcNAc pathways” was published in the 2013-2014 Journal of Clinical Investigation (JCI). Because it is a free access journal, you can access the full text, not just the abstract, here.
I wonder how come this study hasn’t made much of a stir in our sick-care system since it is so accessible. Instead it was dug up by a research scout for Green Med Info.
It is of course full of biochemical details, which is what medical people are supposed to be familiar with. So for now, let’s be content with a layman’s summary report of their study, which was an in vitro (cultures, petri dishes, and test tubes) study as opposed to an in vivo (animal or human) study. This way they could really play around with and analyze the results with total control.
Here’s the bottom line of this study: Increased glucose uptake leads to early phases of cancer cell creation while curbing glucose intake reversed cancerous cells into normal cells. In other words, sugar is carcinogenic as well as fodder for already existing cancer cells.
For more info-
ScienceDaily (Apr. 19, 2011) — Curbing carbohydrates is more effective than cutting calories for individuals who want to quickly reduce the amount of fat in their liver, report UT Southwestern Medical Center researchers.
"What this study tells us is that if your doctor says that you need to reduce the amount of fat in your liver, you can do something within a month," said Dr. Jeffrey Browning, assistant professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern and the study’s lead author.
The results, available online and in an upcoming issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, could have implications for treating numerous diseases including diabetes, insulin resistance and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, or NAFLD. The disease, characterized by high levels of triglycerides in the liver, affects as many as one-third of American adults. It can lead to liver inflammation, cirrhosis and liver cancer.
For the study, researchers assigned 18 participants with NAFLD to eat either a low-carbohydrate or a low-calorie diet for 14 days.
The participants assigned to the low-carb diet limited their carbohydrate intake to less than 20 grams a day — the equivalent of a small banana or a half-cup of egg noodles — for the first seven days. For the final seven days, they switched to frozen meals prepared by UT Southwestern’s Clinical and Translational Research Center (CTRC) kitchen that matched their individual food preferences, carbohydrate intake and energy needs.
Those assigned to the low-calorie diet continued their regular diet and kept a food diary for the four days preceding the study. The CTRC kitchen then used these individual records to prepare all meals during the 14-day study. Researchers limited the total number of calories to roughly 1,200 a day for the female participants and 1,500 a day for the males.
After two weeks, researchers used advanced imaging techniques to analyze the amount of liver fat in each individual. They found that the study participants on the low-carb diet lost more liver fat.
Although the study was not designed to determine which diet was more effective for losing weight, both the low-calorie dieters and the low-carbohydrate dieters lost an average of 10 pounds.
Dr. Browning cautioned that the findings do not explain why participants on the low-carb diet saw a greater reduction in liver fat, and that they should not be extrapolated beyond the two-week period of study.
"This is not a long-term study, and I don’t think that low-carb diets are fundamentally better than low-fat ones," he said. "Our approach is likely to be only of short-term benefit because at some point the benefits of weight loss alone trounce any benefits derived from manipulating dietary macronutrients such as calories and carbohydrates.
"Weight loss, regardless of the mechanism, is currently the most effective way to reduce liver fat."
Other UT Southwestern researchers involved in the study were Dr. Shawn Burgess, senior author and assistant professor of pharmacology in the Advanced Imaging Research Center (AIRC); Dr. Jonathan Baker, assistant professor of pathology; Dr. Thomas Rogers, former professor of pathology; Jeannie Davis, clinical research coordinator in the AIRC; and Dr. Santhosh Satapati, postdoctoral researcher in the AIRC.
The National Institutes of Health supported the study.
Millie – I agree with this however do not agree with the statement that "This is not a long-term study, and I don’t think that low-carb diets are fundamentally better than low-fat ones," Low carb nutrition is FAR better for humans!