“What about the reality where Hitler cured cancer, Morty? The answer is don’t think about it.” – Rick and Morty
Artist representation of what a cell might look like. Just kidding – fireworks at night in Fairbanks on July 4th. Hint: on July 4th there is no night in Fairbanks.
In new news this week: cancer eats sugar. But that really isn’t new news, since Dr. Otto Warburg won a Nobel® Prize in 1931 for showing that a cancer cells use ten times the amount of sugar as a normal, healthy cell. Sugar consumption also leads to cancer’s biggest risk factor: being fat (I could say overweight or obese, but let’s not chop the onion too finely – Arnold Schwarzenegger was overweight, but never fat. I’m talking fat, here.) Now that correlation is clear – fat people catch more lung cancer than smokers. But is the cause right? Is being fat the problem, or is it the things that you do to get fat that cause the cancer?
As we’ve discussed in the past, much of medical research has the same scientific rigor as astrology (Sagittarius, here!) or alchemy (I know where soooo much lead is) or even astronomy. Ha! The Earth revolves around the Sun! What a hoot! A recently released review indicates that as many as 30,000 (that’s not a typo) scientific (if you call biology “science”) papers were based on using the wrong type of cell. In one case they were using liver cells instead of lung cells. I personally taste my all my cell cultures before using them, and always check the expiration date. Even a rookie can taste the difference between liver and lung!
See, I told you people don’t know how to Science anymore (LINK).
But a recent study that seems to have actual science behind it (and by authors whose first names are Johan, Wim, and Veerle) investigates the relationship between sugar and cancer. It seems that cancer cells get energy through fermentation of sugar, and the more sugar a cancer cell has, the faster the cancer grows. (Normal cells generally oxidize the sugar, so they use a different path.) Again, in their study, increased sugar led to increased growth, which is what you want in a bank account, not a tumor.
But your body has to have sugar, right?
Well, no. Generally the brain prefers glucose (the kind of sugar found in your bloodstream) but it can do just fine, thank you on ketones. What are ketones? A 1960’s Motown band?
No, ketones are what happens to fats (your fat, or butter, or cheese) when your liver rips ‘em apart and stuffs them back into the bloodstream where they eventually feed your brain (and every other organ, too), so you can save the sugar packets that you were going to send to Congress and the Kardashians (Say, would that be a great TV show or what? Congress and the Kardashians . . . ). But your body (the liver, again) can also turn protein into glucose. So, is it necessary to have carbs or sugars in your diet? No, not really.
So, curing cancer just means avoiding Twinkies® and chocolate-covered raisins? No. Or at least I don’t think it’s that simple. If so, I’m free to give my Nobel™ acceptance speech any time after next Wednesday. What my Internet sources indicate is that it’s not a bad idea to go low carbing if diagnosed with cancer, along with cutting back on the protein because it can become glucose.
One doctor in particular (LINK) recommends a diet of up to 70% of calories from fat in response to cancer. Actually, he recommends this diet to all patients, regardless of cancer status.
So, is there a link to cancer growth and sugar? Absolutely. Is there a link to getting cancer in the first place and sugar? Probably.
Should you trust what you read? Hmmm. Remember when carbs were good for you and eggs were bad for you? I’m expecting smoking and scotch prescriptions before I die . . .
Am I a doctor and should you trust this without checking with somebody more than me? No way. Check all of this out for yourself.