Cancer Loves Sugar
JoAnn Guest
Oct 02, 2004 19:12 PDT

Every doctor learned back in medical school all about Otto Warburg's
discovery; a discovery of humongous proportions, because way back in
the fifties Otto discovered the main biochemical cause of cancer, or
what differentiates a cancer cell from a normal, healthy cell.

So big a discovery was this, that Otto Warburg was awarded the Nobel
Prize.

Cancer has only one prime cause.

It is the replacement of normal oxygen respiration of the body's
cells by an anaerobic
[i.e., oxygen-deficient] cell respiration.
-Dr. Otto Warburg

But what else does Warburg's discovery tell us. First off, it tells
us that cancer "metabolizes" much differently than normal cells.

Normal cells need oxygen.

Cancer cells despise oxygen.

In fact, oxygen therapy is a favorite among many of the alternative
clinics we've researched.

Another thing this tells us is that cancer "metabolizes" through a
process of "fermentation".

If you've ever made wine, you'll know that fermentation requires
sugar.

The "metabolism" of cancer is approximately 8 times greater than the
metabolism of normal cells.

Okay, so here is what we can put together knowing the above:
The body is constantly overworked trying to feed this cancer.

The cancer is constantly on the verge of starvation and thus
constantly asking the body to 'feed' it.

When the food supply is cut off, the cancer begins to starve unless
it can make the body "produce" sugar to feed itself.

The wasting syndrome, "cachexia", is the body producing sugar from
*proteins*
(you heard it right, not from carbohydrates or fats, but from
proteins) in a process called "glycogenesis".

This type of sugar feeds cancer.

The body finally dies of starvation, trying to "feed" the cancer.

Now, knowing that one's cancer needs sugar, does it make sense to
feed it sugar?

Does it make sense to have a high carbohydrate, simple sugar diet?

The reason Food Therapies even exist today
(beyond the fact that they work) is because someone once saw the
connection between sugar and cancer.

There are many food therapies, but not a single one allows many
foods high in simple carbohydrates and not a single one allows
simple sugars,

BECAUSE SUGAR "FEEDS" CANCER.

Why doesn't your physician tell you this?

Hard to tell.

Maybe your doctor feels it is his job to cure your cancer,
not yours.

Maybe because your doctor learned about Warburg, but never put the
rest together, never placed *nutrition* into the equation.

Maybe because your physician didn't study nutrition.

As late as 1978, the AMA's official position (stated in courts of
law) was that "nutrition" had 'nothing' to do with health or
disease.
However, those who've paid attention to this "sugar craving" cancer
theory have come up with some remarkable therapies for cancer.

Laetrile is just one.

Hydrazine Sulfate, which stops the process of "glycogenesis" in
greater than 50% of all patients with 'cachexia' is
another.

Today, at the University of Minnesota, they are experimenting with a
chemotherapy delivered in a "smart bomb."
Here's the scoop: the drug is wrapped in a coating that stays intact
as it travels through the body, that is until it reaches a location
of "no oxygen".

When it reaches this "no oxygen" location, the coating falls apart
releasing the chemotherapy to destroy the cancer, because the only
place

in your body where there is "no oxygen" is the cancer site.

Then there are the food therapies aimed at starving cancer

Knowing what cancer loves, the patient avoids them.

Cancers also LOVE cooked foods (this is a relatively recent finding)
and cancer LOVES sugar (this goes for tumors as well). There is a
saying that sugar is to a tumor as gasoline is to a fire.
Well said!

If you hate your cancer (tumor), then starve it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sugar and Cancer
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally printed by The Alternative Research Foundation

It puzzles me why the simple concept "sugar feeds cancer" can be so
dramatically overlooked as part of a comprehensive cancer treatment
plan.

Of the 4 million cancer patients being treated in America today,
hardly any are offered any scientifically guided nutrition therapy
beyond being told to "just eat good foods."

There is a complete lack of nuritional advice.

I believe many cancer patients would have a major improvement in
their outcome if they controlled the supply of cancer's preferred
fuel, *glucose*.

By slowing the cancer's growth, patients allow their immune systems -
- to catch up to the disease.

Controlling one's "blood-glucose" levels through diet, supplements,
exercise, and meditation can be one of the most crucial
components to a cancer recovery program.
The sound bite -- sugar feeds cancer -- is simple. The explanation
is a little more complex.

The 1931 Nobel laureate in medicine, German Otto Warburg, Ph.D.,
first discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally different
energy metabolism compared to healthy cells.

The crux of his Nobel thesis was that malignant tumors frequently
exhibit an increase in "anaerobic glycolysis" -- a process whereby
"glucose" is used as a "fuel"
by cancer cells with "lactic acid" as an anaerobic byproduct --
compared to normal tissues.

The large amount of lactic acid produced by this fermentation of
glucose from cancer cells is then transported to the liver.

This conversion of glucose to lactate generates a lower, more acidic
pH in cancerous tissues as well as overall physical fatigue from
lactic acid buildup.

Thus, larger tumors tend to exhibit a more "acidic" pH.

This inefficient pathway for energy metabolism yields only 2 moles
of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) energy per mole of glucose, compared
to 38 moles of ATP in the complete aerobic oxidation of glucose.

By extracting only about 5 percent (2 vs. 38 moles of ATP) of the
available energy in the food supply and the body's calorie stores,
the cancer is "wasting" energy, and the patient becomes tired and
under-nurished.

This vicious cycle increases body wasting.

It is one reason why 40 percent of cancer patients die from
"malnutrition", or cachexia.

Hence, cancer therapies should encompass regulating blood-glucose
levels via diet, supplements, non-oral solutions for cachectic
patients who lose their appetite, medication, exercise, gradual
weight loss and stress reduction.


Sugar in the Body and Diet

Sugar is a generic term used to identify simple carbohydrates, which
includes monosaccharides such as fructose, glucose and galactose;
and disaccharides such as maltose and sucrose (white table sugar).

Obviously, today's high-sugar diets are having unhealthy effects as
far as blood-glucose is concerned. Excess blood glucose may initiate
yeast overgrowth, blood vessel deterioration, heart disease and
other health conditions.

Understanding and using the glycemic index is an important aspect of
diet modification for cancer patients.

However, there is also evidence that sugars may feed cancer more
efficiently than starches (comprised of long chains of simple
sugars), making the index slightly misleading.

A study of rats fed diets with equal calories from sugars and
starches, for example, found the animals on the high-sugar diet
developed more cases of breast cancer.

The glycemic index is a useful tool in guiding the cancer patient
toward a healthier diet, but it is not infallible.

By using the glycemic index alone, one could be led to thinking a
cup of white sugar is healthier than a baked potato.

This is because the glycemic index rating of a sugary food may be
lower than that of a starchy food.

To be safe, I recommend less fruit, more vegetables, and no refined
sugars in the diet of cancer patients.

What the Literature Says

A mouse model of human breast cancer demonstrated that tumors are
sensitive to blood-glucose levels.

Sixty-eight mice were injected with an aggressive strain
of breast cancer, then fed diets to induce either high blood-sugar
(hyperglycemia), normoglycemia or low blood-sugar (hypoglycemia).

There was a dose-dependent response in which the lower the blood
glucose, the greater the survival rate.

After 70 days, 8 of 24 hyperglycemic mice survived
compared to 16 of 24 normoglycemic and 19 of 20 hypoglycemic.

This suggests that eliminating simple sugar is key to slowing breast
tumor growth.

In a human study, 10 healthy people were assessed for fasting
blood-glucose levels and the phagocytic index of "neutrophils",
which measures
"immune-cell" ability to envelop and destroy invaders such as
cancer.

Eating 100 g carbohydrates from glucose, sucrose, honey and orange
juice all significantly decreased the capacity of "neutrophils" to
engulf
bacteria.

Starch did not have the same effect.

A four-year study at the National Institute of Public Health and
Environmental Protection in the Netherlands compared 111 biliary
tract
cancer patients with 480 controls.

Cancer risk associated with the intake of simple sugars, independent
of other energy sources, more than doubled for the cancer patients.

Furthermore, an epidemiological study in 21 modern countries that
keep
track of morbidity and mortality (Europe, North America, Japan and
others) revealed that sugar intake is a strong risk factor that
contributes to higher breast cancer rates, particularly in older
women.

Limiting sugar consumption may not be the only line of defense.

In fact, an interesting botanical extract from the avocado plant
(Persea americana) is showing promise as a new cancer adjunct.

When a purified avocado extract called mannoheptulose was added to a
number of tumor cell lines tested in vitro by researchers in the
Department of Biochemistry at Oxford University in Britain, they
found
it inhibited tumor cell glucose uptake by 25 to 75 percent, and it
inhibited the enzyme glucokinase responsible
for glycolysis. It also inhibited the growth rate of the cultured
tumor
cell lines.

The same researchers gave lab animals a 1.7 mg/g body weight dose of
mannoheptulose for five days; it reduced tumors by 65 to 79 percent.

Based on these studies, there is good reason to believe that avocado
extract could help
cancer patients by limiting glucose to the tumor cells.

The medical establishment may be missing the connection between
sugar
and its role in tumorigenesis.

Consider the million-dollar positive emission tomography
device, or PET scan, regarded as one of the ultimate cancer-
detection
tools.

PET scans use radioactively labeled glucose to detect sugar-hungry
tumor
cells.
PET
scans are used to plot the progress of cancer patients and to assess
whether present protocols are effective.

In Europe, the "sugar feeds cancer" concept is so well accepted that
oncologists, or cancer doctors, use the Systemic Cancer Multistep
Therapy (SCMT) protocol.


The irrefutable role of glucose in the growth and metastasis of
cancer
cells can enhance many therapies.

Some of these include diets designed with the glycemic
index in mind to regulate increases in blood glucose, hence
selectively
starving the cancer cells; low-glucose TPN solutions; avocado
extract to
inhibit glucose uptake in cancer cells; hydrazine sulfate to inhibit
gluconeogenesis in cancer cells; and SCMT.

---------------------------------------------------------------------


Sugar and Immunity
---------------------------------------------------------------------

As some of you may remember, you are generally not succeptable to
viral attack or tumor growth if your immune response is kept at high
levels (more specifically, the strength and count of your NK cells)

However, when exposed to sugars, the immune state is weakened
considerably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The Leukocytic Index proves the devastating effect of simple
sugars on immunity

Many people have been asking for a mechanism for the depressed
immunity seen in people who eat sugar and other refined
carbohydrates.

Many are known but the Leukocytic Index is an especially helpful one
for
many people to begin to take this health risk seriously.

More than 20 years ago a large study was published about the effects
of refined carbohydrates (of which processed sweets are the worst)
on
the leukocytic index.

Our "white blood cells" are
the most important factors in protecting us from invading organisms.

The leukocytic index is a measure of how many invading organisms one
white blood cell (WBC) can eat in an hour.

Therefore an index of 10 means that that one WBC ate 10 organisms in
THAT hour.

The average LI (leukocytic index) in the USA--and remember,
average is not as healthy as one can get--is about 13.9.

Within 15 minutes, after an individual eats the amount of refined
carbsnormally ingested in the evening meal --about 100 grams, the
leukocytic index drops to about 1.4.

Depending on the genetic susceptibility to this problem, it might be
better or worse--this is just an average.

Diabetics ALWAYS have a LI of less than 2.

That means the average person loses more than 90% of their immune
function within 15 minutes of indulging in this poisonous substance.

This deficiency lasts for about 2 hours after the stress occurs.



What is routinely given intravenously during surgical procedures?

Glucose (sugar) water!

When Ringer's Lactate (which has no sugar) is used instead, the
incidence of post operative infection is reduced by two thirds.

The only reason I can think of for this kind of persistent ignorance
is
that there is no money in changing the thinking of operative
routine.

There is a lot more money in treating the *infections* that are
created
by the Allopathic Monopoly.

Since this has been known for more than 20 years,
don't you think it is time for this information to get out to the
public?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Post subject: Sugar Isn't as Sweet as It Seems

---------------------------------------------------------------------



A few years ago, there was a lot of publicity about how drug
companies
were starting to look to the rainforests and traditional medicine
men
for new breakthrough drugs. Not surprisingly, little has
materialized
from these efforts. The "breakthrough" products the companies hoped
for
are not coming fast enough to satisfy profit-hungry shareholders.

As a result, pharmaceutical companies are rapidly beefing up their
marketing efforts to compensate for their inability to introduce new
drugs.

And make no mistake; the pharmaceutical giants are some of the most
savvy and well-financed marketers on the planet.

Their latest efforts are focused on ways to treat blood sugar and
diabetes problems.

And millions of people in this country are starting to suffer
needlessly because of their efforts. I don't want you to fall into
this
trap.

Sugar Isn't as Sweet as It Seems

When you consider that the average American intake of added
(non-naturally occurring) sugar is 20.5 teaspoons per day, it's
obvious
that Americans have a serious sweet tooth.

That rate of sugar consumption adds up to 68.5 pounds per person,
per
year, and is suspected to be even higher. (USDA CSFII Survey)

If sugar is such a serious health concern, as so many of us have
been
saying for so long, a rate of consumption like that is nothing short
of"slow suicide"

For decades "health nuts," including yours truly, have been warning
about the dangers of increased sugars and/or refined carbohydrates
in
the diet.

Let me tell you, it has been a real uphill battle trying to convince
the
public that consuming too much sugar could eventually lead to
diabetes--especially when conventional medicine keeps
asserting that sugar is totally"harmless"

Even today, as diabetes reaches epidemic proportions in this
country,
most doctors continue to preach that dietary sugar has no connection
to
behavior problems, mood swings, depression, or the increased
incidence
of adult onset diabetes.

Our FDA says that the only problem sugar causes is dental cavities.

And with the support of the American Dietetic Association, the Sugar
Association has stuck to the position that at only 15 calories per
teaspoon, sugar is a healthy, low-calorie sweetener that is no
different
than any other carbohydrate.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, decades of research supports the fact that a "sweet tooth"
will
invariably lead to a lifetime of poor health and a premature death.

In fact, even if sugar weren't so harmful on its own merits, people
who
consume the highest amounts of sugar also tend to take in the lowest
amounts of many important nutrients.

Vitamins A, C, B12, and folate, as well as calcium, phosphorus,
magnesium, zinc, and iron are typically lacking in the diets of
those
who eat lots of sugar.

These deficiencies arise from the fact that high-sugar diets tend to
be
higher in calories, but lower in important fruits, vegetables, and
meats
than healthy diets.
(Agricultural Research, June 2000, 17.)

The bigger problem, however, is that sugar causes harm at an even
more
fundamental level.

To understand why, you have to understand a little about how your
body
works.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gears Behind the Clockwork

The carbohydrates we eat are converted by the body into a
"simple sugar"
called glucose.

This glucose, or "blood sugar," enters the bloodstream to be
transported
throughout the body. Blood sugar is the primary energy source used
by
the brain, the nervous system, and the muscles.

To be utilized, the blood sugar must get from the blood- stream into
the nerve and muscle cell

Hypoglycemia is a term for low blood sugar.
Diabetes is high blood sugar, or hyperglycemia. Hypoglycemia from
too
much insulin can be a very serious problem with diabetics. Almost 2
percent of diabetics die as a result of hypoglycemia. (Most
diabetic drugs tend to plunge those who take them in hypoglycemia)

These problems explain why diabetics treated with oral medications
such
as those I've described generally have a weight gain of anywhere
from 6
to 12 pounds or more. And, as I explained earlier, this weight gain
and
the extra deposits of fat become part of the vicious cycle that
causes
diabetes to progressively worsen.

As I said before, pharmaceutical companies are the best marketers in
the
world--but don't get caught up in believing that they have the magic
bullet for cancer.

The French Have Us Confused

There's been a lot written about what has been called the "French
Paradox." Researchers have been trying for years to figure out why,
despite their diet, the French have significantly less heart
problems,
cancer and other diseases associated with dietary excess and aging
than
Americans.

The French are healthier and live longer, even though they smoke
more
than Americans.

If you look at the recommended dietary guidelines suggested in this
country, the French appear to be doing everything wrong.

The truth of the matter, however, is that when you follow the
guidelines
promoted by our American Heart Association, the American Medical
Association, the food industry, and other "authorities" in this
country,
you're almost certain to suffer and/or die from heart disease,
cancer,
or diabetes.

Part of the French people's protection appears to come from their
increased consumption of wine, particularly red wine. Wine, as you
know,
contains several potent antioxidants that have been shown to protect
the
heart and blood vessels.

But a closer look at the French diet reveals some other very
important
differences.

The French eat fewer snack foods and more vegetables, whole grains,
other complex carbohydrates, and fish.

They consume only half as much milk as Americans do, and most of
that is
not pasteurized and homogenized like it is in this country.

One of the biggest differences, however, is that the French eat only
one
eighteenth of the amount of sugar that Americans eat.

Additionally, they eat only about half the amount of fruit that we
do,
which would give them a lower consumption of the fruit sugar
fructose.

Based on these findings, I can't help but believe that the dramatic
difference in sugar consumption is responsible for much of the so-
called
French Paradox.

Several points to remember include:

Don't skip meals, especially breakfast.

Skipping meals signals your body that you are going into a
starvation
mode. Your body will automatically reduce your metabolic rate.

Avoid artificial sweeteners. The sweet taste in your mouth triggers
the
release of insulin, even though there might not be any sugar that
needs
to be dealt with. Candies and gum trigger the same reaction.
Avoid soft drinks and all fruit juices, regardless of whether they
have
been sweetened naturally or with sugar.

Drugs Won't Solve the Problem

Although the general public will never realize it, the
pharmaceutical
companies will conduct one of the biggest marketing scams of all
time
over the next five or ten years.

Millions of younger and younger individuals in this country will
begin
to develop cancer. In fact, thanks to things like soft drinks, or
"liquid candy," it's already happening.

The average teenage boy now drinks 3.5 twelve-ounce sodas a day (one
out
of ten drinks 7 cans a day). Each of these sodas has the equivalent
of
10 teaspoons of sugar. Girls in the same age group drink an average
of
2.5 cans a day. Overall, each American drinks over 54 gallons of
soda
per year. And sodas are just one source of sugar.

Statistics show that average yearly consumption of total (not just
added) sugar in this country is now over 152 pounds per person. Over
16
percent of our calories now come from refined sugar and that doesn't
include the sugar which naturally occurs in things like milk, fruit
juice, fruit, etc.

The handwriting is on the wall. Cancer is going to be a huge problem
in
the years to come.

And by downplaying its seriousness and marketing a magic pill
instead of
lifestyle changes, the drug companies are going to make billions.

Meanwhile, the average person on the street won't have a clue that
there
was a connection between his morning soda and sweet roll and his
cancer
or heart attack until it's way too late.

The Cure for Slow Suicide Is Fast Change

Earlier in this century, most of the deaths from diabetes resulted
from
comas triggered by elevated blood sugar levels that couldn't be
controlled. Today, due to the discovery of insulin, deaths from
diabetic
coma are more rare. Today death from diabetes is usually more
subtle.

Uncontrolled blood sugar levels interfere with fat metabolism. As
blood
sugar levels rise unabated, the body converts these sugars into
fatty
compounds called triglycerides.

riglycerides slow the blood flow in the smaller arteries and
arterioles
by making the blood thicker and stickier. As the oxygen-carrying
blood
fails to reach various parts of the body in time, the damage begins
to
mount.

The areas supplied by the smallest blood vessels begin to suffer
first.
The vision deteriorates. Strokes occur. Kidneys begin to fail.
Cardiovascular disease becomes evident. Numbness, tingling and pain
begins to occur in the lower extremities followed by the necessary
amputation of the toes, feet or lower limbs.


To prevent or treat disease, you have to make some changes in both
your
diet and lifestyle. The half-dozen or so I've spelled out in this
issue
will do the trick--if you start them soon enough.

If the nutrition "authorities" adopted these simple guidelines
today,
diabetes could be prevented, reversed, and/or eliminated.

Best of all, it doesn't require some rare, outrageously expensive
magic
bullet or treatment program.
Lifestyle and diet changes are a cure we can all afford
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Sugar Dangers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As
I was researching this article, I surfed the web and was
surprised to find that the majority of the websites that mention
sugar say that it is fine to eat in moderation.

Most of them say that your body turns all food to glucose regardless
of the kind of food eaten, so whether you eat sugar, vegetables, or
steak is irrelevant.

I was shocked that the health care professionals who wrote these
pages
could be so short-sighted.

First of all, it is true that your body converts all foods to
glucose.

However, there is an important difference between sugar and
those other
foods.....meat, fruits, and vegetables all have vitamins, minerals,
enzymes, and amino acids.

Sugar has none of those things to assist in its digestion,
assimilation, and absorption. As a result, metabolizing
refined sugar puts the body at a severe nutritional disadvantage.

Here are some studies that have been done on sugar and its effects.
I don't know how those health care professionals can say that sugar
is
ok after reading these studies.

This is information that has been
around for some time, too, and should be well known.

First of all, in 1973 the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
published a study by A. Sanchez et al,

"Role of sugars in human neutrophilic phagocytosis", November,
1180-1184, showing that ingesting 100 grams of simple sugar lowers
white
blood cell activity for at least five hours.

He got this result using processed honey, table sugar,
and processed orange juice.

Lowered white blood cell activity means your"immune system"
and it's
ability to fight infection, is impaired.

The general public believes that the orange juice they buy at the
store is healthy....however, once the fresh squeezed juice has been
pasteurized, it no longer has any live enzymes, and the vitamin and
mineral content has been greatly reduced. In essence, the processing
of the juice renders it the same as refined white sugar, because it
does not contain the lifegiving substances which help the natural
sugar to be metabolized.

Honey would give the same result unless it is raw, UNHEATED honey.

This means that in the processing of the honey, the temperature
cannot exceed 96 degrees fahrenheit, or the live enzymes in the
honey
will be destroyed as well.

Since most people do not drink fresh squeezed orange juice, or go to
the trouble to make sure their honey is unheated during processing,
they are feeding their bodies pure sugar without knowing it.

Now think about the amount of sugars that the average person gets in
their daily diet.....it's no wonder that so many people are sick
thesedays. Their immune systems are constantly operating below their
optimum levels.

Again, in 1976 a study was published in the journal Dental Survey.

In this study, J.R. Ringsdorf found that drinking 24 ounces of cola
depressed the activity of a kind of white blood cell called a
neutrophil that eats bacteria.

He found that this reduction in activity lasted for at least five
hours.


Another good study was in 1977 by J. Bernstein et al. called
Depression
of lymphocyte transformation following oral glucose ingestion,
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

These researchers found that sugar increases"adrenalin" a
stimulating hormone secreted by the adrenal glands.

It was also found that this "adrenalin" increase was far more
'pronounced'in children than in adults, which might account for why
children often have hyperactivity
problems when their diet contains refined sugars.

When sugar is constantly in the diet, the pancreas must constantly
produce insulin.

When sugar is continually overused, the pancreas
eventually wears out and is no longer able to clear sugar from the
blood, and diabetes is often the result.

Sugar increases the urinary output of essential vitamins and
minerals.

According to L. K. Massey in Acute effects of dietary
caffeine and sucrose on urinary mineral excretion in healthy
adolescents Nutr. Res 8(9):

1988, calcium loss through the urine
doubles when a soft drink containing sugar is consumed.

Cola drinks containing both caffeine and sugar caused the greatest
calcium and bone loss in subjects.

White, refined sugar is also bleached with Chlorine Bleach, a
substance that many people are sensitive to.

Chlorine, when it combines with organic compounds, converts
to "Dioxin"
a lethal chemical.

No one should ever consume any substances that have been exposed to
chlorine or chlorine bleach, nor use paper products that have been
bleached.

Sugar is easily replaced in the diet by an herb called
"stevia"
The whole herb or the liquid or powdered extract can be used.

This herb is 200 times more sweet than sugar, but it has NO
CALORIES,
and does NOT raise blood sugar.

It was introduced to Europe by the Spanish Conquistidors in the 16th
century, and was used extensively in Europe for decades with no
known
side effects, before it was outlawed by the EU.

It has been used for hundreds of years in Brazil.
It is a truly
natural dietary supplement. It can be used in hot or cold foods, and
can be cooked with. It has no aftertaste, and is non-carcinogenic.

It is a lifesaver for diabetics, for it helps regulate blood sugar.

I hope you will choose to increase your family's level of health by
notusing sugar, and not supporting the sugar industry by buying
sugar or
products containing sugar.

Stevia.net All About The Herb That Is Sweeter Than Sugar

http://www.unhinderedliving.com/sugardanger.html