Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ginrumryeale t1_iwh86pl wrote

Reply to comment by BafangFan in Aerobic exercise can reduce the risk of metastatic cancer by 72%. According to the researchers, intensity aerobic exercise increases the glucose (sugar) consumption of internal organs, thereby reducing the availability of energy to the tumor. by Wagamaga

It is known that cancer cells can survive on other fuels and substrates available to it in the cell. Cancer growth might slow down with less glucose available (and there's always glucose available-- your body strictly enforces an available level in the bloodstream at all times), but that's often not enough to stop cancer.

1

BafangFan t1_iwhtvmb wrote

The two primary fuels, from what I've learned, are glucose and glutamate. You can lower glucose significantly with low carb diets and fasting (I can get my glucose down to the high 30s on a 5 day fast, and feel fine doing it. I get orthostatic hypotension on a fast that long, but it's not a big deal).

And the drug DON can lower or block glutamate.

These aren't things you have to do forever, either - just long enough to starve to death the cancer cells.

1

ginrumryeale t1_iwhxep7 wrote

I'm moderately familiar with this area of research.

You understand that if it is as simple as this (e.g., as simple as quack researcher Thomas Seyfried posits) then cancer mortality is a solved problem.

Respectfully note that cancer mortality is not solved, and deduce that the problem is significantly more complex than "starve the tumor of sugar, pulse glutamate blockers".

1

BafangFan t1_iwhydv8 wrote

Look up the story of Pablo Kelly. 8 years ago he was diagnosed with stage 4 glioblastoma - and given a terminal diagnosis with 6-9 months to live.

He refused the Standard of Care, and started a therapeutic ketogenic diet. Today he is still alive and well. That is unheard of.

As far as cancer mortality being solved - the question is "how many people who died of cancer attempted a therapeutic ketogenic diet after diagnosis?". The answer is "close to zero".

It's a practically unheard of treatment outside of a small sliver of the population.

The genetic mutation theory of cancer doesn't make sense. Why were people relatively free of cancer until just the past few decades. And since then cancer has absolutely exploded (as has obesity and type 2 diabetes - and the thing they share in common is their impact on/from metabolism)

1

ginrumryeale t1_iwi266x wrote

Thanks, but if you're familiar with this topic, it is heard of. 6.8% of glioblastoma patients survive 5 years, 1% survive 8+ years. Living 8 years is far from the norm, but it is "heard of".

Here's a survey of 108 glioblastoma patients.*

Thanks for the conversation.

From: Long-term survivors of glioblastoma are a unique group of patients lacking universal characteristic features, Neuro-Oncology Advances, Vol 2, Issue 1, January-December 2020, vdz056, https://doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdz056 , 23 December 2019

2