Cancer And The Diet's Effects On It

CForrester · May 2005

Okay, a while ago, Cyndane mentioned that she didn't think that how healthy you are had any effect on your chances of getting cancer or recovering from it. (Or maybe she meant that it doesn't have much of an effect, I could have misunderstood. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

I finally had a chance to sit down and do a bit more research on the subject, and I'm posting this to present my findings. I would have PM'd her, but I want other peoples' opinions on the subject as well, so I'm making it a discussion topic instead.

I should start by saying: Otto Warburg won two Nobel prizes for his work in proving that cancer is caused by a lack of oxygen in the cells. Cancers occur when a weakened immune system cannot kill cancerous cells as fast as they are multiplying. Toxins in the body, radiation as well as viruses causes more cells to become cancerous. A stronger immune system, which is the result of a healthy body, will allow the body to kill cancerous cells faster than they can multiply.

The body gets oxygen from respiration, and from water. This is why you have an increased risk of cancer when you allow poisons such as nicotine, as well as diuretics (bet you never thought that caffeine could contribute to cancer) to enter the body.

Diet is quite an important part of the prevention and combat of cancer. Having enough water in your body helps to deliver oxygen to cells that need it, as well as flush toxins out. Foods that are rich in antioxidants (apples are a great example, especially "red delicious" ones) help to protect against cancer. A <a href='http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1116266334938_111675534' target='_blank'>recent study</a> found that a low-fat diet helps to prevent cancer from returning.

Exercise is also another important part. Keeping the body active and strong helps to keep your immune system healthy and able to kill cancerous cells. Another <a href='http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1116985432900_112394632/?hub=TopStories' target='_blank'>study</a> found this, as well.

Eating a healthy diet and exercising also have a great effect on the mind. It is my belief that the health of the mind is linked directly to the health of the body. Both effect the other and their ability to perform, so a healthy mind equals a healthy body and a healthy body equals a healthy mind.

Anyone have anything to add, or an opposing viewpoint? Let's hear it. It may take me a while to respond because my computer is broken, so I only occasionally have Internet access.

theclam · May 2005

I think everyone that read the other thread, understands that diet and exercise reduce the risk of cancer and make it more likely that it'll be cured. The question is, is it enough? No, it isn't. In the two articles you linked to, it said that the risk of cancer was reduced, but not eliminated. That's why we need treatments like chemotherapy.

Cyndane · May 2005

I really was hoping you'd have something a bit more convincing... however since you do not, I shall now show you how it really doesn't affect anything.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Okay, a while ago, Cyndane mentioned that she didn't think that how healthy you are had any effect on your chances of getting cancer or recovering from it. (Or maybe she meant that it doesn't have much of an effect, I could have misunderstood. Correct me if I'm wrong.)
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
It doesn't have much of an effect, correct.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I should start by saying: Otto Warburg won two Nobel prizes for his work in proving that cancer is caused by a lack of oxygen in the cells. Cancers occur when a weakened immune system cannot kill cancerous cells as fast as they are multiplying. Toxins in the body, radiation as well as viruses causes more cells to become cancerous. A stronger immune system, which is the result of a healthy body, will allow the body to kill cancerous cells faster than they can multiply.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
He won one nobel prize in deciphering that
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (nobelprize.org)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
For his discovery of the nature and mode of action of the respiratory enzyme, the Nobel Prize has been awarded to him in 1931.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (nobelprize.org)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
His methods involved detailed studies on the assimilation of carbon dioxide in plants, the metabolism of tumors, and the chemical constituent of the oxygen transferring respiratory ferment. Warburg was never a teacher, and he has always been grateful for his opportunities to devote his whole time to scientific research. His later researches at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute have led to the discovery that the flavins and the nicotinamide were the active groups of the hydrogen-transferring enzymes. This, together with the iron-oxygenase discovered earlier, has given a complete account of the oxidations and reductions in the living world.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
His minor research in 1931 only had to do with the way cells transfer the oxygen to other cells (read:What we call hemoglobin now).
Not to say that isn't a big impact, especially for the time, however it has absolutely no bering on how we face cancer today. I can attest to that.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
The body gets oxygen from respiration, and from water. This is why you have an increased risk of cancer when you allow poisons such as nicotine, as well as diuretics (bet you never thought that caffeine could contribute to cancer) to enter the body.

Diet is quite an important part of the prevention and combat of cancer. Having enough water in your body helps to deliver oxygen to cells that need it, as well as flush toxins out. Foods that are rich in antioxidants (apples are a great example, especially "red delicious" ones) help to protect against cancer. A recent study found that a low-fat diet helps to prevent cancer from returning.

Exercise is also another important part. Keeping the body active and strong helps to keep your immune system healthy and able to kill cancerous cells. Another study found this, as well.

Eating a healthy diet and exercising also have a great effect on the mind. It is my belief that the health of the mind is linked directly to the health of the body. Both effect the other and their ability to perform, so a healthy mind equals a healthy body and a healthy body equals a healthy mind.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
<a href='http://tcpm.organicframework.com/p/166,515.html' target='_blank'>Cancer facts</a>
Just throwing that out there for you, so you can learn more about cancer.
Now to show that being completely healthy really doesn't affect a whole lot of anything when it comes to the deadly diseases (Cancer, HIV, AIDS and etc.)
<a href='http://www.breastcancer.org/research_surgery_080001.html' target='_blank'>Preventive Mastectomy and Genetics</a> Prevenitive SURGERY to stop breast cancer...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.ctfphc.org/Full_Text_printable/Ch71full.htm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Several cohort studies and many population-based case-control studies have reported positive associations between pancreatic cancer and dietary factors such as meat, eggs, carbohydrates, refined sugar, cholesterol, fat and total calorie intake, as well as negative (protective) associations with intake of vegetables and fruits.<1,5,6> However, study results are inconsistent. Also, a decrease in any dietary factor and, possibly, a substitution with another foodstuff, could cause an increase in some other disease so further research is needed. (Nutritional counselling has also been evaluated in treatment of obesity (Chapters 30 and 48) and prevention of lung cancer (Chapter 64) with more general considerations being addressed in the chapter on nutritional counselling (Chapter 49)). Studies of the relationship between increased alcohol consumption and pancreatic cancer have yielded inconsistent results;<1,6-8> few have adequately assessed level and duration of intake, or evaluated the possibility of a link between alcohol, pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Current epidemiologic evidence does not support an association between pancreatic cancer and coffee consumption.<1>
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
*Warning, this next article is fairly technical, if you know nothing about how cancer actually works DO NOT READ* (Or.. better yet go read up on cancer then come back)
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://i-newswire.com/pr21274.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
-Newswire, 2005-05-22 - The researchers showed that either treatment with Odc-suppressing drug DFMO or the loss of one of the two copies of the Odc gene in a B lymphocyte impairs Myc's ability to stimulate uncontrolled cell division. The team made these findings in Eµ-Myc laboratory models, which overexpress Myc in B cells and are widely used in laboratory studies of cancer.

The discovery of the link between Odc and Myc in tumor development is significant because Myc genes are activated in up to 70 percent of human cancers. Therefore, a drug that disrupts their activity by disabling Odc might prevent or slow the development of a wide variety of cancers, including breast, colon, lung and prostate cancers. However, while DFMO treatment was effective in preventing lymphoma development in the Eµ-Myc model, it only worked when cells had an intact tumor-suppressing mechanism called the Arf-p53 pathway. This suggests that cancers carrying mutations that disable Arf-p53 would not respond to DFMO, the researchers said.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=9066)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
But in the “war on cancer,” we hear about promising new drugs that increase survival from 22 to 24%, inching hope along a corridor of debilitating courses of chemotherapy, hormonal therapies, and radiation.
{snip}
Former breast cancer patients who followed a low fat diet had only a 9.8% recurrent rate while the women who followed their usual diet had a 12.4% cancer return rate. Once again, here is an example of a celebrated cancer success—a statistic measuring a 2.4% difference.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Basically what it boils down to is if you have a good healthy diet it "may" help it may not it completely depends on the person that is causing it. Which is the point I was trying to get across the first time.

Now that I have, I am going to stay out of this one, for it is far to personal for me to continue. Disagree I'm sure some of you will, but I KNOW how accurate those 'studies' are.

Depot · May 2005

The selective quoting of studies to suit one's personal views isn't enough to convince me diet doesn't play a major role in preventing cancer, and a minor (albeit important one) in curing it. The patient's will and genetic history also will greatly influence their recovery.

I don't have the time or patience to google all day and research, but base my oppinions on what I have learned over the years, and my personal experiences with hospice.

CForrester · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 25 2005, 09:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I should start by saying: Otto Warburg won two Nobel prizes for his work in proving that cancer is caused by a lack of oxygen in the cells. Cancers occur when a weakened immune system cannot kill cancerous cells as fast as they are multiplying. Toxins in the body, radiation as well as viruses causes more cells to become cancerous. A stronger immune system, which is the result of a healthy body, will allow the body to kill cancerous cells faster than they can multiply.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
He won one nobel prize in deciphering that
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (nobelprize.org)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
For his discovery of the nature and mode of action of the respiratory enzyme, the Nobel Prize has been awarded to him in 1931.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (nobelprize.org)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
His methods involved detailed studies on the assimilation of carbon dioxide in plants, the metabolism of tumors, and the chemical constituent of the oxygen transferring respiratory ferment. Warburg was never a teacher, and he has always been grateful for his opportunities to devote his whole time to scientific research. His later researches at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute have led to the discovery that the flavins and the nicotinamide were the active groups of the hydrogen-transferring enzymes. This, together with the iron-oxygenase discovered earlier, has given a complete account of the oxidations and reductions in the living world.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
His minor research in 1931 only had to do with the way cells transfer the oxygen to other cells (read:What we call hemoglobin now).
Not to say that isn't a big impact, especially for the time, however it has absolutely no bering on how we face cancer today. I can attest to that.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Hrm... Just popping in to comment on this. I'll have to read the rest of it later, because I've got to go in about five minutes.

I thought he won a second in 1944... What I found when I was looking for information was:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>1931 Dr. Otto Warburg wins first Nobel Prize for work proving cancer is caused by a lack of oxygen in the cells. He states in "The Prime Cause and Prevention of Cancer" that the cause of cancer is no longer a mystery, we know it occurs whenever any cell is denied 60% of its oxygen requirements. This occurs through a buildup of pollution or toxicity within and around the cell which blocks and then damages the cellular oxygen respiration mechanism.

1944 Dr. Otto Warburg wins second Nobel Prize for his work linking cancer to damaged cell respiration due to a lack of oxygen at the cellular level.

1956 Feb 24 Two time Nobel Prize winner Dr. Otto Warburg (who won this prestigious award for discovering and proving that cellular respiration, once damaged by a lack of oxygen, caused cells to mutate uncontrollably and turn into cancer cells) publishes in SCIENCE 24 February 1956, Volume 123, Number 3191 "On the Origin Of Cancer Cells."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

DarkATi · May 2005

It's not to say that cancer can't happen to anyone - because it can. But those with an unhealthy diet (like myself, actually - I drink far too much soda and eat too much sugar and saturated fats) are at a higher risk for cancer.

This is based on simple knowledge, a few studies and my own logic. I mean, caffeine can't be <b>good</b> for you... garbage in, garbage out.

Again, cancer could happen to anyone but I believe there are preventitive measures one can take against it.

~ DarkATi

Goldwin · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ May 30 2005, 02:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> This is based on simple knowledge, a few studies and my own logic. I mean, caffeine can't be <b>good</b> for you... garbage in, garbage out.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
My thoughts exactly.

Bad and unhealthy lifestyles can only lead to worse things int he future, such as cancer.

Not all studies are correct yes, but they can sure be really accurate.

FilthyLarry · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Goldwin @ May 31 2005, 09:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ May 30 2005, 02:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> This is based on simple knowledge, a few studies and my own logic. I mean, caffeine can't be <b>good</b> for you... garbage in, garbage out. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
My thoughts exactly.

Bad and unhealthy lifestyles can only lead to worse things int he future, such as cancer.

Not all studies are correct yes, but they can sure be really accurate.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Many people though do not wish to accept the fact that they are contributing to their chances of getting things like cancer through poor nutrional decision-making.

Unfortunately many in the west (myself included although I'm waking up to the reality) have this idea that when you reach 40 it's all downhill and there's not much you can do about it. The reality is that this is far from true.

Look at the <a href='http://okinawaprogram.com/study.html' target='_blank'>Okinawa Centenarian Study</a> for some interesting statistics.

big_jim · June 2005

There was a model proposed in 1963 by a guy called Per-Olov Löwdin that attributed some formations of cancer due to double proton transfers between the nucleotides* in DNA via Quantum Mechanical Tunneling. It's never been conclusively proven or disproved, but in some cases appears to be a dominant process of the carcinogenesis.

Unfortunatly I can't find an online source of his paper that doesn't require a subscription (<a href='http://prola.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v35/i3/p724_1' target='_blank'>this</a> is the best I can find), but if you are interested it's in <i>Reviews of Modern Physics</i> (1963) or <i>Advances in Quantum Chemistry vol.2</i> (1965)

If the theroy is true, then no matter what you eat/drink/smoke etc., you will always stand a statistical chance of developing cancer and there is nothing to prevent this happening. Although I think we can all agree that having a healthy diet etc. would help fight off cancer should it delvelop.

*I'm a chemist, not a biologist, so this may be the wrong word : /

Zamma · June 2005

A healthy Diet Does REDUCE the risk of cancer. But only slightly.

Then again: eating foods with little or no additives reduces it. Not using deodrant reduces it. Not going in the sun for long times reduces it.

But the fact is you can always reduce it but you can still get it.

Generally Cancer is passed down generations OR it is due to something like too much radiation ect.

But you can still get it watever the case. Its one of those Unlucky things. I assure you by the time you are 25 in a MEDC you will know someone who has died or is suffering from cancer.

Unsong · June 2005

Many factors contribute to the development of cancers, which can be promoted by the individual's environment, genetic predisposition, lifestyle etc. You can't just say that all cancers result from <x> and if we stop doing it then we'll never get cancer, because its a much more complex process.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I should start by saying: Otto Warburg won two Nobel prizes for his work in proving that cancer is caused by a lack of oxygen in the cells. Cancers occur when a weakened immune system cannot kill cancerous cells as fast as they are multiplying. Toxins in the body, radiation as well as viruses causes more cells to become cancerous. A stronger immune system, which is the result of a healthy body, will allow the body to kill cancerous cells faster than they can multiply.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
That doesn't sound right to me. Cancerous cells can't just arise from not being killed by the immune system, they have to actually make a change from their normal non-cancerous state to the cancerous state, arising from mutations in the genetic sequence, development of telomerases etc. Apoptosis and other cell death pathways are gone, and the cells proliferate out of control, as they're more competitive than normal cells. Angiogenesis is then required to vascularise the newly formed tumour, which involves another host intercellular interactions. But thats not what actually gets you in the end, its when the cancer cells undergo another change, this time to become malignant, and release intercellular matrix degrading enzymes and use transport systems such as the vascular system and the lymphatic system to move to other parts of the body, where it needs to be able to invade and colonise new areas.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The body gets oxygen from respiration, and from water. This is why you have an increased risk of cancer when you allow poisons such as nicotine, as well as diuretics (bet you never thought that caffeine could contribute to cancer) to enter the body.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Respiration is a cellular process where oxygen is used to regenerate adenosine triphosphate (ATP), and you get oxygen usually by breathing (air, not water). Nicotine stimulates the excitation of the cholinergic neurons in the brain to stimulate the release of acetylcholine, glutamate and dopamine (involved in 'pleasure' pathway). I'm not quite sure if i'd classify it as a poison <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /> Anyways, would you be able to cite the papers from which you got that information about the nicotine and diuretics contributing to cancer?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Having enough water in your body helps to deliver oxygen to cells that need it, as well as flush toxins out. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I don't understand your reasoning behind this. All i'd see water doing would be to increase your urine flow rate and maybe increase your hematocrit a bit, which would serve to decrease oxygen delivery?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Exercise is also another important part. Keeping the body active and strong helps to keep your immune system healthy and able to kill cancerous cells. Another study found this, as well.

Eating a healthy diet and exercising also have a great effect on the mind. It is my belief that the health of the mind is linked directly to the health of the body. Both effect the other and their ability to perform, so a healthy mind equals a healthy body and a healthy body equals a healthy mind.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You sound like my dad! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />
I agree that staying healthy is good for you, and may help to decrease the risk of developing some cancers, but healthy minds and healthy bodys?! I know lots of perfectly physically fit people suffering from mental retardation, and hyper-intelligent people whom are unfortunate enough to be of unsound health or are disabled in some way or another (stephen hawking?).

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Cancer And The Diet's Effects On It

Comments