Some will say to avoid sugars. (Note that carbohydrates are chains of sugar molecules.) Also, some fruits have been bred to be high in sugar - grapes, cherries, and others - to be more palatable. So, if you avoid sugars, that involves a lot of good-tasting food.
That said, I’m not sure that sugars are as much a problem with prostate cancer (which feeds on testosterone) as they are with other types of cancers (like brain, lymphoma, and lung cancers) that feed on glucose.
(Here’s a 2019 PCRI presentation titled “Does Sugar Feed Prostate Cancer? Does Fatty/Adipose Tissue Attract Cancer?” ) —> https://www.youtube.com/watch
@brianjarvis Testosterone is the activator for prostate cancer, I think, not the food. The cells feed on glucose, like all the other cells in your body (cancerous or non-cancerous).
Here's an article from Mayo on sugar: https://connect.mayoclinic.org/blog/cancer-education-center/newsfeed-post/sugars-role-in-cancer-1/
It opens with this: "Sugar is often a source of anxiety and fear for people with cancer. It’s important for people to know sugar does not cause cancer, and consuming sugar does not make cancer cells grow faster, nor does avoiding sugar slow their growth. Sugar, however, may play an indirect role in developing cancer."
It goes on to mention that weight gain and obesity *are* correlated with some cancers, so if your sugar consumption is a major drive of weight gain, it might _indirectly_ be raising your cancer risk. But there is ZERO direct link between cancer and sugar consumption. If your weight is in a healthy range (or sugar isn't the reason for your weight gain), then eating a piece of cake or a cookie will have no impact at all on your cancer. This isn't even a serious debate in the scholarly community, as far as I know.
@northoftheborder The data indicate that Testosterone does not directly cause or initiate (i.e., activate) prostate cancer, but it acts as a fuel for existing prostate cancer cells (i.e., cells that have mutated).
Interestingly, with all the types of cancers mentioned in that article about “Sugar’s Role in Cancer” - breast cancer (post-menopausal), colorectal, esophageal, multiple myeloma (a cancer of the blood cells), meningioma (a type of brain cancer), kidney, endometrial, ovarian, thyroid, liver, gallbladder, upper stomach, and pancreatic” - prostate cancer was never mentioned.
Thinking that prostate cancer fed on glucose (like lymphoma, lung, and brain cancers do), years ago (in 1999) a glucose-based PET scan - F18-FDG (Fluoro-2-Deoxyglucose) PET CT - was developed. It worked great for detecting lymphoma, lung, brain, and other cancers; it didn’t work for detecting low-grade prostate cancer (but, it did work well for detecting advanced prostate cancers). Since then, glucose-based radioliglands are rarely used for prostate cancer.
@northoftheborder The data indicate that Testosterone does not directly cause or initiate (i.e., activate) prostate cancer, but it acts as a fuel for existing prostate cancer cells (i.e., cells that have mutated).
Interestingly, with all the types of cancers mentioned in that article about “Sugar’s Role in Cancer” - breast cancer (post-menopausal), colorectal, esophageal, multiple myeloma (a cancer of the blood cells), meningioma (a type of brain cancer), kidney, endometrial, ovarian, thyroid, liver, gallbladder, upper stomach, and pancreatic” - prostate cancer was never mentioned.
Thinking that prostate cancer fed on glucose (like lymphoma, lung, and brain cancers do), years ago (in 1999) a glucose-based PET scan - F18-FDG (Fluoro-2-Deoxyglucose) PET CT - was developed. It worked great for detecting lymphoma, lung, brain, and other cancers; it didn’t work for detecting low-grade prostate cancer (but, it did work well for detecting advanced prostate cancers). Since then, glucose-based radioliglands are rarely used for prostate cancer.
Thanks for posting this and making distinction about different kinds of cancers.
Regarding PC - it makes sense that low grade did not light up - it is very slow growing and does not need fuel in that amount but it seems that glucose tracers work well for advanced and aggressive PC cancer - which is again logical since aggressive cancer grows fast and have high metabolic levels .
I mentioned in my previous post radioactive glucose tracers since I knew that they exist and light up cancer cells but I did not know that they do not work for low grade PC, so thanks for giving me that information. : )
I LOVE to learn in general, I read tons of articles about different things, actually the least about cancer since it really makes me depressed. But one has to do what one has to do ...
And yes - have a treat once-in -a-while : ))) , and possibly dark chocolate with healthy nuts and dried fruits ; ) lol
@northoftheborder The data indicate that Testosterone does not directly cause or initiate (i.e., activate) prostate cancer, but it acts as a fuel for existing prostate cancer cells (i.e., cells that have mutated).
Interestingly, with all the types of cancers mentioned in that article about “Sugar’s Role in Cancer” - breast cancer (post-menopausal), colorectal, esophageal, multiple myeloma (a cancer of the blood cells), meningioma (a type of brain cancer), kidney, endometrial, ovarian, thyroid, liver, gallbladder, upper stomach, and pancreatic” - prostate cancer was never mentioned.
Thinking that prostate cancer fed on glucose (like lymphoma, lung, and brain cancers do), years ago (in 1999) a glucose-based PET scan - F18-FDG (Fluoro-2-Deoxyglucose) PET CT - was developed. It worked great for detecting lymphoma, lung, brain, and other cancers; it didn’t work for detecting low-grade prostate cancer (but, it did work well for detecting advanced prostate cancers). Since then, glucose-based radioliglands are rarely used for prostate cancer.
❝The data indicate that Testosterone does not directly cause or initiate (i.e., activate) prostate cancer,❞
Yes, exactly: testosterone does NOT cause prostate cancer. It's important to repeat that sometimes.
❝but it acts as a fuel for existing prostate cancer cells (i.e., cells that have mutated).❞
Literally speaking, the fuel is still glucose. Testosterone is more like the ignition key, attaching to existing prostate-cancer cells' androgen receptors and causing them to turn on (activate) and start multiplying.
ADT is like taking away the car key (if no testosterone binds to the androgen receptors, castrate-sensitive prostate-cancer cells won't activate and start multiplying); ARSIs like Zytiga or the -lutamides are like ignition locks, preventing the testosterone "key" from going into the ARSI ignition.
Over time, some of the prostate-cancer cells may become castrate-resistant, which is essentially hot-wiring themselves so that they don't need the testosterone key in the androgen-receptor ignition any more to activate and start multiplying. 😕
However, the good news is that major studies like TITAN have demonstrated that for metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), starting ADT and ARSI at the *same* time can significantly delay castrate-resistance for many patients — possibly even indefinitely in some cases.
(The old practice was to use only ADT at first, then add an ARSI only once PSA started rising again).
I avoid process sugars as best as I can(so many foods have them). I enjoy a good piece of chocolate to satisfy my sweet tooth. I will only have some on weekends, or a very special occasion like my birthday. The only chocolate I eat is called JoJo’s. It was developed by a cancer patient who wanted something to satisfy her sweet cravings. It’s dark chocolate with almonds pistachios and cranberries. It works for me and my “psyche”. Good luck!
❝The data indicate that Testosterone does not directly cause or initiate (i.e., activate) prostate cancer,❞
Yes, exactly: testosterone does NOT cause prostate cancer. It's important to repeat that sometimes.
❝but it acts as a fuel for existing prostate cancer cells (i.e., cells that have mutated).❞
Literally speaking, the fuel is still glucose. Testosterone is more like the ignition key, attaching to existing prostate-cancer cells' androgen receptors and causing them to turn on (activate) and start multiplying.
ADT is like taking away the car key (if no testosterone binds to the androgen receptors, castrate-sensitive prostate-cancer cells won't activate and start multiplying); ARSIs like Zytiga or the -lutamides are like ignition locks, preventing the testosterone "key" from going into the ARSI ignition.
Over time, some of the prostate-cancer cells may become castrate-resistant, which is essentially hot-wiring themselves so that they don't need the testosterone key in the androgen-receptor ignition any more to activate and start multiplying. 😕
However, the good news is that major studies like TITAN have demonstrated that for metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), starting ADT and ARSI at the *same* time can significantly delay castrate-resistance for many patients — possibly even indefinitely in some cases.
(The old practice was to use only ADT at first, then add an ARSI only once PSA started rising again).
They are making so many advancements in many areas of medicine today as knowledge is increased just like the Bible says in Daniel 12:4 as we get closer to the end of time.
Funny you should ask! I was going to post the article I read online the other day about the death of the actor James VerBeek.
Doctors at Sloan Kettering are seeing very high incidences of stage 3 and 4 colon cancers in young people - in their 40’s.
They interviewed them about their diets and this is what they came up with: EVEN ONE sugary 12 oz drink, or a piece of candy (I think probably dessert also) DAILY will raise your chances of colon cancer to the moon!
Personally, I think it’s BS and the number of people in the study was under 300 I believe…I mean, a freakin cookie or a single Coke every day and your gonna die from it? Gimme a break!!
I personally have relatives who lived into their 90’s and they ate sweets like crazy; I’m not recommending it, nor do I follow it because excess sugar can lead to many metabolic problems. But there has got to be more to this cancer spike than just a small amount of sugar…
Phil
I avoid process sugars as best as I can(so many foods have them). I enjoy a good piece of chocolate to satisfy my sweet tooth. I will only have some on weekends, or a very special occasion like my birthday. The only chocolate I eat is called JoJo’s. It was developed by a cancer patient who wanted something to satisfy her sweet cravings. It’s dark chocolate with almonds pistachios and cranberries. It works for me and my “psyche”. Good luck!
Cancer cells feed off glucose (like all other cells in your body, but
1. Everything you eat gets reduced to glucose in your blood.
2. Your pancreas regulates your glucose level: unless you have diabetes, reactive hypoglycemia, or are malnourished, your blood sugar will stay in a normal range.
3. Your brain would shut down before you could lower your blood sugar enough to starve cancer cells.
So it's another example of people getting one single factoid and running with it without understanding the system complexities.
That said, some prostate cancer treatments (like ADT) increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, so going easy on the sweets is a good idea for a different reason. But that doesn't mean you need to avoid refined sugar, or that eating a chocolate bar will in any way affect the risk of cancer progression (as your oncologist no doubt explained).
tl;dr To lover the risk of type 2 diabetes while on ADT, just make sweets a "sometimes" treat.
@northoftheborder "So it's another example of people getting one single factoid and running with it without understanding the system complexities."
I agree. There are many reasons to be careful of sugar intake, but dietary impact on cancer is anecdotal and often very small studies that people will treat like they are massive million-person studies.
I believe it's very easy to grasp at every single thing to blame cancer on, and then every single thing to try to prevent its return. If someone had a study that said if you stop drinking tap water then your chance of remission goes down by 1%, people would do it.
There's nothing wrong with believing these things, truly, because I think the power of the mind is enormous and can have an impact on our health and healing. I just think getting on a soapbox about such things as if God himself bestowed the knowledge upon you and instructed you to convert all the peoples is going a bit far.
Connect
Connect
Like
Helpful
Hug
Amen to that 2!
@asolidrock For science.
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
1 Reaction@northoftheborder The data indicate that Testosterone does not directly cause or initiate (i.e., activate) prostate cancer, but it acts as a fuel for existing prostate cancer cells (i.e., cells that have mutated).
Interestingly, with all the types of cancers mentioned in that article about “Sugar’s Role in Cancer” - breast cancer (post-menopausal), colorectal, esophageal, multiple myeloma (a cancer of the blood cells), meningioma (a type of brain cancer), kidney, endometrial, ovarian, thyroid, liver, gallbladder, upper stomach, and pancreatic” - prostate cancer was never mentioned.
Thinking that prostate cancer fed on glucose (like lymphoma, lung, and brain cancers do), years ago (in 1999) a glucose-based PET scan - F18-FDG (Fluoro-2-Deoxyglucose) PET CT - was developed. It worked great for detecting lymphoma, lung, brain, and other cancers; it didn’t work for detecting low-grade prostate cancer (but, it did work well for detecting advanced prostate cancers). Since then, glucose-based radioliglands are rarely used for prostate cancer.
Enjoy a donut once-in-a-while.
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
2 Reactions@brianjarvis
Thanks for posting this and making distinction about different kinds of cancers.
Regarding PC - it makes sense that low grade did not light up - it is very slow growing and does not need fuel in that amount but it seems that glucose tracers work well for advanced and aggressive PC cancer - which is again logical since aggressive cancer grows fast and have high metabolic levels .
I mentioned in my previous post radioactive glucose tracers since I knew that they exist and light up cancer cells but I did not know that they do not work for low grade PC, so thanks for giving me that information. : )
I LOVE to learn in general, I read tons of articles about different things, actually the least about cancer since it really makes me depressed. But one has to do what one has to do ...
And yes - have a treat once-in -a-while : ))) , and possibly dark chocolate with healthy nuts and dried fruits ; ) lol
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
4 Reactions@brianjarvis wrote
❝The data indicate that Testosterone does not directly cause or initiate (i.e., activate) prostate cancer,❞
Yes, exactly: testosterone does NOT cause prostate cancer. It's important to repeat that sometimes.
❝but it acts as a fuel for existing prostate cancer cells (i.e., cells that have mutated).❞
Literally speaking, the fuel is still glucose. Testosterone is more like the ignition key, attaching to existing prostate-cancer cells' androgen receptors and causing them to turn on (activate) and start multiplying.
ADT is like taking away the car key (if no testosterone binds to the androgen receptors, castrate-sensitive prostate-cancer cells won't activate and start multiplying); ARSIs like Zytiga or the -lutamides are like ignition locks, preventing the testosterone "key" from going into the ARSI ignition.
Over time, some of the prostate-cancer cells may become castrate-resistant, which is essentially hot-wiring themselves so that they don't need the testosterone key in the androgen-receptor ignition any more to activate and start multiplying. 😕
However, the good news is that major studies like TITAN have demonstrated that for metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), starting ADT and ARSI at the *same* time can significantly delay castrate-resistance for many patients — possibly even indefinitely in some cases.
(The old practice was to use only ADT at first, then add an ARSI only once PSA started rising again).
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
13 ReactionsI avoid process sugars as best as I can(so many foods have them). I enjoy a good piece of chocolate to satisfy my sweet tooth. I will only have some on weekends, or a very special occasion like my birthday. The only chocolate I eat is called JoJo’s. It was developed by a cancer patient who wanted something to satisfy her sweet cravings. It’s dark chocolate with almonds pistachios and cranberries. It works for me and my “psyche”. Good luck!
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
8 ReactionsThey are making so many advancements in many areas of medicine today as knowledge is increased just like the Bible says in Daniel 12:4 as we get closer to the end of time.
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
1 ReactionFunny you should ask! I was going to post the article I read online the other day about the death of the actor James VerBeek.
Doctors at Sloan Kettering are seeing very high incidences of stage 3 and 4 colon cancers in young people - in their 40’s.
They interviewed them about their diets and this is what they came up with: EVEN ONE sugary 12 oz drink, or a piece of candy (I think probably dessert also) DAILY will raise your chances of colon cancer to the moon!
Personally, I think it’s BS and the number of people in the study was under 300 I believe…I mean, a freakin cookie or a single Coke every day and your gonna die from it? Gimme a break!!
I personally have relatives who lived into their 90’s and they ate sweets like crazy; I’m not recommending it, nor do I follow it because excess sugar can lead to many metabolic problems. But there has got to be more to this cancer spike than just a small amount of sugar…
Phil
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
2 ReactionsWhere do you get that chocolate at? I love chocolate and the ingredients sound good.
@northoftheborder "So it's another example of people getting one single factoid and running with it without understanding the system complexities."
I agree. There are many reasons to be careful of sugar intake, but dietary impact on cancer is anecdotal and often very small studies that people will treat like they are massive million-person studies.
I believe it's very easy to grasp at every single thing to blame cancer on, and then every single thing to try to prevent its return. If someone had a study that said if you stop drinking tap water then your chance of remission goes down by 1%, people would do it.
There's nothing wrong with believing these things, truly, because I think the power of the mind is enormous and can have an impact on our health and healing. I just think getting on a soapbox about such things as if God himself bestowed the knowledge upon you and instructed you to convert all the peoples is going a bit far.
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
7 Reactions