New Research on Diet and Cancer

A place to get your questions answered from McDougall staff dietitian, Jeff Novick, MS, RDN.

Moderators: JeffN, Heather McDougall, carolve

New Research on Diet and Cancer

Postby jmgoforth » Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:35 pm

Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins

1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the
cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.
2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person's lifetime.

3. When the person's immune system is strong the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.

4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.

5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and including supplements will strengthen the immune system.

6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastro-intestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.

7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.

8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.

9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.

10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.

11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply.

WHAT CANCER CELLS FEED ON:

a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancer cells . Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal,Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in very SAM ll amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in color. Better alternative is Bragg's aminos or sea salt.

b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk, cancer cells are being starved.

c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.

d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).

e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties. Water-best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.

12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines become putrified and leads to more toxic buildup.

13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body's killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.

14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the body's own killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body's normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.

15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger, unforgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.

16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.
Phi 4:[13 Whatever I have, wherever I am, I can make it through anything in the One who makes me who I am.
jmgoforth
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 5:41 am

Postby JeffN » Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:41 pm

The above post is an urban legend and should be ignored

http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cancerupdate.asp

"Just as urban legends and rumors eventually become attached to the most famous exemplars of the subjects they discuss (e.g., any fast food-related legend, no matter where it originates, will inevitably be told about McDonald's), so do many of the spurious medical articles circulated on the Internet eventually become attributed to the world-renowned Johns Hopkins university, medical school, and hospitals.

The "Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins Hospital" quoted above has been forwarded via e-mail as a preface to another piece (about the supposed dangers of using microwave ovens to heat food stored in plastic containers) also falsely said to have originated with Johns Hopkins. Neither article was issued by (or has any connection to) the Johns Hopkins university or hospital, and Johns Hopkins has disclaimed the contents of both.

Of the "Cancer Update" e-mail (most of the information contained within which is of the "quack" variety), Johns Hopkins says:

An email falsely attributed to Johns Hopkins describing properties of cancer cells and suggesting prevention strategies has begun circulating the Internet. Johns Hopkins did not publish the email, entitled "Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins," nor do we endorse its contents. For more information about cancer, please read the information on our web site or visit the National Cancer Institute's web site at www.cancer.gov.


In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby Purdy » Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:06 pm

Thank goodness you warned us..........

Here I was just about to order a Dr. Hulda Clark "Zapper" to cure all those problems described in the original post.

Nothing like a Zapper to chase those pesky parasites away. :eek:
Purdy
 

Postby Coleslaw » Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:59 pm

Hi Jeff,

So, #1 the statement that every person has cancer cells in their body, is not true? I always heard that we have cancer cells and in some people they are activated by diet or chemicals.

#2 Sugar is a cancer feeder? Is this not true either? My book, Cancer, Step Outside the Box says this. And I have heard it many times before.

So, what does cause cancer? Or are you just saying to ignore this because Johns Hopkins did not publish it? Is there any truths to this article? I'm wondering, because I have had cancer. Even Dr. McDougall says fats cause cancer, here is his quote from his Program book, "Here's why, All fats - saturated and unsaturated - are involved in the growth of certain kinds of cancer cell." Page 41 under "Don't Swallow Myths About Fats". And it is continued on page 42.

Well, I just don't want to get confused about what is cancer causing, and what to eat and what not to eat.

Since I have this started. I'm wondering Jeff, if you know what causes salivary glands to swell up? Those glands on the sides of the neck, under the jaw? The 1 1/2 years I ate all raw these glands cleared up, now that I'm eating cooked again they are swollen again.
"Nothing feels as good as feeling good feels" by David Wolfe
Coleslaw
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:47 pm
Location: Yakima, WA

Postby JeffN » Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:57 pm

Hi Coleslaw

All of these myths, like all other myths, have some basis in reality.

It has been said that in some cancers, the cancer cells can be growing undetected for at least 10 or more years in someone before they are diagnosed with cancer. Does this mean everyone has cancer growing in them? I do not know.

It has also been said, they we produce some mutant cells all the time that have the potential to become cancer cells, but the body has a protective mechanism to either convert these back to normal cells and/or kill them off. Dietary and lifestyle factors may influence how well this system works, or doesn't work.

I agree with the comments made by Dr McDougall. High fats diets and certain specific fats have been related to cancer risk and growth.

Coleslaw wrote: Well, I just don't want to get confused about what is cancer causing, and what to eat and what not to eat.


We know a lot more about cancer then we ever did, but no one knows everything about it. I posted some comments about cancer in this thread also

http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6196

However, if you are really interested, I would recommend reading the latest comprehensive report that came on on lifestyle, diet and cancer, from the World Cancer Fund and the American Institute For Cancer Research.

The report is the largest and most comprehensive ever done on the relationship between lifestyle and cancer and involved over 100 scientists from 30 different countries.

While the WCRF/AICR commissioned and funded the report, the content is derived from an independent panel of 21 world renowned scientists. The Expert Panel reviewed more than 7,000 large-scale studies and worked for five years to assess the research. Their conclusions and recommendations are firmly based on the available scientific evidence.

The full report is over 530 pages long and the executive summary is over 15 pages and both are available online for free. While I highly recommend everyone to read at least the executive summary, if not the compete report, I realize we do not all have the time to do so.

Therefore you can read my review of the highlights at my website in the newsletter section, where there are 2 newsletters dedicated to it.

The full report

http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/?p=ER

The executive summary

http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/?p=summary

my newsletters

http://www.jeffnovick.com/content/category/23/97/349/

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby JeffN » Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:06 pm

>>>>>a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancer cells . Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal,Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in very SAM ll amounts.

This is a contradiction. Honey and molasses also contain sugar and are very concentrated sources of it. What would be more important for all health, is a total reduction of added refined sugars/sweeteners and not which one.

High blood sugars and diets high in foods that are high in simple sugars (junk food, soda) have been linked to an increased incidence/risk, eliminating refined/concentrated sweeteners and sugars is a great health idea. However, a high carb (which turns to sugar), high fiber, low fat diet is still the best approach. I have posted the published results of such a diet on cancer and cancer cells.

>>>Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in color. Better alternative is Bragg's aminos or sea salt.

"Sea" my posts on salt and sea salt. They most toxic part of both, which has been related to cancer, is the sodium chloride, which is about the same in each. Bragg's has almost as much sodium as soy sauce and is ot any better in regard to the toxicity of sodium.

>>>b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk, cancer cells are being starved.

Dairy has been related to certain cancers, so, eliminating it is a good idea. but not for the reason stated above. In addition, there is some concern about soy and its relation to certain cancers.

>>>c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.

Fish and chicken are really no better. All fish, wild or farm raised, can be contaminated and there are many public health cautions, even to the general public about limiting consumptions of certain species. While processed red meats may be the worst, animal protein, and animal fats, from any source, have been implicated in cancer.

>>d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).

The enzymes in the plants are for the plants. Most all of them are destroyed in your stomach by the stomach acid and play no role in your health.

>>>e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties. Water-best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.

Caffeine has several health concerns. Cancer is not one of them. While I am not recommending it, some studies have even shown caffeine to be protective in certain cancers.

>>12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines become putrified and leads to more toxic buildup.

Meat, and especially processed red meats, have been implicated in cancer, however not for these reasons. All meat has no fiber and a low fiber diet results in small hard stool that pass slowly thru the colon, so any potential cancer causing agents theoretically have more time to come in contact with the colon wall, increasing the risk for colon cancer. In addition, the heating of animal fat and animal protein can create certain chemicals linked to cancer.

>>13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body's killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.

Again, these theories on enzymes are not accurate, nor is this how our defense system works.

>>14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the body's own killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body's normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.

There is no known supplment that has been shown to effectively destroy cancer cells. In addition, many have shown that some, in isolation, may actually increase risk. However, a healthy nutrient rich diet, is the best dietary protection we know of. The best advice is to get your nutrients from food, not supplements.

>>15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger, unforgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.

While I agree with the conclusions, studies on prayer, positive attitude and cancer, have not shown any benefit.

>>16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level.

While exercise has been shown to lower the risk of certain cancers, it is not because of the "oxygen" killing cancer. Many highly active athletes get cancer. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy has been shown to be of benefit and is used for several conditions, however cancer is not one of them.

The conclusions from the WCRF/AICR reports are much more beneficial and helpful.

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby Nettie » Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:41 am

JeffN wrote:
The conclusions from the WCRF/AICR reports are much more beneficial and helpful.


Thanks so much, Jeff, for correcting the false notions presented here by a well-meaning but misinformed person. There's so much error floating around in the media today that it's easy for people to become confused. There are books out there written by doctors and laymen containing very authoritative but incorrect statements regarding the need for this supplement or that food requirement, with a lot of fake science thrown in for good measure.

I can remember 20 or so years ago (pre-McDougall for me) there was a doctor on TV who snorted derisively at the notion that milk was necessary for good health. He was right, of course, but at the time I remember how irritated I was because he suggested that people were foolish and had somehow gotten this crazy idea that milk was good for them. I got mad at that guy because it was people like HIM (the medical establishment) that had told us that we needed milk. The American public didn't dream up this myth - it was shoved down our throats everywhere we turned. It was taught in elementary schools and in magazines and on TV and has been part of the American psyche for as long as I can remember.

It's no wonder I'm not able to stop my grown children from drinking milk and giving it to their children. When my kids were young, I bought 8 gallons of milk a week for us. :oops:

Nettie
User avatar
Nettie
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:55 pm
Location: South Carolina

Postby JeffN » Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:05 am

I appreciate your comments & agree there is a problem

But I see it differently.

Here is the "question" I see..

We are presented with 2 choices.

1) A comprehensive report from an independent panel of 21 world renowned scientists that reviewed more than 7,000 large-scale studies that involves over 100 scientists from 30 different countries and worked for five years to assess the research.


2) an interent email that makes some outrageous claims and has no references, citations, support, or documentation for any of its claims.

Now why do many people not only automatically choose #2, they are also willing to defend it without even reviewing them both?


they might even accuse #1 as biased, or has vested interests, or done by "them" (whoever "them" is, usually being corporate America) or is funded by the pharmaceutical or food industry, etc even without reading it.

OK. let's say it is or might be.

But, if that is the standard you are setting for why you don't trust #1, then don't you have to also show that #2 comes from a higher standard? don't you have to show that #2 has none of the above mentioned problems (funding, bias, vested interest)?

why do people, especially thos in the "alt health" movement act so quickly to dismiss real science yet act so even quicker to accept "junk" science?

they are quick to dismiss a study and evidence as being of poor quality but then even quicker to accept something that has no evidence of any quality?

In doing so, do they not see their own inherent bias?

there is only good science & it doesn't matter who did it & whether they are promoting goji berries and coconut oil or promoting fresh fruits and veggies.

think about it, people are willing to quickly start taking coffee enemas if they have cancer with no real support to do it but to ask them to lose weight and/ or eat more berries, they say, "there is no real evidence for that and besides that guy from Bonanza who had cancer used coffee enemas". ;)

they will drink bottles of juice or down bottles of pills of powders made from exotic berries with no evidence other than a folklore story to support why, but ask them to eat more blueberries & they say they can't because berries have sugar & sugar feeds cancer and/or has a high glycemic index.


In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby Nettie » Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:20 pm

JeffN wrote:they will drink bottles of juice or down bottles of pills of powders made from exotic berries with no evidence other than a folklore story to support why, but ask them to eat more blueberries & they say they can't because berries have sugar & sugar feeds cancer and/or has a high glycemic index.


I think part of the reason for this, Jeff, is that many of us (myself included) are mentally lazy. It's so much easier to believe in a "magic bullet," such as a powder, a certain tea, or a berry which comes from a jungle in Africa. Otherwise, we might have to actually to study, research and sift through a vast array of information - and think. It's just too daunting. (And aren't some in the medical field also equally guilty of intellectual sloth?) People by nature are always looking for the short cut, the "Cliff Notes" version of life.

And then, of course, should we accidentally discover the truth, we would have to actually consider making huge changes in our diets and lifestyles. It's just too easy to put our head in the sand and pretend that the path to health is not going to necessitate our giving up certain foods. We seize on a pea-sized "truth" such as "cancer feeds on sugars" to justify not making any substantive changes while we ignore the mountain-sized truth of the life-extending effects of a low-fat vegan lifestyle.

Ultimately, from my own observations of both my own resistance (prior to getting some "McDougall religion" 18 months ago) and that of others, most folks just don't think real, permanent change is worth the pain of loss it entails. They don't see the benefit until they're sick and/or dying, and often not even then.

Nettie
User avatar
Nettie
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:55 pm
Location: South Carolina

Postby JeffN » Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:00 am

Hi Nettie

Thanks for your comments. I agree that it is very difficult. My own process was one that happened over time as I got more information and understanding.

Change is difficult and I think humans have a natural inclination to resist change and do what is easier. It was probably part of our survival mechanism.

My questions/comments were just to get us to think about it and the choices we make and why, because understanding our motives and reasoning may help us in making some of these difficult changes. I know the more I understand about human nature and how it operates and why, the more I understand about me (and others), the more I can relax, laugh at myself and the easier the changes become.

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby Melinda » Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:29 pm

Correct me if I am wrong Jeff, but this study didn't seem to find that vegetable oils, or dairy products had much to do with cancer. After reading "The China Study", I find this hard to believe without some cyncism - especially since the dairy industry wants to protect itself.
Melinda
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:19 pm
Location: BC Canada

Postby JeffN » Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:22 pm

Melinda wrote:Correct me if I am wrong Jeff, but this study didn't seem to find that vegetable oils, or dairy products had much to do with cancer. After reading "The China Study", I find this hard to believe without some cyncism - especially since the dairy industry wants to protect itself.


Hi Melinda

This is a report, not a study, and this report doesn't contradict the China Study, which was one type of study, and it's results. I see the report as supporting the results from the China Study. After all, the results are recommending we eat a diet of mostly plant foods, limit animal products, sugary drinks and energy dense foods, be physically active and maintain a healthy BMI.

Considering that it reviewed 7000 studies, I think these conclusions are pretty powerful

Now, within the main report, there is mention of the relationship that has been seen in some studies between some oils and/or dairy and their relationship to some cancers.

THE 10 RECOMMENDATIONS

1) BODY FATNESS
Be as lean as possible within the normal range of body weight

2) PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Be physically active as part of everyday life

3) FOODS AND DRINKS THAT PROMOTE WEIGHT GAIN
Limit consumption of energy-dense foods
Avoid sugary drinks

4) PLANT FOODS
Eat mostly foods of plant origin

5) ANIMAL FOODS
Limit intake of red meat and avoid processed meat

6) ALCOHOLIC DRINKS
Limit alcoholic drinks

7) PRESERVATION, PROCESSING, PREPARATION
Limit consumption of salt
Avoid moldy cereals (grains) or pulses (legumes)

8 ) DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS
Aim to meet nutritional needs through diet alone

9) BREASTFEEDING
Mothers to breastfeed; children to be breastfed

10) CANCER SURVIVORS
Follow the recommendations for cancer prevention

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby Melinda » Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:33 am

Thanks, Jeff, for putting that in perspective for me. It is really great having you on this board!
Melinda
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:19 pm
Location: BC Canada

Thanks Jeff

Postby yvie » Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:16 am

Jeff,

I find the 10 recommendations very helpful, as they are very sensible. I am able to follow all 10 of them without difficulty. Since my parents both died of cancer (my mother at 45 of breast cancer, my father at 75 of colon cancer), I am always trying to make sure my lifestyle will not be a contributing factor to me getting cancer.

I think you are a great addition to the McDougall team!

Take care,

Yvie
I want to spend the last half of my life as healthy and vibrant as possible. Eating well and exercising are instrumental to having a good life. Thanks for the inspiration!
yvie
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:13 pm
Location: Canada

Re: New Research on Diet and Cancer

Postby JeffN » Thu May 24, 2018 6:41 pm

From the 2018 AICR report on Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Cancer: A Global Perspective.

A comprehensive analysis of the global research by independent experts from around the world and covers 17 cancer sites, including colorectal, breast, ovarian and prostate. Findings are based on the data of 51 million people, including 3.5 million cancer cases.

The Full Report (Free Download)
http://www.aicr.org/cancer-research/die ... cerreport/

Their 10 Recommendations
http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer- ... revention/

Other Lifestyle Factors
http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer- ... cines.html

Hot Topics
http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer- ... opics.html

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am


Return to Jeff Novick, RD

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.