reply to post by Griffo
I am shocked that this is news. Must be some recycled or recanned news. It is common sense, when you have the perspective of what their machines are
measuring during your tests.
Primarily, as it relates to this article, the PET scan, or "Positron Emission Tomography". Without getting into technical details which I really
will screw up in trying to tell you, what it is measuring is a reaction to the processing of sugars in the body. This is a sign that cancer tumors
are growing actively.
You will always find that brains and bladders "light up" on a PET scan, due to the high levels of sugars that are normally present due to biological
process. But when you see similar response in other areas, it is an indication of an aggressive tumor.
Logic, then, would dictate that sugar is an important element in cancer growth, as well as brain function. The implications of this fact, related to
how our intelligence seems to have arisen at around the same time we domesticated grains, would be worthy of research all on its own (as grains are a
very high carb source, meaning high sugar). As well, since barley is the highest carb common grain, it may explain some of the bursts of collective
insights in human history (not to mention things like red beans, another very high carb food).
But all of this aside (most of it which is actually off topic), your doctor will tell you to limit sugar intake when you begin cancer treatments.
This is because it starves the cancer of its primary food source. Now, many of you will consider that as things containing either cane sugar, or
HFCS. But to anyone who has ever been on a low carb diet, you learn to understand that "sugar" is a very, very good camouflage artist. It means,
in essence, carbohydrates, which are basically various forms of sugar.
I can say, however, that my mom beat what was initially diagnosed as a treatable, but uncurable Stage III Type B lymphoma. I cooked for her a lot (i
am the cook in teh family, since i like to cook and they all like to eat it), and fed her a high carb, but low processed sugar diet. We had lots and
lots of pasta. My goal was to add fat to her body in as high amounts as i could. I figured if she ended up in a long, protracted fight she would
need as much body fat as possible to stave off muscle wasting (as the body is robbed of sugar from cancer production, fat reserves are used up, then
proteins in muscle are broken down, until you die). She and I both got VERY fat. Now that she is officially pronounced "cured" (4 years no growth,
and actual regrowth in an effected kidney that is atrophied), we are including her in our low carb diet, to get that weight off and prevent more joint
issues and heart problems.
The body is simply a machine. Control the fuel, control how it functions. It is a science, but not rocket surgery.