Cancer charity coffee mornings should be banned

[Luxell934]

So someone on instagram, who usually gives advice to new mums on positive birthing, posted today that she though coffee mornings for cancer charities should be banned. Why? because she thinks cancer loves sugar, cancer grows from sugar and people shouldn't be giving sugar to cancer patients. She said instead of eating cakes and biscuits they should be helping cancer patients to educate themselves to change their diets to beat the disease.

My own personal opinion is that she is spreading complete misinformation to her followers not based on any actual factual studies.

For a start these coffee mornings are not held in the hospital rooms of cancer patients to feed them cake. They’re fundraising events often in school halls, offices, community centres or hospitals as a support system where people are coming together to support and raise money for those diagnosed with cancer. They don't target cancer patients, it's more about the general public raising funds for cancer nurses and research. Cancer coffee mornings are just one of the ways charities fund raise. They also do lots of fitness based ones, like the muddy 5k run, race for life, some do walking based ones. Although not everyone would be able to do something physical for charity, so they might choose the coffee morning. Let's face it, cake is nice right, if it was advertised as a green tea and carrot stick morning, it wouldn't be as popular.

Yes I agree sugar isn't healthy for us. We should all reduce our refined sugar intake. Excess sugar can lead to weight gain which can cause serious health issues including diabetes and obesity which could be a contributing factor to some cancers. BUT cancer is not caused by sugar alone, and cancer can't be cured by cutting out sugar. Cancer also can't be cured by diet alone. I've heard the stories of people saying "My husband cured his stage 4 lung cancer by diet alone!" Right.

There is also no actual evidence that cancer cells grow from sugar. All cells, including cancer cells need glucose (blood sugar) to survive. Glucose comes from any carbohydrate, refined carbs (cake, bread) and unrefined carbs (fruit, veg). Glucose is critical for our cells to survive and function properly. Not consuming sufficient carbohydrates can lead to the breakdown of protein stores in our body, which can contribute to muscle loss and possibly malnutrition. There is no possible way for our bodies to stop cancer cells from getting the glucose and only giving it to the healthy cells.

So should cancer coffee mornings be banned?

Not necessarily true. My husband's cancer doesn't show on the type of scan you mention.
My husband's cancer is solely fed by a mutation in his RET gene. Not all cancers are the same. So you're "horrendously wrong" too.

@LMNT posters asked what qualifications in nutrition you have to be a metabolic specialist or whatever it was you said you were in order to work closely with cancer patients.

*Firstly Thomas Seyfried is doing tons of research in the field. It’s just not picked up by mainstream media because of advertising revenue impact.

Added sugar is a terminology slight of hand by food manufacturers.

All carbohydrates (grains, cereals, starches and sugars) are digested as sugar regardless of whether you eat a jacket potato or a doughnut.

All of these foods contain sugar:

Potatoes - sugar
Oats - sugar
Wheat - sugar
Corn - sugar
Milk - sugar
Rice - sugar

Its basic chemical composition of the macronutrients interacting with digestive enzymes. The rate of release of the sugar and the amount of sugar varies but don’t be deceived by the term added sugar.

@LMNT*

Not sure why you're pointing this out to me.
My sister is a Type 1 diabetic so I'm aware of all of this.

But none of it it news really .

There needs to be more robust research into the effect on Cancer as pointed out in the thread posted by @LouBeLouBeLou

Your first statement was sweeping and " "horrendously wrong " is a matter of opinion, not fact.

Your'e dodging on off and on here giving a really bad impression of yourself

@sunglassesonthetable I’m not following the thread closely, just highlighting incorrect statements as they pop up in my feed.

The comment about Thomas Seyfried was a response to your comment. The rest was general information because people get it so wrong.

*I’m not following the thread closely, just highlighting incorrect statements as they pop up in my feed.

The comment about Thomas Seyfried was a response to your comment. The rest was general information because people get it so wrong.*

This is a thread about sugar and cancer.

And "she is 100% right that sugar feeds cancer" is a sweeping, incorrect statement that doesn't stand up to clinical practice.

You shouldn't be dipping into any threads about cancer and leaving 'information' unless you are reading the thread. That is really irresponsible.

@LMNT

*You shouldn't be dipping into any threads about cancer and leaving 'information' unless you are reading the thread. That is really irresponsible.

@LMNT*

@LMNT is clearly talking bollocks if they’re only replying to the questions that suit them.

@LMNT

DrThomas Seyfried:

Dr Thomas Seyfreid believes the low-carb, high-fat ketogenic diet can replace chemotherapy and radiation for even the deadliest of cancers.
“The reason why the ketogenic diet is not being prescribed to treat cancer is purely economical,” said Dr. Seyfried, author of Cancer as a Metabolic Disease. “Cancer is big business. There are more people making a living off cancer than there are dying of it.”

In other words, Dr. Seyfried thinks that we can treat all cancers with a low-carb diet, implying that carbohydrates and sugars feed cancers. Furthermore, he thinks that real oncologists, who depend upon science-based medicine to make real choices on how to treat cancer, are just making money off of complex treatments instead of telling their patients to eat all the steak all the time.

Much of Seyfried’s research has focused on murine (mouse) models. Research on rodents is an important start to any medical discovery, but less than 10% of these preclinical studies ever amount to anything clinicall. And on the hierarchy of medical evidencee, animal studies rank just above anecdotes.

However, there are some clinical studies upon which Seyfried relies. There are a couple of case studies, which, on the hierarchy of research are just above a murine study, that really aren’t that convincing. One case study had two patients, one of whom died from cancer while on the ketogenic diet, while the other showed some decrease in glucose levels, but no efficacy was demonstrated.
There was also a retrospective study that eventually only included 6 patients, which maybe showed safety but hardly any efficacy. If you’re going to make some huge argument that oncologists are ripping off patients by pushing expensive treatments, instead of a ketogenic diet, then you need to bring some extraordinary evidence. Seyfried has brought very weak, in vitro evidence and has brought very little clinical evidence.

Clearly as they get asked about Their qualifications multiple times and ignored, her obsession with keto is no better than a Herbalife coach pushing their fad diet.

@LMNT is clearly talking bollocks if they’re only replying to the questions that suit them.

Yep. They've literally said or done nothing to inspire an ounce of confidence on this thread.

In fact the opposite.

The NHS is haemorrhaging money. You’d think that if it were the case there was a clear link between cancer and sugar consumption there would be a big PR push to help prevent it, much like change for life or help with stop smoking. Surely the government would be rolling out their policies to limit buying high sugar food for cheap much quicker if there was strong evidence of this. After all it would save everyone a lot of money.

maybe the government and NHS want people to suffer?

or maybe, just maybe, it’s BS!

Or maybe that’s just not have the NHS works.

They can lead a horse to water, as much as they like it will take time to change peoples eating habits, as much as it’s taken the time to make smoking socially unacceptable.

only 50 years ago, you had ashtrays by the side of patients beds, the doctors used to do their rounds with a fag in their mouth.

34 years ago I used to visit my mum in hospital when she was on bed rest in the maternity unit, and we used to walk down to the smoking room at the end of the ward, which would be filled with pregnant women puffing away.

Or maybe it's just bollocks.

It’s absolutely undeniable that diet plays a part that’s not be in disputed by anybody.

In what way do you mean? Can your diet cause someone to get cancer? Can diets cure cancer if you already have it?

In getting cancer, or in curing cancer?

It's like saying smoking causes lung cancer - we know it massively increases your risk of getting lung cancer, but it's not that simple. If cancer was as simple as cause=effect, everyone who has ever smoked would get lung cancer and no one who hasn't smoked would get it. But that isn't what happens.

Same with diet, it's not that simple. Even with cancers with a specific known cause, like mesothelioma (the one caused by asbestos), I've known 2 patients who had had no exposure to asbestos get mesothelioma.

There is no cancer in existence which was caused by eating sugar. There is no cancer in existence which has been cured by not eating sugar. Cancer is not that simple, and beware anyone telling you it is.

It’s fine guys.

we can just all cut out sugar/gluten/processed food/meat/dairy and drink our green juice and lemon water. We won’t get cancer or allergies and we can change our diet to get better from diseases that people have spent literally years researching into cures for. I can’t believe it was that simple all along, silly me.

and if you do get sick it must have been something you did.

or maybe, just maybe… we accept that we are still learning about these things. And yea sugar is a THEORY which is being looked at but a theory is not a fact.

Sugar is not the same as Carbohydrate. The first is the basic glucose molecule or in fruit the fructose molecule which is quickly absorbed and metabolised. Carbohydrates are more complex chains of molecules and need breaking down by enzymes into glucose during digestion. That is why porridge with nuts and seeds will take longer to be digested and release energy than a bowl of sugary cereal. We all need carbohydrates to give us energy and even those on a “keto diet” eat fruit and vegetables which are complex carbohydrates. Rice and wheat and other cereals are the same. It is becoming clear that in diabetes a lower carb diet can help glucose control but only deluded fanatics expect anybody to live long term without any carbohydrates.

I once had an aqaintance with a brain tumour who was under a Harley St cancer specialist. He recommended a fat free sugar free diet. Her 18 month prognosis came and went and she was with us for 3 years.
Can't say for sure that rhe diet made a difference but if it was recommended by a H.Street Oncologist, l do believe there is enough truth in it to give it a try if/ when l get it.

Some chemo used for brain tumours interacts with some food ingredients - temozolomide is one off the top of my head. So patients can be told they must restrict or remove certain things from their diet to avoid the interaction. So it may be your friend was in this situation , rather than being told her diet would affect her cancer.