Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Cancer charity coffee mornings should be banned

371 replies

Luxell934 · 20/07/2023 16:12

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?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
GraysPapaya · 20/07/2023 21:36

Some of the fittest, healthiest people I know consume a fair amount of sugar, I know loads of endurance athletes a lot of them cane the stuff! All healthy and cancer free in their 40s/50s/60s.

I think the link which is more relevant is to obesity, which can be caused by excess sugar.

Luxell934 · 20/07/2023 21:36

ttcsolomumtobe · 20/07/2023 21:22

Please can someone say who this instagrammer is?

Thenakedbirthcoach on Instagram

OP posts:
Isaidnomorecrisps · 20/07/2023 21:39

I agree that sweeping comments on sugar are wrong, and I am not a medic. But clinical trials are relevant here?
The trial cited above (I’ve linked again below) does have interesting analysis and findings, albeit as stated anecdotal. The clinician is an oncology director at an established medical centre in the US so presumably has relevant training etc.
She does postulate that limiting sugar shrinks some tumours (not all types of cancer) and suggests further trials would be of use.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6375425/
Why are the cancer specialists on here not even recognising this work? Several, albeit small, trials have had the same results and this doesn’t appear to be an extreme view.
The comment on proteins converting to glucose is covered (tangentially) in the analysis.
It would be great to have your thoughts, thanks.

Ketogenic Diets and Cancer: Emerging Evidence

Combining a ketogenic diet with standard chemotherapeutic and radiotherapeutic options may help improve tumor response, although more research is needed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6375425/

cactusjane · 20/07/2023 21:40

Thanks for clarifying who it was. I've now unfollowed her.

Luxell934 · 20/07/2023 21:40

Changedforthetoday · 20/07/2023 21:27

Don’t be so swift to poo poo their comments. There is a link between cancer and sugar - and maybe our obsession with food should take a back seat and we should be prioritising health!
who is the person - I want to follow them!

I’m actually more than happy to educate myself with actual scientific research and studies. I have an open mind. But I’ve not come across a single one which states a direct link between cancer and sugar.

Glucose does feed cancer cells, but it also feeds normal cells.

OP posts:
littlegrebe · 20/07/2023 21:44

My husband cured (to date) his stage 4 bowel cancer by science alone. People had a hypothesis, did the research, went through clinical trials. Locally some other people worked out the genetic make up of DH's particular cancer and then some more people administered both the appropriate treatment and also a wide and varied selection of biscuits and Tunnocks teacakes. Now he has no cancer. The teacakes must have been sugar free.

People who peddle this "cancer can be cured by diet alone" nonsense are at best dangerous idiots and at worst scam artists. Either way they should be banned from the internet - vulnerable, desperate people die when they reject real treatment in favour of this shit.

ElowenFelicity · 20/07/2023 21:44

Of course they should not be banned. My DMIL has Neuroendocrine Tumours also known as NETs. DMIL has been radioactive, lost part of her stomach and had stents in her kidneys amongst other things. It cannot be cured and every year she still goes to the Beatson Oncology as they monitor the tumours and see what they can do to keep the tumours small. If DMIL wants cake she should have it.

tommyhoundmum · 20/07/2023 21:45

timeforabiscuit Am sending you blessings

Againstmachine · 20/07/2023 21:51

Fucks sake this thread has brought the nut jobs out it really has.

In my mum's last 6months of cancer she was eating next to nothing so that should have cured her according to idiots on here, but guess what during that time she got anything she wanted be it sweet or savoury.

I don't mind odd but if misinformation on Mumsnet but some on here are seriously dangerous.

clarepetal · 20/07/2023 21:54

She sounds like a prick. And my dad died of cancer.

Toomuchtrouble4me · 20/07/2023 22:01

We held a cancer coffee morning - as far as we are aware nobody who arranged it attended within our community had cancer. She’s totally got it wrong.

tt9 · 20/07/2023 22:06

Isaidnomorecrisps · 20/07/2023 21:39

I agree that sweeping comments on sugar are wrong, and I am not a medic. But clinical trials are relevant here?
The trial cited above (I’ve linked again below) does have interesting analysis and findings, albeit as stated anecdotal. The clinician is an oncology director at an established medical centre in the US so presumably has relevant training etc.
She does postulate that limiting sugar shrinks some tumours (not all types of cancer) and suggests further trials would be of use.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6375425/
Why are the cancer specialists on here not even recognising this work? Several, albeit small, trials have had the same results and this doesn’t appear to be an extreme view.
The comment on proteins converting to glucose is covered (tangentially) in the analysis.
It would be great to have your thoughts, thanks.

so having read through this paper.... just wanted to clarify few things

  1. it's not a study... its a paper discussing this idea that a ketogenic diet might have some benefits in cancer treatment... and a few preliminary studies in humans and one in rats
  2. none of the human or rat studies show any statistically significant results... and if anything they show no effect
  3. 5 future trials were mentioned... 4 of which have been terminated. and one has not reported any updates so also probably terminated given that it started in 2010 and has not generated any results
  4. there are case reports of 2 adults and 2 children discussed. not statistically significant

medical professionals receive extensive training on how to read papers and evaluate studies. a lot of research involves barking up the wrong tree or not generating any significant results. sometimes without that training, reading such papers can lead to misinformation.

as far as I know... no one is rushing to organise randomised double blind control trials of sugar free diets as a way to treat cancer... because common sense tells us it does not work. not to mention the huge ethical issue of denying patients known treatments that do work.

Bliss1221 · 20/07/2023 22:08

Dr. Warburg won a Nobel prize his research showed limiting flucose slowed down tunour growth, since then there have been many more researches that have found the same.

These charity things are pointless of course, the xharities are like McDonalds ronald mc donald, “supports” children with cancer yet sell them fruit shoot,”sugar”free lemonades with asparatame and acesulfame k- bith cancirogens.

and kind of like breqst cancer pink ribbon foods that are sold- absolutely full of junk.

Yeahno · 20/07/2023 22:12

God, I'm still on the first page but do people not know the difference between "feeds cancer" and "causes cancer".

wineschmine · 20/07/2023 22:13

I know who the instagrammer is and she is an absolute menace.

She spouts dangerous crap all the time.

Awful woman.

Wintercomesoon · 20/07/2023 22:14

I can almost guarantee she thinks homeopathy helps cure cancer. Crackpot

Clymene · 20/07/2023 22:15

Bliss1221 · 20/07/2023 22:08

Dr. Warburg won a Nobel prize his research showed limiting flucose slowed down tunour growth, since then there have been many more researches that have found the same.

These charity things are pointless of course, the xharities are like McDonalds ronald mc donald, “supports” children with cancer yet sell them fruit shoot,”sugar”free lemonades with asparatame and acesulfame k- bith cancirogens.

and kind of like breqst cancer pink ribbon foods that are sold- absolutely full of junk.

Otto Warburg died more than 60 years ago.

All anyone is asking for on this thread is peer reviewed studies that back up the assertions.

So far no one has provided those.

VanGoghsDog · 20/07/2023 22:18

I've never been to a "cancer coffee morning" - are they compulsory? At what age do we have to go to one?

Hayliebells · 20/07/2023 22:18

Yeahno · 20/07/2023 22:12

God, I'm still on the first page but do people not know the difference between "feeds cancer" and "causes cancer".

Yes quite. And a number of posters have tried to explain this, yet it seems to fall on deaf ears. Glucose feeds all cells. It fuels everything, EVERYTHING, that goes on in your cells. Without a constant supply of glucose all your cells in your body would be dead, cancerous or not. So if course it "feeds" cancer. But science is lost on these people, I give up.

IamfeelingHopeful · 20/07/2023 22:19

My understanding is cancer can easily use simply sugars but can’t use other forms of energy so in theory starve your body of simple sugars starve the cancer?

tt9 · 20/07/2023 22:21

Bliss1221 · 20/07/2023 22:08

Dr. Warburg won a Nobel prize his research showed limiting flucose slowed down tunour growth, since then there have been many more researches that have found the same.

These charity things are pointless of course, the xharities are like McDonalds ronald mc donald, “supports” children with cancer yet sell them fruit shoot,”sugar”free lemonades with asparatame and acesulfame k- bith cancirogens.

and kind of like breqst cancer pink ribbon foods that are sold- absolutely full of junk.

yes. cancer sells metabolise glucose... and so do every single other cell in our bodies. warburg's Nobel prize was actually for identifying one of the enzymes involves in cellular respiration... but who cares about facts when opinions are free

tt9 · 20/07/2023 22:21

*cells... bloody autocorrect

Vapes1 · 20/07/2023 22:21

This is the second day in a row I've seen people harping on about sugar this, cancer that.

(Not aimed at you OP, just the twat influencer you're quoting)

What's going on? Why the sudden war on sugar?

nameXname · 20/07/2023 22:23

@Bliss1221 That's not srictly true - Warberg won his nobel prize for reasosns listed here (the official Nobel Prize website):
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1931/warburg/biographical/

His theories about cancer cells are discussed here:
https://www.agilent.com/about/features/en/warburg-effect.html

But Warberg was working/won his prize nearly 100 years ago. His ideas were very important but have been refined/proved wrong/supplanted several times since 1931. He is work is still respected because he asked fundamental, game-changing questions that have since led to new areas of research and new understandings.

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1931

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1931 was awarded to Otto Heinrich Warburg "for his discovery of the nature and mode of action of the respiratory enzyme"

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1931/warburg/biographical

DeliciouslyDecadent · 20/07/2023 22:23

There is a lot of nonsense on this thread.

One of my family has Stage 4 cancer. They are being treated by one of the UK's best oncologists, for their cancer. The oncologist has done decades of research and that included diet.

We've discussed diet at length and the truth is that if sugar was a cause or fuelled cancer, patients would be told. If only it was so simple as giving up sugar.