And that is one of the erroneous....
Dang, BillyBob...I guess they'll just have to take back that Nobel Prize from Otto Warburg (at least one of the two that he was awarded) since you just disproved his whole thesis. Up until about 2 hours ago when you posted, this was the common understanding:
Glucose has an irrefutable role in encouraging the growth and metastasis of cancer. Based on research and the cancer-sugar connection, the best dietary recommendation for those with cancer may be a whole foods, organic diet with includes more fresh, organic vegetables, but less sweet fruit (such as bananas, figs, dates, etc.) as well as eliminating all refined sugars, (such as fructose, sucrose,sorbitol, maltodextrin, etc.) including hidden refined sugars (found in foods not normally associated with containing sugar such as soups, breads, ketchup, etc.). This carefully planned regime may be an enormous help in regulating blood glucose and hence, improving immunity while selectively starving cancer cells.
Thanks for setting us all straight!
Wanna read about some of that research, search pubmed.gov; enter "prostate cancer insulin"; then change the search to just "cancer insulin"
Or, if you wanna just jump right to the Dr Mark Scholz article in PCRI, go here: http://www.prostate-cancer.org/education/nutrprod/ScholzBlum_Nutrition_Prostate_Cancer.html
You're welcome and the name is Billy Mac. What the hell is a dang? Most proponents of the sugar nonsense end up quoting Wallburg at some stage. Prize received in 1931 ----- now there's the latest cutting edge medical research for you. They also tend to leave out that the man was more than distinctly odd later in life with extremely bizarre ideas and very eccentric theories. Quoting him regarding medicine today is akin to quoting Marie Curie on the best method to deliver EBRT for excellent results. Referring to articles on the proposed connection between high insulin levels and tumour is a separate issue to directly linking sugar and tumour growth and substituting one for the other adds no support to your argument. I do love your definition of proof
when it finishes with
"This carefully planned regime may
be an enormous help in regulating blood glucose and hence, improving immunity while selectively starving cancer cells.
Post Edited (BillyMac) : 3/31/2011 10:55:31 PM (GMT-6)