Cancer Vitamin D Promise On The Horizon Challenges Nutrition As Medicine

Guide 1 Nutrition as Medicine

The Vitamin D Promise

• Beyond common skin cancer, and at current rates, one in two men and one in three women will personally be diagnosed with a major cancer in their lifetime.
• Breast cancer will account for the most common diagnosis among women. Prostate cancer will account for the most common diagnosis among men.

Read And Learn More: Cancer Essential Things To Do A Road Map For All Cancer Patients Treatment Diagnosis

Here is the good news: excellent research indicates we can now prevent nearly 80 percent of all breast cancers.

• Observational research indicates that we may be able to prevent a substantial portion of all prostate cancers. Plus credible research points to the potential of preventing a significant number of other cancers.
• That’s prevent—not early detection or early intervention, but prevention! That is a huge promise. It’s real. It’s vitamin D.
• If you have followed the nutritional supplement field, you know I am required by law to say these statements have not been evaluated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
• Further, I am required to note that vitamin D supplements are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. But what I can say is to do the research and decide for yourself. Here are the facts.

A Basic Understanding

• It all starts naturally with our own body’s ability to manufacture vitamin D.
• Natural production of vitamin D₃ cholecalciferol (pronounced koh•luh•kal•SIF•uh•rawl) in the skin is the single most important fact every person should know about vitamin D—a fact that has profound implications for the human condition.
• Technically not a vitamin, vitamin D is actually a hormone that interacts with over 2,000 genes, about 10 percent of the human genome.
• Extensive research has implicated vitamin D deficiency as a major factor in the pathology of at least fourteen varieties of cancer, most notably breast and prostate cancer, as well as a variety of other diseases.
• Please understand that vitamin D is something we all need but something nearly all of us lack in adequate amounts. The deficiency is affecting our health.

The Science

Since 2005, cancer has become the leading cause of death for people under the age of eighty-five in America. Cancer now accounts for nearly one in every four deaths in the United States each year.

It has also become the single leading cause of death worldwide. But scientific studies suggest that about three-fourths of those cancer deaths could be avoided! Statistical analysis shows that two-thirds of the deaths that occurred in 2010 alone, for example, were related to lifestyle choices such as tobacco use, obesity, physical inactivity, and poor nutrition and therefore could be prevented.

• Enter vitamin D. Excellent science shows that an adequate level of vitamin D hinders inappropriate cell division and metastasis, decreases blood vessel formation around tumors and regulates proteins that influence tumor growth. An adequate level of Vitamin D also enhances the immune system’s ability to fight cancer as well as promotes the efficacy of several chemotherapeutic medicines.
• In some of the most impressive research ever, studies conducted at the Creighton University School of Medicine in Nebraska have revealed that supplementing with vitamin D and calcium can reduce the risk of breast cancer by an astonishing 77 percent.
• This research provides strong new evidence that vitamin D is the single most effective preventative against breast cancer, far outpacing the benefits of any cancer drug known to modern science.
• The four-year, randomized study followed 1,179 healthy, postmenopausal women from rural eastern Nebraska.
• Participants taking calcium, as well as a quantity of vitamin D₃ nearly three times the U.S. government’s Recommended Daily Amount (RDA) for middle-aged adults, showed a dramatic 60 percent or greater reduction in cancer risk than women who did not get the vitamin.

The results of the study, conducted between 2000 and 2005, were reported in the June 8, 2010, online edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

• “The findings are very exciting. They confirm what a number of vitamin D proponents have suspected for some time but that, until now, have not been substantiated through a clinical trial,” said principal investigator Joan Lappe, Ph.D., R.N., Creighton Professor of Medicine and holder of the Criss/Beirne Endowed Chair in the School of Nursing. “Vitamin D is a critical tool in fighting cancer as well as many other diseases.”
• Research participants were all fifty-five years and older and free of known cancers for at least ten years prior to entering the Creighton study. Subjects were randomly assigned to take daily dosages of 1,400 to 1,500 mg supplemental calcium, calcium plus 1,100 IU of vitamin D, or placebos. The National Institutes of Health funded the study.
• Over the course of four years, women in the calcium/vitamin D₃ group experienced a 60 percent decrease in their cancer risk than the group taking placebos.
• On the premise that some women entered the study with undiagnosed cancers, researchers then eliminated the first-year results and looked at the last three years of the study. When they did that, the results became even more dramatic, with the calcium/vitamin group showing a startling 77 percent cancer risk reduction.
• Please grasp the stunning implications of this study. Over four years, the group receiving the calcium and vitamin D supplements showed a 60 percent decrease in cancer.
• Considering just the last three years of the study reveals an impressive 77 percent reduction in cancer attributable solely to vitamin D supplementation.
• These astonishing results were achieved on what many nutritionists consider to be a low dose of vitamin D. Exposure to sunlight, which creates even more vitamin D in the body, was not tested or considered.
• Plus the quality of the calcium supplements was likely not as high as it could have been. It was calcium carbonate and not high-grade calcium malate or aspartate.

Beyond this groundbreaking study, additional research demonstrates vitamin D to be an effective cancer preventative, particularly for breast cancer and prostate cancer.

• Numerous studies have shown an inverse correlation between breast cancer mortality and vitamin D levels—when vitamin D levels are low, cancer deaths are relatively high; when vitamin D levels are high, cancer deaths are relatively low. Today, over 1,900 scientific studies link vitamin D deficiency with various cancers.
• But the cancer community has been reluctant, exceedingly slow to respond. Now I am asking you to study the evidence and decide for yourself. As you study, please consider the opinion of the experts, esteemed professionals in vitamin D research:
• Cedric Garland, D.P.H., Adjunct Professor, of Family & Preventive Medicine, Cancer Prevention & Control Program at the University of California at San Diego, states, “Breast cancer is a disease so directly related to vitamin D deficiency that a woman’s risk of contracting the disease can be ‘virtually eradicated’ by elevating her vitamin D status to what scientists consider to be natural blood levels.”
• Dr. Michael F. Holick, Ph.D., M.D., and author of The Vitamin D Solution, reports that there is an incredible potential opportunity to prevent cancer simply by increasing the supply of vitamin D in the body through supplements.
• “As early as 1941, it was observed that people living at higher latitudes were at higher risk of dying of cancer. In the 1980s, research revealed that living at higher latitudes and being at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency increased risk of developing and dying of cancers of the colon, rectum, prostate, breast, and ovary.
• More recently, vitamin D deficiency has been associated with an increased risk of developing many other cancers, including cancer of the esophagus and pancreas and leukemia.
• Participants in the Women’s Health Initiative that evaluated the effect of calcium and vitamin D on the risk of developing colorectal cancer revealed that women who were vitamin D deficient and followed for eight years had a 253 percent increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.”
• Anthony Norman, Ph.D., Professor of Biochemistry and Biomedical Sciences at the University of California at Riverside, states that the majority of scientists believe that the currently recommended daily intake of vitamin D (between 200 IU and 600 IU) is not enough.

“There is a wide consensus among scientists that the relative daily intake of vitamin D should be increased to 2,000 to 4,000 IU for most adults.”

• Tracey O’Connor, M.D., an oncologist at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York, states she is now having all her patients supplement with vitamin D.
• Since vitamin D carries no risk unless taken at enormously high amounts, it can only benefit those who are already healthy by preventing disease, as well as those who are sick.
• Those with debilitating diseases have been found to be the most deficient in vitamin D, indicating a clear correlation between deficiency and the onset of disease. For example, Dr. O’Connor points out that among women with breast cancer, about 80 percent are vitamin D deficient.

An Opportunity Missed

A wide range of vitamin D experts, including the Cancer Recovery Foundation, believed the opportunity for a breakthrough might be possible when the governments of Canada and the United States commissioned an Institute of Medicine (IOM) review on vitamin D recommendations.

• After three years of study, the Institute’s Food and Nutrition Board issued a report on November 30, 2010, saying it has revised its recommendations made thirteen years previously on dietary reference intakes for vitamin D and calcium for Americans and Canadians.
• The committee, consisting of more than a dozen panelists, recommended that most Americans and Canadians up to age seventy need no more than 600 IU of vitamin D per day to maintain health. It also stated that those seventy-one and older may need as much as 800 IU.
• The Food and Nutrition Board claimed in its news release that it reviewed nearly 1,000 published studies and testimony from scientists.
• It said many studies yielded conflicting and mixed results on the effects of vitamin D on many important health conditions including cancer, heart disease, autoimmune diseases, and diabetes, among others.
• The report concluded that no solid evidence suggests that higher than the recommended dietary reference intakes are needed.

The report was a huge disappointment to the hundreds of us dedicated to the task of actually preventing cancer.

Cancer Recovery Foundation responded to the new recommendations in a news release stating that “According to scientific studies, right now 70 percent of European-Americans and 97 percent of African-Americans are vitamin D deficient.

• And the evidence is overwhelming that vitamin D deficiency is directly linked to fourteen different cancers, mostly prominently breast and prostate cancer.”
• The IOM’s report ignored research showing that in order to maintain adequate vitamin D levels, much higher doses of vitamin D must be consumed. Excellent research exists to support this position.
• Unfortunately, of the panelists included in the IOM recommendation, only a few had experience in vitamin D research.
• Even worse, the panel suppressed the findings of some of the world’s most prominent vitamin D scientists, including our esteemed friends Cedric Garland, Michael Holick, and Anthony Norman.
• Dr. John Canned, M.D., a vitamin D expert and director of the Vitamin D Council, pointed out that the IOM’s vitamin D recommendation that a baby and a pregnant woman need the same amount of vitamin D did not make any sense. He said his organization pressed the IOM to release the comments on vitamin D and health from fourteen vitamin D experts.
• Cancer Recovery Foundation joined him with an online petition asking Harvey Fineberg, M.D., Ph.D., President of the Institute of Medicine, to include the testimony of these esteemed scientists.

Thereafter, we filed a Freedom of Information request with the Institute of Medicine. Sadly, there has been no response.

• In a follow-up statement, the Food and Nutrition Board suggested that without “solid” evidence, it is risky to recommend a high intake of vitamin D. It cited vitamin E as an example to suggest that a high intake of vitamin D could lead to toxicity issues.
• That may sound convincing to some people. But at the sunniest time of a summer day, exposure of the face and arms to the sun for fifteen to twenty minutes is known to make a person more than 10,000 units of vitamin D. And there is no toxicity issue in such a natural dose.
• The latitude at which you live and your ancestry influence your body’s ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.
• People with dark skin have more difficulty making the vitamin. Persons living at latitudes north of the 36th parallel cannot obtain adequate levels of vitamin D naturally during the winter months because of the sun’s angle.

The research is convincing to all but the most skeptical scientists. Just some of the overwhelming evidence includes:

• Sunlight triggers the formation of vitamin D₃ in the skin, which is activated by the liver and kidneys into a hormone. This activated form of vitamin D supports “cellular differentiation,” essentially the opposite of cancer.
• Vitamin D₃ has been repeatedly shown to inhibit the growth of malignant melanoma, breast cancer, leukemia, and mammary tumors in laboratory animals.
• Even synthetic vitamin D-like molecules have prevented the equivalent of breast cancer in laboratory animals.
• Vitamin D₃ has also been shown to inhibit angiogenesis, the growth of new blood vessels that permit the spread of cancer cells through the body.

For decades we have known of the evidence that women over fifty years of age who skimp on foods rich in vitamin D are more likely to develop breast cancer.

• The late Frank Garland, Ph.D., brother of Cedric, who also conducted vitamin D research at the University of California at San Diego, especially noted the anticancer protection of fish because fatty fish is packed with vitamin D.
• Saint George’s, University of London, previously known as Saint George’s Hospital Medical School, found local production of vitamin D in breast tissue reduces the risk for breast cancer.
• For women with low breast tissue levels of vitamin D, the risk for breast cancer rose by a staggering 354 percent. This study even suggested women might wish to sunbathe with breast tissue exposed to enhance local vitamin D production.
• Dr. Edward Giovannucci, Professor of Nutrition and Epidemiology at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, wrote his support of the Cancer Recovery Group recommendations:

Because most people do not get adequate vitamin D in typical diets, and because of the potential downsides of excessive sun exposure, most people may benefit from vitamin D supplements.

• Several groups are at risk for vitamin D deficiency or less-than-adequate intakes—in particular, the elderly, dark-skinned individuals, obese individuals, and those who avoid the sun.
• For those at a higher risk of vitamin D deficiency, a larger daily supplement dose, on the order of 3,000 to 4,000 IU, may be required to achieve adequate blood levels which in my opinion are in the range of 30-40 ng/mL based on current knowledge.
• John H. White, Ph.D., Professor, Departments of Physiology and Medicine at McGill University, Montreal, Canada, concurred:
• There is now substantial and compelling evidence that, in addition to its requirement for skeletal integrity, vitamin D sufficiency reduces the risk of development of a number of cancers, contributes to cardiovascular health, and stimulates immune response.
• We also heard from Susan J. Whiting, Ph.D., Professor of Nutrition and Dietetics at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada:
• We know from intake studies that people cannot get much more than 200 IU per day. There’s not enough choice in the marketplace nor [adequate] levels in existing foods.
• That means almost everyone needs a supplement. One must realize that risk/benefit is not confined to high doses. Not taking enough is a risk.

William B. Grant, Ph.D., of the Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center (SUNARC) of San Francisco, California.

• How could the IOM committee have set such low guidelines for vitamin D in light of the large body of evidence that vitamin D has important health benefits affecting risk of many types of disease? While the committee claimed it made a thorough review and assessment of over 1,000 studies and reports [Ross et al., 2010], they ignored 49,000 other papers on vitamin D listed at www.pubmed.gov.
• Taken together, this evidence suggests that vitamin D plays a central role in regulating the expression of genes and proteins that prevent and inhibit cancer.
• The evidence of vitamin D’s influence on key biological functions vital to health and well-being mandates that vitamin D no longer be ignored by our government, by the healthcare industry, or by individuals striving to achieve and maintain a greater state of health.
• Can vitamin D play a role in treating cancer, not just its prevention? Yes. The cancer-stopping potential of vitamin D has been well-documented.
• Up to the point of massive differentiation, cancer cells maintain vitamin-D receptors that make them susceptible to the anticancer effects of this vitamin hormone.
• Vitamin D supplements and vitamin D-rich foods including salmon, tuna, and fish oils all contribute to transitioning the cancer cells from a near-term threat into a long-term manageable condition.
• If a cell has already undergone a malignant transformation, activated vitamin D can team up with other proteins to stimulate the programmed death of abnormal cells, the process known as cell apoptosis.
• There’s more good news. A growing body of evidence shows that a higher intake of vitamin D may be helpful in the prevention and treatment of high blood pressure, fibromyalgia, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and other diseases.

Critics of vitamin D point to the potential for overdosing resulting in toxic levels of the vitamin in the bloodstream.

• Symptoms of vitamin D toxicity include the onset of anorexia, disorientation, dehydration, fatigue, weight loss, weakness, and vomiting. One study demonstrated these effects when a single dose of 500,000 IU of vitamin D₃ was injected into a patient.
• A half-million IU at once seems irrationally high and no doubt can result in toxicity. But numerous studies show levels of 10,000 IU per day to be safe. The fact is vitamin D toxicity is very rare.
• As previously noted, the skin produces approximately 10,000 IU of vitamin D in response to fifteen to twenty minutes of summer sun exposure.
• However, most people do not receive fifteen to twenty minutes of sun exposure daily. This is especially true in northern and southern latitudes during their winter months.
• When well adults and adolescents are regularly deprived of adequate sunlight exposure, research indicates the advisability to supplement with at least 2,000 units (ILJ) of vitamin D daily.
• It is important to supplement with vitamin rather than vitamin D? a synthetic form of the vitamin made by irradiating fungus and plant matter. I), is the form of vitamin I) typically prescribed by doctors.
• This is not the type produced by your body in response to sun exposure. A recent meta-analysis by the Cochrane Database looked at fifty randomized controlled trials that included nearly 100,000 participants.
• The results showed a relative risk reduction among those who used vitamins but a relative risk increase among those who used Dr Further research shows vitamin is nearly 90 percent more potent in raising and maintaining vitamin D levels in the blood than Dr.

It also produces vitamin D storage levels two to three times greater than D₂ and is converted into its active form much faster.

• The critical factor is your serum level of vitamin D. Ideally this should be maintained between 50-70 ng/mL (nanograms per milliliter). I suggest you begin taking vitamin D, and, at your next doctor’s appointment, ask for a blood test to determine your levels. Adjust your vitamin D supplementation based on those tests.
• What does all this mean? It means you have a decision to make. But the facts are clear. We now have hundreds of studies to show that most North Americans who live above the 36th-degree parallel, a line that runs roughly from Los Angeles, California, through Atlanta, Georgia, are deficient in vitamin D.
• That deficiency has been correlated with a host of diseases, most notably breast and prostate cancers but also ovarian, pancreatic, and head and neck cancers.
• I have been at this work for over a quarter century. In our early days, the science was not there to support our common-sense claims regarding nutrition and exercise in integrated cancer care.
• Today the scientific evidence is overwhelming, especially the evidence for vitamin D supplementation. But it is now ignored by our governments. This is exceedingly frustrating and totally unacceptable.
• Decide for yourself. I stand firmly by our recommendations for healthy adults to supplement with vitamin D at the rate of 2,000 IU per day, 5,000 IU daily if you are dealing with a cancer diagnosis. See section 25 of this book, “Determine Your Nutritional Supplement Program” for further details.
• This much I believe to be true: with vitamin D supplementation we can now prevent nearly 80 percent of all breast cancers and over 50 percent of all prostate cancers. This is actual prevention, not early detection or early intervention. It is also clear to me that vitamin D significantly helps in making cancer treatments more effective.
• Those are huge promises. I believe vitamin D delivers. And I further believe vitamin D will revolutionize the way cancer is prevented and treated.

Cancer and Sugar:

Question 1. Does sugar “feed” cancer eells?

Answer: Yes, indirectly.

Question 2. Can sugar cause other health conditions that can lead to cancer?

Answer: Definitely.

Question 3. Should I limit my sugar consumption?

Answer: Absolutely.

Contrary to popular belief, a calorie is not a calorie. Sugar certainly contains calories, “empty” calories. But sugar is also toxic and addictive. Last month my wife and I attended a party hosted by a cancer charity. A breast cancer patient, Maria, just seven months postchemotherapy, was in attendance. I was enjoying a glass of red wine when Maria introduced herself. “No alcohol for me,” she proclaimed. “You know how alcohol turns right into sugar and feeds those cancer cells.”

• I don’t mind being held accountable for my dietary choices or the warnings about which I write. But when I looked at Maria’s drink, I had to return her reminder.
• She was drinking coffee. “What’s that?” I said, pointing to her cup. “Coffee,” Maria replied. Noticing the light brown color I asked, “And what did you add to your coffee?” Maria blushed. “Cream—and sugar,” she answered.
• In the field of cancer research, there exists a subspecialty of inquiry with big potential—very big potential. It is called “cancer metabolism.” This area of investigation combines cellular physiology and nutrition. It is an area long overdue for inquiry.
• To date, cancer metabolism’s major contribution is to help us understand that cancer cells need more nutrition, more of a specific type of nutrient, in order to survive. This brings us directly to the issue of glucose, a cancer cell’s preferred nutrient.
• We have known about cancer metabolism for decades. In 1931, the Nobel Prize in medicine was awarded to Otto Warburg, M.D., Ph.D.
• This German genius was the first to discover that cancer cells have a fundamentally different metabolic process than healthy cells. Warburg posited that carcinogens are not the primary cause of cancer but are a secondary cause.
• He demonstrated that the prime cause of cancer is “… the replacement of oxygen in the respiratory chemistry of normal cells by (a fermentation of) sugar.”
• Warburg’s work produced a bio-physiological model that explained how too much glucose, sucrose, and fructose wreak havoc by starving normal cells of adequate oxygen supplies. The result: impaired immune function.
• Warburg’s work was widely criticized by many in the cancer industry as “too simplistic.” But now, nearly eighty years later, interest in his discovery has resurfaced and new research in cancer metabolism and metabolic syndrome is finally being conducted.

The key point to date: Scientists can now demonstrate that controlling blood glucose levels within an optimal range actually bolsters immune function.

• But controlling blood sugar levels is no easy task, especially if one favors the typical Western diet, which consists of lots of processed foods and meats, lots of added fats and hidden sweeteners, plus lots of highly refined grains and cereals—lots of everything except fresh vegetables, fresh fruits, and whole grains.
• We now have indisputable evidence that populations who consume this diet invariably suffer from higher rates of the aptly named Western diseases, especially obesity, type 2 diabetes, the full range of cardiovascular conditions, as well as the most common cancers— breast, prostate, and colorectal.
• The scientific evidence is overwhelming. Today the debate in nutritional science is no longer about the links between the Western diet and a host of diseases.
• Now the discussion has turned to identifying the specific culprit nutrients in that diet that are responsible for specific diseases. Is it the saturated fat? Trans fats? Maybe it’s the refined carbohydrates.
• What about the lack of fiber? Or not enough omega fatty acids. This is an important and fascinating discussion to some of us. But whatever the specific nutrient culprits, as people who need to eat, even the least aware among us know we have a Western diet problem.
• After nearly three decades of journalistic research on the link between diet and cancer, I have come to believe that that the culprit nutrient in the Western diet is sugar—more accurately, the excessive consumption of sugar.
• By “sugar” I am referring not only to the refined white granulated kind that we may spoon into our coffee or sprinkle on our breakfast cereal,

I am also including high-fructose corn syrup, or “corn sugar” as the corn products industry would now prefer it to be called.

• For our discussion, this means that “sugar” will be defined as both sucrose—cane as well as beet, white or brown—and fructose. This is an important point of understanding because the fructose, especially high-fructose corn syrup, is today hidden in thousands of the processed foods you and I routinely place on our dinner table and enjoy at our favorite restaurants.
• If we are to be informed consumers, we need to understand that sugar is everywhere in our food supply. If our food is boxed or bottled or canned, it very likely has sugar in it. And more than just empty calories, the evidence is overwhelming that overindulgence in such foods is very harmful to our health.
• In fact, I now believe sugar must be thought of just like tobacco and alcohol, something that is killing us—a man-made epidemic that requires a societal and governmental response.
• Approximately thirty years ago, high-fructose corn syrup began to replace sugar in carbonated beverages. At that point in time, refined sugar was starting to be seen as a questionable nutrient. High-fructose corn syrup was marketed by the food industry as a healthier choice. Soon it began to appear in many prepared foods. But it wasn’t a healthier choice.
• For the more technical among us, refined sugar, also known as sucrose, consists of a molecule of the carbohydrate glucose and a molecule of the carbohydrate fructose. It’s a fifty-fifty mix of the two.
• It’s the molecule of fructose, which is nearly twice as sweet as the glucose, which distinguishes refined sugar from other carbohydrate-heavy foods like potatoes and bread that upon digestion break down to glucose alone. The essential point is that the more fructose in a substance, the sweeter it will be.
• High-fructose corn syrup is sweeter than refined sugar. As it is most commonly used in processed foods, it is approximately 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose. That extra fructose ends up in our digestive tracks and directly impacts our blood sugar levels and ultimately our immune function.
• In 2009, Robert H. Lustig, M.D., UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, gave a lecture called “Sugar: The Bitter Truth.” It explored the damage caused by sugary foods.

He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin.

• The video of that lecture is posted on YouTube and has been viewed over 2.6 million times, an amazing number of hits for a ninety-minute discussion on the biochemistry of sugar.
• In 2011, Gary Taubes wrote an article for the New York Times Magazine entitled “Is Sugar Toxic?” A good deal of the article analyzes the Lustig’s lecture. Taubes writes:
• If Lustig is right, then our excessive consumption of sugar is the primary reason that the numbers of obese and diabetic Americans have skyrocketed in the past 30 years.
• But his argument implies more than that… it would mean that sugar is also the likely dietary cause of several other chronic ailments widely considered to be diseases of Western lifestyles—heart disease, hypertension and many common cancers.
• Even the underinformed among us know the empty calories argument against sugar.
• But Lustig and Taubes go far beyond the empty calories warnings. They both help us understand that the human body metabolizes sugar, specifically the fructose in sugar, in a way that makes it toxic and harmful when consumed in large quantities.
• The main difference: glucose is processed by all cells in our body. But the fructose in sugar and in high-fructose corn syrup is processed by our liver, one of the critical organs in immune function. Herein lies the problem and the direct connection with cancer.
• The Corn Refiners Association’s Website, SweetSurprise.com, states “… research confirms that high fructose corn syrup is safe and no different from other common sweeteners like table sugar and honey. All three sweeteners are nutritionally the same.”
• The site goes on to proclaim that “… though individual sugars are metabolized by different pathways, this is of little consequence since the body sees the same mix of sugars from caloric sweeteners, regardless of source.”
• I beg to differ. In a study published in 2005 in the journal Cancel’ Research, the authors noted that the way different sugars are processed using different metabolic pathways is of “major” consequence in cancer. This study found that cancer cells readily metabolize fructose to increase their proliferation.
• In this case they were studying pancreatic cancer, one of the most deadly forms of cancer. The research documented the unique role of fructose in cell division and the resulting growth and spread of the disease.

We know beyond doubt from decades of laboratory studies that when fructose arrives at the liver in sufficient quantities, much of it will be converted to fat.

• This produces what is called insulin resistance and which in turn is now understood as one of the fundamental causes of obesity.
• Of course insulin resistance is also implicated in diabetes, heart disease, and now many types of cancers. Fat accumulation in the liver as a result of the excessive consumption of sugar is the key point to understand.
• The essential finding is that our ability to metabolize the high quantities of hidden fructose is compromised and the result is insulin resistance. Interestingly, this is absolutely parallel with Otto Warburg’s discovery and understanding of nearly eighty years ago.
• We also know from the World Health Organization’s extensive nutritional research efforts that there is a demonstrated link between obesity, diabetes, and cancer.
• Simply put, if you are obese and diabetic you are statistically more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than someone who is not.
• This finding is virtually parallel with the previous observations on the sugar-rich Western diet. The problem is so significant that even age-adjusted death rates from cancer are rising in North America.
• For example, this means that the likelihood of any one fifty-five-year-old female dying from breast cancer is increasing, even as there are more fifty-five- year-old females.
• What is the physiological mechanism that leads from insulin resistance to a diagnosis of cancer? Many endocrinologists now believe that once insulin resistance sets in, this signals our pancreas to secrete more insulin.

And insulin, as well as a related hormone called insulin-like growth factor, actually promotes tumor growth. The evidence is mounting that many pre-cancerous cells would not become malignant unless they were signaled by insulin to take up more blood sugar.

• This physiology is the essential root of the old adage “sugar feeds cancer.” And after four decades of debate, the old adage seems to be proving true.
• There’s more on sugar and cancer. I will simplify the scientifically validated information:
• There is definitive proof that when malignant tumors process sugar they create lactic acid.

Two things happen in the process:

• First, the lactic acid is transported to the liver and as a result generates a more acidic pH level. Lactic acid likely drives the extreme fatigue that is so common in cancer patients.
• Second, the combination of the lactic acid and fat accumulation in the liver makes for inefficient energy metabolism. This means cancer patients are often able to extract just a small percentage of nutrient value from their food. This leads to malnutrition and the “wasting” condition so many cancer patients experience.
• There is one other extensively researched sugar-cancer connection. This relates to simple carbohydrates and how they are processed by our bodies. Refined flour, used in the making of bread, is a perfect example. “White” bread is broken down by the digestive process into sugar—glucose and sucrose.
• Not only do these sugars increase the burden on the liver, excellent scientific evidence shows they also decrease the ability of white blood cells, specifically the type called neutrophils, to help destroy invaders such as precancerous cells.

It all adds up to a vicious cycle. It leads me to conclude that all forms of sugar are detrimental to health.

• Even more, because of the deleterious effects on liver function, all sugars promote cancer, albeit in slightly different ways and to a different extent. But most importantly, fructose is clearly the most harmful.
• Please recognize the connection: sugar—decreased liver function— decreased immune function—increased risk of cancer.
• What does this mean? As for me, I will not consume sugar, especially high-fructose corn syrup, if I can possibly avoid it.
• I believe absolutely minimizing sugar is something we can all do to significantly decrease our risk of developing cancer and to greatly increase our odds of survival. I am urging you to do the same.
• Contrary to standard advice from the oncology community, you should not eat whatever you want. Wise nutritional choices are critically important to cancer prevention and survival.
• Believe it, diet very much matters—especially your intake of sugar. Minimize sugar.
• Clean Out Your Pantry and Refrigerator
• Your refrigerator and pantry arc likely to contain processed foods. If ever there was a time to eat real food, cancer is it. Now I ask you to take a bold step toward making thoughtful choices about nutrition.

1. Throw out the following oils:

1. Margarine
2. Solid shortenings
3. Partially hydrogenated oil … or products made with them

2. Buy the following oils:

1. Extra virgin olive oil
2. Vegetable spray
3. Sesame oil

3. Throw out the following sweeteners:

1. Sugar
2. Aspartame
3. Saccharin

4. Buy the following sweetener:

1. Stevia

5. Throw out the following meats:

1. Salami
2. Bologna
3. Sausage
4. Bacon
5. Hot dogs
6. Smoked ham
7. Smoked turkey

Once you clean out the shelves, you’re on your way to bringing health to your dinner plate.

Cook and Shop Healthfully Healthy Cooking Techniques:

Coat the pan with vegetable spray

1. Stir-fry
2. Oven-fry
3. Bake in parchment or foil
4. Poach
5. Steam
6. Stew

Season Healthfully Using Herbs And Spices:

Shop Healthfully:

1. Read labels.
2. Buy the lowest fat/salt/sugar choices.
3. Eat before you shop.

Sample Menus

Countless times I have been asked for sample meal plans. I am pleased to offer here two variations with two options for each meal. With simple substitutions, you can create a joyful variety of delicious meals that maximize nutrition.

The Cancer Recovery Foundation Meal Plan “Three Squares” a Day

MEAL 1:

MEAL 2:

MEAL 3:

The Cancer Recovery Foundation Meal Plan Six “Mini-Meals” a Day

MEAL 1:

MEAL 2:

MEAL 3:

MEAL 4:

MEAL 5:

MEAL 6:

The Cancer Recovery “Real Foods” Shopping List: