Possible diet to hopefully stave off cancers?

[ptremaine]

Everything Spidey's written here so far is spot on - reasoned, informed, cogent and lucid. Bravo. I agree with everything so far that you've written, Spidey, as it's in keeping with what I've learned and researched and discussed with some of the best doctors out there working to fight cancers in humans.

My mind isn't closed, but I was a registered nurse, I just don't believe in wishful thinking over scientific proof, there's a difference between having a closed mind and being a critical thinker. As I said, by all means feed whatever diet you wish, but please be realistic and be wary of potentially harmful fads (for example, to my knowledge, there's no reliable evidence that megadoses of vitamins has any benefit, whereas there IS evidence that they can be harmful). Generally speaking, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. IMO, if there's no independent study to back something up, I'm wary of it. As Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence".

Yes, which is why "miracle cures" are just that - akin to miracles [which I don't believe in anyway]. How the body responds to a cancer is always individual. One can live for a long time with prostate cancer, and another will drop dead quickly. Anecodtal stories are not scientific evidence and most people would do well to understand the two concepts.


Here's what NIH says about cancer's causes: "Besides heredity, scientific studies point to the existence of three main categories of factors that contribute to the development of cancer: chemicals (e.g., from smoking or diet), radiation, and viruses or bacteria."

Lots of people ask me about power lines, water, and pesticides.

Because science has examined these possible causes of some cancers, and the connection between them is there. Unlike other things where there is no connection [corn = tumor growth].


Our environment is heavily polluted - with toxic chemicals which are known carcinogens and those which are so deadly, they must be sealed into barrels, put into concrete tombs and sealed into mountains. Every single person in this country has been exposed to deadly chemicals - whether environmentally or via ingestion or both. Then there's the exposure to nuclear radiation and more common radiation - how many of us have had numerous Xrays from doctors and dentists alike? The fact is, radiation is CUMULATIVE, not something that degrades over a few months or years. Once a dose is given, it's molecules are there inside our bodies effectively forever. And the doses all add up together. Same for animals. An Xray here or there might not matter, but Xrays have become increasingly used for diagnostic purposes in most vet practices. We even Xray dog's hips in the hopes of determining their likelihood of developing the condition of crippling HD. Then toss in heredity, toss in the overwhelming evidence of environmental pollution everywhere and the presence of countless viruses and bacteria, and you're talking an overwhelming barrage of scenarios that no single pet owner could ever hope to cope with and control sufficiently to prevent disease in their beloved pets. It's just NOT possible.

If tumors feed off of carbs, and can't feed off of protein and fat, then when you know you have cancer cells then wouldn't you feed more protein and fat?.....And I don't believe carbs "cause" cancer, I believe too many carbs can make it easy for cancer to gain a foothold.

Based on what do you "believe" this? Science or anecdote?

Do you have any reliable, scientically sound evidence of this claim at all?? Where did you read this? Can you link to the source and or quote it and cite the source?

I think the toughest thing to accept about cancers is this - they're not within our control in large part.

We can't control our genetic inheritance, we can't control how our bodies will react to a given exposure to a toxic source or radiation. We can control some things - sun exposure, exercise levels [assuming we're not already disabled], what we put into our bodies in terms of chemicals. We can eat a wholesome balanced diet for what that's worth. But that is not necessarily doing ANYTHING to prevent cancers, it's doing something to maintain optimal health in the here and now and hopefully, long run. The two are not the same.

Prior to my current Rottie, I had 2 Giant Schnauzers. One died of metasized skin cancer. How can a black dog get skin cancer? You tell me. Right now, many GS owners are posting about the high incidence of toe cancer in GS that usually are the precursor of osteosarcomas in their dogs. Then there's the Addison's Disease problem in the breed, the very high epilepsy rate, the high rate of thyroid problems and the increasingly cripping rate of HD. That's just off the top of my head....all those diseases are thought to have a high genetic component. Not surprisingly, GSs have a very small gene pool. This has become an issue of such concern, there's talk of petitioning the AKC for outbreeding to other breeds so they can increase the genetic material available. Course, that would effectively remove the breed from "purebred" status for a good long while, but maybe that's more of a solution than coming up with fancy and difficult diets which have no proven evidence of preventing any of the known diseases plaguing the breed.

Same goes for Rotties - genetic problems plague the breed and no one is being helped by the rampant breeding activity of ignorant back yard breeders and puppy mills nationwide.

One would be more well advised to inquire into the causes of death of a prospective pup's 5 generations of relatives than what was fed to the dam during her pregnancy or whether or not her hips passed OFA [and frankly, Penn Hip is a much better method of examining the hips of prospective breeding stock than OFA].

I accept that it may just be me, but I find something seriously wrong with self-delusion. I hear the need to "do something", but I don't think you do yourself or your dog any favours by ignoring the facts. I think you can meet your emotional needs in other, more emotionally healthy, ways. And I think that sometimes it's more important for the long-term mental health and frustration level of the owner to accept that there are some things they can't do much about, so that they can concentrate on the things they CAN do something about.

Amen! This is something that people would really do well to understand and comprehend.

We can't control whether or not our Rotties will ultimately suffer with and die from cancer, sad to say. :(

PT

[frontierrots]

Dr Oglive's research proved that many forms of cancer do indeed feed off carbs and sugars and not from proteins. He used to offer talks about his diet formulation. Then Science Diet bought his cooperation/formula? and that is where their new cancer diet comes from. It is NOT the original diet but is as close as they could get it and stll make $$$. They told him he could no longer speak about his original diet only their diet now. :(

That is scientific proof

[mmgy]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If tumors feed off of carbs, and can't feed off of protein and fat, then when you know you have cancer cells then wouldn't you feed more protein and fat?.....And I don't believe carbs "cause" cancer, I believe too many carbs can make it easy for cancer to gain a foothold.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on what do you "believe" this? Science or anecdote?
unquote


Science: As frontierrots responded right after this, there are numerous studies that corroborate this. I'd be happy to link you to some at a time when I'm at my home computer.
Anecdote: My personal experience with my dog Rocky causes me to believe this.

Anecdote: I also believe that if Rocky had better care and nutrition in his younger days--and that includes from me, his rescuer--that he may not have developed cancer at such a young age. I guess I'll find that out when he and I meet again.

If anecdotes support us emotionally, then so be it.

Keep in mind there's two different conversations going on here, one about prevention and one about management. I disclaimed myself earlier, and I'll do it again: Using different therapies has worked in the management of cancer for me, that's all.

Mary Mac

[ptremaine]

Originally posted by frontierrots
Dr Oglive's research proved that many forms of cancer do indeed feed off carbs and sugars and not from proteins. He used to offer talks about his diet formulation. Then Science Diet bought his cooperation/formula? and that is where their new cancer diet comes from. It is NOT the original diet but is as close as they could get it and stll make $$$. They told him he could no longer speak about his original diet only their diet now. :(

That is scientific proof

No, not really. Scientific proof is rigorously controlled, is peer reviewed by independent sources w/out a stake in the outcome [that is, a diet that the researcher hopes to market and profit from] and is agreed upon as scientifically significant. It also doesn't happen when one has already reached a conclusion and then seeks the "evidence" to fit that conclusion.

If there is a link to this "proof" appearing in a peer reviewed journal [Vet. Medicine for instance] and the consensus is the research has been valid, rigorously controlled, then fine. But I have serious doubts.

Nothing personal, but often we so want to believe in something, we ignore valid contrary evidence.

A genuine clinical study and the published format looks like this:
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-po...=6&db=m&Dopt=b>

"A population-based case-control study of canine mammary tumours and clinical use of medroxyprogesterone acetate.
APMIS. 1997 Aug;105(8):590-6.
PMID: 9298095 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]"

There's a very good peer reviewed article based on legitimate science at the same link, titled, "Factors influencing the incidence and prognosis of canine mammary tumours." - J Small Anim Pract. 2000 Jul;41(7):287-91. Review. PMID: 10976622 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] [the Journal of Small Animal Practice is a valid scientific journal].



Valid scientific research does not look like a website selling a given product, for profit, with nebulous claims of "cure" or anything resembling it. If the folly of cancer miracle cures in humans has taught us anything, it's that cancer is an extremely complex variety of diseases, in dogs and humans. No quick cures or preventatives so far exist, and claims otherwise are akin to snake oil claims.

:(

PT

[ptremaine]

Okay, here's something that actually IS scientifically valid research for ROTTWEILERS:

"Endogenous Gonadal Hormone Exposure and Bone Sarcoma Risk."

Cooley DM, Beranek BC, Schlittler DL, Glickman NW, Glickman LT, Waters DJ.

Departments of Veterinary Clinical Sciences [D. M. C., B. C. B., D. L. S., D. J. W.] and Veterinary Pathobiology [N. W. G., L. T. G.], Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, and the Gerald P. Murphy Cancer Foundation, Seattle, Washington 98125 [D. M. C., D. J. W.].

Although experimental and clinical evidence suggest that endogenous sex hormones influence bone sarcoma genesis, the hypothesis has not been adequately tested in an appropriate animal model. We conducted a historical cohort study of Rottweiler dogs because they frequently undergo elective gonadectomy and spontaneously develop appendicular bone sarcomas, which mimic the biological behavior of the osteosarcomas that affect children and adolescents. Data were collected by questionnaire from owners of 683 Rottweiler dogs living in North America. To determine whether there was an association between endogenous sex hormones and risk of bone sarcoma, relative risk (RR) of incidence rates and hazard ratios for bone sarcoma were calculated for dogs subdivided on the basis of lifetime gonadal hormone exposure. Bone sarcoma was diagnosed in 12.6% of dogs in this cohort during 71,004 dog-months follow-up. Risk for bone sarcoma was significantly influenced by age at gonadectomy. Male and female dogs that underwent gonadectomy before 1 year of age had an approximate one in four lifetime risk for bone sarcoma and were significantly more likely to develop bone sarcoma than dogs that were sexually intact [RR +/-95% CI = 3.8 (1.5-9.2) for males; RR +/-95% CI = 3.1 (1.1-8.3) for females]. chi(2) test for trend showed a highly significant inverse dose-response relationship between duration of lifetime gonadal exposure and incidence rate of bone sarcoma (P = 0.008 for males, P = 0.006 for females). This association was independent of adult height or body weight. We conclude that the subset of Rottweiler dogs that undergo early gonadectomy represent a unique, highly accessible target population to further study the gene:environment interactions that determine bone sarcoma risk and to test whether interventions can inhibit the spontaneous development of bone sarcoma. - PMID: 12433723 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

So - who here knew about the risk of bone cancer, age of neutering and spaying, and hormones in Rottweiler dogs?

Forget about bogus dietary claims - focus on what's known.

A larger list of research that involves Rottweilers and cancers and other diseases and conditions can be found via this link:

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...arch&DB=PubMed>

The National Library of Medicine. Check it out.

PT

[frontierrots]

a couple samples of research

from a website
http://www.b-naturals.com/sum98.htm

Peer reviewed
1: Clin Tech Small Anim Pract 1998 Nov;13(4):224-31 Related Articles, Links


Interventional nutrition for the cancer patient.

Ogilvie GK.

College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Department of Clinical Sciences, Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins 80523, USA.

Dogs and cats with cancer have significant alterations in carbohydrate, protein, and fat metabolism, which can result in cancer cachexia and subsequently can decrease quality of life, reduce response to therapy, and shorten survival time. Nutritional modulation may be beneficial in the treatment of cancer patients to reverse these metabolic alterations. There is evidence that foods relatively low in simple carbohydrates with moderate amounts of high-quality protein, fiber, and fat (especially fats of the omega-3 fatty acid series) are beneficial for pets with cancer. In addition, certain supplemental nutrients may have potential to reduce the risk of developing cancer, or the growth and metastases of established malignant disease. Nutritional intervention can be a powerful tool for controlling malignant disease and for reducing toxicity associated with chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

Publication Types:
Review
Review, Tutorial

PMID: 9842115 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

1: Am J Vet Res 1997 Mar;58(3):277-81 Related Articles, Links


Alterations in carbohydrate metabolism in dogs with nonhematopoietic malignancies.

Ogilvie GK, Walters L, Salman MD, Fettman MJ, Johnston SD, Hegstad RL.

Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins 80523, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether alterations in carbohydrate metabolism exist in dogs with nonhematopoietic malignancies but without evidence of weight loss or cachexia. ANIMALS: 90 dogs with nonhematopoietic malignancies and 18 control dogs. PROCEDURE: An intravenous glucose tolerance test was done in 90 dogs with previously untreated nonhematopoietic malignancies and in 18 clinically normal dogs. These dogs also had no evidence of unrelated diseases that would affect glucose metabolism. None of the dogs had evidence of cachexia. Samples were assayed for glucose, lactate, and insulin concentrations. This procedure was repeated for 45 of the tumor-bearing dogs from which all gross evidence of tumor was completely excised and evidence of diseases that would alter carbohydrate metabolism did not exist. RESULTS: The mean of all time points during the intravenous glucose tolerance test (ie, 0, 5, 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes) for lactate (12.9 +/- 6.7 mg/dl) and insulin (69.1 +/- 44.9 microU/ml) concentrations in untreated dogs with nonhematopoietic malignancies were significantly higher than values for controls (lactate, 9.7 +/- 4.3 mg/dl; and insulin, 31.7 +/- 11.5 microU/ml). This increase in lactate and insulin values did not return to normal when the dogs were rendered free of all observable evidence of cancer after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Carbohydrate metabolism is altered in dogs with a variety of nonhematopoietic malignancies and these abnormalities do not abate when dogs are rendered free of gross evidence of malignant disease after surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Alterations in carbohydrate metabolism may result in decreased quality of life and may be associated with the paraneoplastic syndrome, cancer cachexia.

PMID: 9055974 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

[ptremaine]

With all due respect, you've said this:

Dr Oglive's research proved that many forms of cancer do indeed feed off carbs and sugars and not from proteins.

Then quoted the study you claim backed up this conclusion on your part.

Unfortunately, you've misinterpreted the linked data and reached wrong conclusions. That's a common mistake -

Oglivie's research noted that dogs with cancer already exhibited, that is, they HAD "significant alterations in carbohydrate, protein, and fat metabolism," - he did NOT state or conclude that those "alterations" were the CAUSE of the cancer.

Do you understand the significant differences in what you think he concluded and what he actually concluded?

He also states that once the cancer is in metasis or growth, it can be "beneficial" to feed a low carbohydrate diet with "moderate amounts" of high quality protein. He specifically states that this relates to "ESTABLISHED malignant disease", not the prevention of the onset of malignant disease.

That's about as plain as it can be - diet can aid in reducing the effects of chemo and the toxicity of the treatment modalities. Not PREVENT cancer. Do you understand what you're reading when you read these scientific synapsis?

I'm sorry you're misintrepreting these quoted studies in order to support your own unscientific conclusions, but the fact is, both of these studies indicate merely that dogs with preexisting cancer have carbohydrate metobolic changes [which is to be expected as the body's systems are out of whack due to the presence of a cancer], or to quote, "Carbohydrate metabolism is altered in dogs with a variety of nonhematopoietic malignancies and these abnormalities do not abate when dogs are rendered free of gross evidence of malignant disease after surgery."

Note: the quote "IS altered" doesn't mean "was altered" by carbohydrate ingestion. Get it?

There's nothing there that indicates an owner should feed a dog no carbohydrates or that "corn feeds tumors" as was noted earlier.

Ogilvie wrote this in a study from 1990: "Cancer cachexia is a complex syndrome that results in involuntary weight loss, even in the face of adequate nutritional intake. The profound metabolic abnormalities associated with cancer cachexia affect a large percentage of animals with cancer even before any clinical signs are seen. This paraneoplastic syndrome results in alterations in carbohydrate, lipid, and protein metabolism that, if left untreated, decrease the animal's quality of life and lead to a poor response to cancer therapy. An understanding of the metabolic abnormalities associated with cancer cachexia is of paramount importance to the practicing veterinarian to determine an accurate prognosis and to choose the optimal type of intravenous fluids and nutritional therapy for each patient."


Again, the main factors influencing cancer in Rottweilers are heredity, environmental and exposure to chemicals.

Oglivie was and is discussing metabolic activity and aftercare nutrition AFTER the cancer is present, not as a preventative measure.

PT

[frontierrots]

I did NOT misquote OR misinterpet.

I have not yet found the actual study data again with his studies into cancer starving diets. Had it here once and now I can't find the darned thing again. That is the studies that Lew Olson's page is getting info from

I only included the two links/excerpts I did to show that some studies have been done re diet and cancer and shown various links

I will keep looking for the actual cancer starving diet research links and will post them when I find them

[chivas]

Ok.OK _ i didnt realize I was opening such a HUGE can of worms!
I do agree with parts of what everyone says. And I have heard of the study involving early altering and possible link to cancer. Notice the operating word here is POSSIBLE. If anything was firm, then we would have definite ways to avoid cancer in humans and animals.
Since it seems some of us like to quote others in what they percieve as misinformation, Id like to add my 2 cents worth.
Before i do - i am NOT going to get in any back and forth banter with anyone over beliefs. Beliefs become fact or fiction sooner or later, so blasting anyones beliefs shows ignorance. I can use the uproar over the Atkins diet as proof on that.
Spidey said in her first post that cancer cannot be controlled with diet, then later on said cancer can be caused by enviroment (ie, diet as one). I am not stating the obvious on this one.
Then she later said that large doses of vitamins can be harmful. ANYTHING in a large quantity can be harmful. But things in the RIGHT quantity can be beneficial. Chemo is poison and doesnt differinciate between good and bad cells, weakens the immune system and puts chemo patients at risk for others illnesses.

And yes, we all have Aunt Flo who ate fatback dipped in bacon grease and smoked cigars till she was 106 and then was run over by a bus. And Uncle Arthur who jogged 20 miles a day, ate only what he grew and never took a drink in his life and then dropped dead of cardiac arrest at 35. Maybe Aunt Flo was the miracle.
OK - that is my 2 cents worth and i wont be drawn in to any back and forth banter on this one.
I agree that scientific studys are documented BUT everything at one time was new and unproven till someone took the time to study it. So please people before you bash someone for not have "scientific proof' - remember at one time YOUR scientific proof wasnt proven either and not everything that is proven is shown to be rock stolid - medicine makes new advancements every day, and changes the thinking on old ones all the time.
And I would like to thank rottnkid for those great links!
Im expecting a slew of replies on this one, but i wont be responding to any of them. We all agree to disagree!
Have a wonderful day!
Kim

[rottmommie]

I must agree with a part of what ptremaine said....environment. I am a nurse, and am also involved with a company that has safer environmental products, as what we are using inside out home can cause respiratory illness, cancer and even death.....if ingested or inhaled by someone with a lung problem already. PLEASE never spray lysol near me! check out your household products, get on the internet and pull up an MSDS on some of them, you will be surprised.
I also disagree, as studies will tell you that many cancers and illnesses can be avoided, or at the very least postponed, by PROPER dietary habits. These diseases include colon cancer and alzheimers, but there are far more that can be prevented! These are legit studies.....AHA and cancer society studies.

[ptremaine]

I'll just have to disagree with the idea that cancers can be 'caused' by diet - certainly not diet as a top 4 cause. I'm also quite unwilling to go to the slippery slope of declaring that diet and cancer have a unique causal relationship as it also carries with it the spectre of blaming the victim. I know that I'd be loathe to blame my great grandmother who died of cancer, my grandpa who just died of cancer and a few of my aunts and uncles for their own deaths from cancer when they all ate a good if bland and plain meat, veggies and bread type diet. I know I'm not going to accept that diet is causing primary brain tumors - which the best medical minds in the country haven't yet figured out. I guess I'll just to have take all the "expert" advice on the Internet and inside these forums with a dose of skepticism.

Product safety and chemical analysis sheets on most household products would scare the pants of most Americans. I recommend them heartily. That and not living within a mile or more of high tension power lines.

:)

PT

[TrishB]

If you want to avoid cancer in your Rottweilers, there are 4 key things to do:

1) Feed them a good, balanced diet that satisfies their needs for their stage of life / activity levels for their entire life.
2) Religiously go to your veterinarian for annual examinations; concentrate of their health for the duration of their life - not just when you find out they're ill.
3) Avoid knowingly questionable areas such as old dumps, industrial waste, etc.
4) RESEARCH THE LINES OF YOUR DOG!

Personally, I think that most people ignore #4. If you research the lines of your dog and make the specific choice to get a dog from lines that have NOT had multiple cancers, you will have a better chance of avoiding it.

Genetics are a HUGE factor, much larger than diet will ever be. If we want our Rottweilers NOT to get cancer, then we should be selectively attempting to breed it out.

As a person who has had to watch multiple people in her family die from various cancers, I am speaking from experience. I too, am prone. Skin, lung, liver, brain and breast cancer. I cannot select my genetics, but you better believe that I can have a say in my dogs'.

[chivas]

I agree about the genetics and researching lines. Good to do if you are buying a pup - impossible if you get a rescue. But good advice nonetheless.
Again - not commenting about the "experts". Everyone is an expert on the internet! LOL!

[rottmommie]

The only way I can see that diet will "prevent" or "cause" cancer is the simple FACT that a healthy immune system is more apt to prevent illness of any kind, and assist with recovery from illness. This is not fallacy it is a fact.. A person who eats crap will have a crap immune system. A person who has a great diet and great exercise regime will bounce back from many illnesses, surgeries, etc, than someone who does not.
Excessive Fatty food consumption for many years has been linked to atherosclerosis, Cancers, heart disease, diabetes, alzheimers......shall I go on?
I really do not know of any diseases caused by limiting alcohol consumption, fat, red meat and eating lots of fruits and vegetables.......and quitting smoking. I also do not know of any disease processes that are HELPED by eating fatty foods, ho hos, twinkies, steak and drinking lots of beer and smoking.
Sorry guys, it isnt rocket science......
yes genetics plays a big part. BUT you CAN change your HABITS and not help your genetics along too! MANY Doctors will not tell you these simple things, either because they do not beleive in them, or they will not make money if people continue to do healthy things for themselves.......
hmmmmmmm

[spidey]

There is no evidence that diet influences the immune system beyond basic nutritional needs being a requirement for normal body function. And cancer is not thought to be a disease in which the immune system plays much of a role (as I said earlier, cancerous cells are not noticeably different, from your immune system's point of view, from normal cells, and an overactive immune system is just as dangerous as an underactive one). And I'm sorry, but it's more than a little implausible that there's some kind of medical conspiracy to keep people ill. There will always be work for doctors to do, regardless of how much people try and stay healthy, they don't need to dissuade people from healthy living, nor are they inclined to. I've never heard a doctor say "you need to eat more McDonald's and surely you can increase your smoking to three packs a day if you really try".