Hi Keith, 
This is the same position taken by many well-meaning oncologists. The issue
is indirectly related to blood glucose so you are missing the point. It is
insulin production combined with the malignant cell's very inefficient use
of glucose that makes the difference. With very little insulin production,
the cancer cells can only move very little glucose into themselves. Since
their mitochondria are not functioning, the cancer cells can only get about
20% to 30% of the energy from the glucose by a process called glycolosis,
and the cancer cells starve. So as long as you keep your blood glucose below
about 5.5 mmol/L, or 100 mg/dl (U.S.) then, assuming other factors, your
pancreas won't produce much insulin and the tumor will starve. This works
for any stage of cancer as long as it is, as the vast majority of cancers
are, glucose dependent. Of course, pancreatic and other endocrine cancers
form a special group in which this may not be valid because they can trigger
insulin production at lower levels of blood glucose. 

The frequent dismissal of the ketogenic diet as an effective tool for
treating cancer is crazy-making for me because this simple diet could save
so many cancer patients who die unnecessarily, just because dietary
interventions are dismissed out of hand. I do understand that a lot of very
wacky diets have been touted as cures for cancer, ranging from juicing to
cleansing to Manchurian mushrooms to avoiding red meat. However, the
principles of a ketogenic diet's anti-cancer impact are clearly demonstrated
by this study in which they still allowed a lot of carbohydrate (undermining
the study's objectives) and yet the diet still caused a halt in tumor growth
or reduction of tumor size in 5 of these otherwise hopeless cases. A
stricter diet might well have saved them all!

My weight loss clients follow a much stricter ketogenic protocol than the
one outlined in this study. During the course of the study I was in touch
with one of the investigators who said that they were having difficulty with
patients staying on the diet. The primary complaints were that it was
causing nausea and severe constipation.  Had I known then the diet they were
prescribing I would have told them that they were putting too much protein
into the diet and allowing so much carbohydrate that it was causing carb
cravings. Both excessive protein, which is turned into glucose, and so much
carbohydrate will cause some insulin production, permitting tumors to grow. 

Blood glucose need only be low enough that it isn't triggering insulin
production. If you still hold to your position, Keith, I'd like the chance
to discuss the matter further with you.     

Best Wishes, 
Ron
       

> > I don't think there is any way you could reduce your blood glucose to a
> level where a tumor's growth would be constrained in the first 10 years of
> its existence.
> >
> > Keith