56 Frequently Asked Questions 2021.mp3: Audio automatically transcribed by Sonix

56 Frequently Asked Questions 2021.mp3: this mp3 audio file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the best speech-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors.

Speaker1:
Hi and welcome to the Cancer Secrets podcast. I am your host and guide, Dr. Jonathan Stegall. Cancer is like a thief who has come to steal, kill and destroy. I have personally seen it wreak havoc on patients, friends and even my own family. But I am on a mission to change the cancer paradigm through the practice of integrative oncology cancer treatment that integrates the best of conventional medicine with the best of alternative therapies backed by science and personalized to each patient. You need a positive voice you can trust. This podcast will share valuable information to give you practical hope for a better outcome. So I invite you to join me on this journey as we seek to change the cancer paradigm together. Hello and welcome back to the Cancer Secrets podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Jonathan Stegall. This is season four and episode number 56. In today's episode, we will be discussing some frequently asked questions I receive from my patients. I believe you will find this topic extremely helpful in your journey as well. As always, I encourage you to listen with a family member or friend. Today's episode is going to be a great one. But before we dive in, I want to let all of you know that this episode marks the three year anniversary of the Cancer Secrets podcast. Over the last three years, we have recorded 56 episodes and reached thousands of listeners from around the globe. I am humbled to be able to share this valuable information with you and so thankful that you have chosen to be part of my mission to change the cancer treatment paradigm.

Speaker1:
Now let's dive into our questions. I've chosen the most common questions I hear from patients and prospective patients, as well as those questions I've seen posted frequently online. Getting the answers to these questions correct is crucial, so please make sure you allow time to listen to this entire episode. Our first question is Why did I get cancer? Now, this is a logical question and one which is an understandable one to ask. We naturally want to know what caused it. The simple answer is that in the absence of a verified inherited genetic mutation, which comprises a very small portion of cancers, we honestly don't know exactly what caused a patient's cancer. Now, my view is that the cause of cancer is multifactorial due to a wide range of insults to the body over time. Now I illustrate this in terms of the toxic bucket. So imagine that inside each of our bodies there's a bucket and we all have different sized buckets. Maybe your bucket is slightly smaller or larger than someone else's, but basically this bucket is an example of the capacity that you have to withstand various toxic insults. So when we talk about toxins, we're talking about all of the bad things that our bodies are exposed to. So these days we're talking about things like pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, various food additives such as artificial colors and flavors.

Speaker1:
We're talking about various things in our water supply, pollutants in the air. We're talking about electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and laptop computers and all of those kind of devices. We're talking about stressors, all kinds of things which we know from scientific studies irritate our cells and ultimately cause them to not work as well. Because if you recall, when we talk about cancer, we're talking about cells which were once normal, healthy, high functioning cells which have gotten worn down over time. And rather than undergoing apoptosis, which is programmed cell death, these toxic exposed cells are left with a choice. They can either undergo apoptosis or in the case of cancer, these these cells do not undergo apoptosis. And instead, they mutate in order to survive. So a certain degree of toxic insult and a certain number of mutations which go unchecked result in a new cell type. And we term this cancer. So the toxic bucket is going to fill up. We know that in our society today, with all of the potential harms that we're exposed to, that we're going to accumulate. Some toxins in the body can handle these toxins pretty well. The body is very resilient. The body has mechanisms in place to to identify and neutralize and eliminate toxins. But at some point, these toxins can accumulate to the point where this toxic bucket overflows and the body is then in a really precarious situation.

Speaker1:
And so, you know, obviously we can get a wide range of disease states as a result of the toxic bucket overflowing. But I think cancer is probably the most likely when we have a high degree of toxins. And so when this toxic bucket overflows, we get cancer. And so when I think of cancer forming, you know, again, it's hard to usually identify the exact reason, number one, because it's impossible to go back and look at every little exposure a patient has had and and identify that as the culprit. But it's also problematic to think of it in terms of one cause, because for most people, it's it's almost certainly a variety of causes, a multiple a situation where multiple toxic insults happened over time. And so so rather than thinking about one thing that may have caused it, let's start thinking about it in terms of repeated exposures to very toxins over time. And so so getting back to our question, why did I get cancer? I think our desire to identify that cause of cancer is is due to the fact that there's this thought out there that if we simply treat the cause or remove the cause, then the cancer will go away. So that's our next question. If I treat the cause of my cancer, will my cancer go away? So let's assume that you have breast cancer. And let's say that we've been able to attribute it to several key causes.

Speaker1:
Let's say that we're attributing it to a combination of a poor diet, let's say a non organic diet, very processed lots of sugar and sodium and and preservatives and things like that. We're also attributing it to exogenous hormones. Let's say you've taken a lot of oral contraceptives, and let's also say there have been some significant life stressors. Let's say you've gone through a divorce or perhaps a significant death in the family. So these are all significant stressors and these are all things that we. Must address in our well-rounded integrative treatment protocol. So we start by increasing the quality of the diet. We talk about an organic diet with unprocessed foods. We talk about removing synthetic hormones. So stopping the oral contraceptive, we talk about incorporating an effective stress reduction program. These are all essential components of treatment. But unfortunately, these measures alone are not nearly enough to rid the body of cancer. So this idea that if we treat the cause, the cancer will just magically go away is unfortunately just not realistic. I mean, I've heard this this postulated when it comes to, oh, I have a lot of mercury amalgams in my mouth if if this is causing my cancer and I just remove these amalgams from my mouth, I go see a biological dentist, I remove the amalgams. You know, my cancer is going to then just go away because my body will now be able to to better address it.

Speaker1:
I mean, there's certainly an element of truth to the fact that if the body is bogged down with a lot of toxic burden, you know, it's not able to devote all of its resources to fighting cancer. But I've seen way too many patients who who kind of took this approach. And then, unfortunately, by the time they contacted me, they had already tried to remove all of these these toxic insults. And and unfortunately, in the meantime, they didn't seek appropriate treatment. And so their cancer got worse. So so understanding what causes cancer, trying to eliminate those those causes, that's absolutely a great approach and we need to do that. But that's not enough cancer. We need some help if we're going to effectively treat cancer. So the next question is related to that. Is it true that the body wants to heal itself and that by giving the body what it needs, I will be healed of cancer? So I absolutely agree that the human body is resilient, it's innately intelligent. The body can overcome a wide variety of insults and threats when given the proper nourishment and the proper environment. As we mentioned earlier, our world today is so toxic we're seeing more and more cancer. And I think that's a reflection of all of the the things we're exposed to, whether by choice or against our our choice. Just all these toxicities are causing cancer to not only be more prevalent, but also become even more complicated.

Speaker1:
But unfortunately, it's not as simple as simply providing missing ingredients from the natural realm. Less significant health problems often respond quite well to sort of a natural only approach. But cancer is a different animal. So you can take something like, you know, let's say leaky gut. You know, that's a that's a diagnosis that a lot of conventional physicians don't really acknowledge, but a lot of alternative practitioners do leaky gut, where those those tight junctions in the digestive tract are not as strong as they used to be. And we attribute that to, you know, poor diet, chemical exposures, things like that. Those those tight junctions are not as tight as they're supposed to be. And so that allows things that don't need to be in the body to to more easily cross that that barrier from the intestine into the body and and cause problems. So leaky gut is a big problem. And we see it a lot, something like leaky gut. I mean, we can talk about cleaning up the diet. We can talk about an appropriate supplementation regimen. We can heal leaky gut. That way the body is going to take care of the rest if we give it what it needs. There are even cases where people have, you know, some some high blood pressure or some high cholesterol. We can make some good dietary changes. The patient's on a good supplementation regimen. The body is going to be able to to do the rest.

Speaker1:
And we can normalize those numbers. Cancer is a different animal. It is just not the same thing. And, you know, maybe 100 years ago or several hundred years ago, we could we could give the body some some proper nourishment and other things, and the body would be able to fight off cancer. But I feel like today things are just way more complicated. We live in a more complicated world, a more toxic world. Cancer is is is a very aggressive foe, and we need some help. So, again, that's not to say that that giving the body a better environment is not important. It's vitally important. In fact, I mean, we want to make sure that we're giving the body good nutrition. We're staying well hydrated, we're exercising, reducing our stress. All of these things are important components of a good treatment program, but they are not enough on their own. So we talk about good nutrition. We talk about these evidence based natural therapies, things like mistletoe, pulsed, electromagnetic field therapy, also known as PMF, sort of photodynamic therapy. These are great treatments, but it's a huge mistake to think or hope that these treatments are enough on their own. Please, please, please don't make that mistake. I've had way too many patients contact my office after after trying these methods. Um, and end up in a much worse position there. Their cancer went from a stage one or two to a stage four or stage four.

Speaker1:
Cancer, which was maybe, maybe barely a stage four, is now taking over their entire body. It's very sad. Some of the cases that I've that I've unfortunately have have heard about as a result of people being misled, thinking that, oh, I just need to do some natural treatments and that that's enough. It's not enough, folks. It's not. And I think it's criminal. How many people out there, whether it's with good intentions or or I think in some cases it's probably with with poor intentions, telling people that the solution is just so simple. And they usually create this scenario of of, you know, it's big pharma, it's the government. People don't want you well, they're trying to withhold cures from you and they just want to make money. They want you sick. Look, I mean, there are a lot of people out there who are not they're not pure in their intentions. And I'm not denying that that doesn't happen on the conventional side. But there are plenty of people on the alternative side that don't have good intentions either. And so, you know, we need balance. We need to use science to our advantage. We need to use all the tools that we can to treat cancer. And and that's what I'm about here. It's an integrative approach, integrative oncology. We're using the best tools we can without bias, without without an agenda, truly with with the with the intention of of treating cancer better.

Speaker1:
And so, you know, please don't ignore any available tools that that can help you if you're fighting this battle. So our next question and this really touches on some of what I've already alluded to, why would I use conventional therapies such as surgery, chemotherapy and radiation, since these treatments are so toxic, especially since there are people who have cured their cancer with natural and alternative treatments. So I think we can all agree that conventional medicine is sometimes necessary for emergencies when there's a crisis, treatments such as pharmaceuticals and surgery really shine. I mean, think about someone in a car accident. They need to be taken to the emergency room. They're going to need some some medications. They're going to need some surgery. Possibly they're going to need a lot of these conventional modalities because acute care medicine or emergency medicine is really where I think conventional medicine shines. So I think it's time that we reframe. Cancer. Cancer is a crisis. Cancer is an emergency. You know, it gets treated or it gets viewed maybe as not as important because it's not typically something that is diagnosed. When you show up in the emergency room, it's typically something that's going to be diagnosed after you've had an outpatient procedure to have a biopsy or certain lab testing or imaging. But cancer is an emergency to the body, and that doesn't mean that you need to drop everything and immediately make a snap decision on your treatment in order to save your life.

Speaker1:
But but cancer is an emergency in that the body is in panic mode. We have an abnormal growth that is in the process of taking over the body. And that's exactly what we see with late stage cancer. All the nutrients, all the energy that's getting gobbled up by cancer so it can continue to grow and divide. We're seeing patients that can't eat enough to maintain their weight because their cancer is taking over their body. We see patients in so much pain because cancer is taking over their body. So cancer is an emergency. And I say that not to scare you, but to illustrate the fact that we do need conventional medicine. And, you know, I would love for there to be a great treatment for cancer that didn't involve chemotherapy or surgery or radiation or some of these endocrine therapies that block hormones. I would love that. I think that would be great. And I'll be honest with you, when I started my journey in integrative oncology, you know, I, I was frustrated by by what I saw in conventional oncology. I hated seeing patients undergo these these horrible side effects and experience some of these treatments. And I thought, gosh, there's got to be a better way. And my hope was that a purely natural approach would would be good enough. And I'm telling you that it's not. And I don't think it ever will be.

Speaker1:
I just don't think it's strong enough or good enough. And so, as I mentioned earlier, you know, please don't push aside some of these conventional therapies like chemotherapy and surgery and even radiation just because they're not ideal. Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of equivalent treatments in the natural realm. I mean, we all want to think that, you know, there are these natural treatments that just kill cancer with with such efficiency and effectiveness, all with no side effects that why wouldn't we use those? And again, that's what's being pushed by by certain, quote, doctors and quote experts. And I put those in quotes because I don't think there there are people we should be listening to, but they're telling us that there are all these natural treatments are out there and they're just as good or if not better than than these evil conventional therapies. And the science just doesn't support that, folks. I mean, again, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news if it's the first time you're hearing this, but it's simply not true. I mean, I, I know there are there are people out there who claim to have have cured their cancer with with natural therapies. They rejected chemotherapy and surgery and all those things. And they instead, they changed their diet and took some supplements and did some other alternative treatments. I know those cases are out there. I've read about them. I've investigated them. I'm not saying they're not real.

Speaker1:
I think I do think some people maybe are minimizing the other things they did or conveniently ignoring them, you know, conventional treatments that maybe they don't want people knowing they did in order to to make their natural treatments seem more effective. I think there probably are some people who who did truly reject all of the conventional therapies and got well with natural therapies. But but those patients are few and far between. I mean, the science just doesn't show that that you're very likely to to get better doing that. Again, I'll repeat that the data does not support that. You are likely to beat your cancer with only natural therapies. It just doesn't exist. And I kind of equate it to to deciding that you want to become rich and deciding that your method of doing that is buying a lottery ticket. You might win. You might get that lucky ticket and you might win millions of dollars. And that might be your method of of financial success. But the overwhelming majority of people who decide to buy a lottery ticket to get rich are going to fail. And I really think it's that way with with people who are who are trying to get patients to to forgo the science based conventional treatments and instead only focus on alternative treatments. So I hope that's helpful for you. And again, I'm I'm not on any payrolls from any drug companies or device manufacturers or hospitals or insurance companies or anyone.

Speaker1:
I'm truly just trying to get the good information out there to people. And with that said, I mean, none of these therapies are ideal. I mean, we know that surgery has potential side effects. We know that chemotherapy has potential side effects. We know that radiation has potential side effects. I'm not debating that. They're not ideal. It'd be better if we had treatments that that accomplished what we wanted consistently and without side effects. But but those those treatments just don't exist yet. And so we're left with needing to handpick the best conventional treatments and the best alternative treatments. And we we blend them in, in a really detailed way, in a very tailored way for each patient. And to me, that's where the magic happens. But, you know, people who contact my office expecting me to have this protocol that works 100% of the time and never has any chance of side effects. I'm frequently have to I frequently have to disappoint them and tell them, well, we do feel that our treatments have a lot lower risk of side effects and we do feel like our treatments work really well. But we we unfortunately can't guarantee sort of that perfect outcome. So our next question is, do biopsy spread cancer? I get this question a lot. And I've even had patients, prospective patients contact my office and say that they've refused biopsy because they've read that a biopsy spreads cancer. So I attribute this one to bad information as well, especially on the Internet.

Speaker1:
There are plenty of people online who will tell you not to get a biopsy because it spreads cancer. I'm not really sure where this one comes from. This is a baseless claim. There's not really any evidence to support that a biopsy is going to somehow spread cancer. A few years ago, actually, the Mayo Clinic published a paper which sought to answer this question, and they found that biopsies do not spread cancer. But what's interesting that wasn't really surprising to me. I mean, the techniques we use to to biopsy cancer is pretty sophisticated these days. But what was interesting to me was that the researchers not only investigated that, but the second part of their experiment or their study was to look at the outcomes of patients depending on whether they they pursued a biopsy or did not. And they found that patients who refused biopsies ultimately had worse treatment outcomes. And so this is attributed to the fact that their diagnosis was delayed because, you know, to diagnose cancer, we typically have to have a biopsy. So we have to have a tissue, a piece of tissue from a tumor or from a lymph node or from the bone. Or in the case of liquid cancers, we have to have a bone marrow biopsy. We have to have a biopsy showing specific characteristics under the microscope that identify it as cancer. So without those biopsies, we can't get that accurate diagnosis and we can't start treatment.

Speaker1:
So I thought that was really interesting that they found that so biopsies are a necessity in order to establish a diagnosis, and we can't effectively treat something if we don't know exactly what it is. We must first know if we're dealing with cancer. And if so, then we need to know the additional information that only the biopsy can provide. So this information is vital to develop an appropriate treatment plan. Without it, we're just guessing, and that's not what we want to do. So in my practice, a biopsy proven cancer is required to become a patient, and I don't have any concerns that the biopsy process is somehow spreading the cancer in further reflection. I think that's probably that that notion, that biopsy spread cancer is probably due to the fact that the patient had cancer, had the biopsy, and they were soon found to have stage four cancer. And so they thought, oh, well, this must have caused my cancer to spread, when in reality they had stage four cancer all along. They just hadn't had the proper workup yet to to identify it as such. So moving on, our next question is, should I avoid radiation therapy since it's toxic to the body and can cause cancer? So there's a lot of concern surrounding radiation as a cancer treatment. And and I think that makes sense. I mean we know that radiation in.

Speaker1:
General is not a good thing. We all have heard the cases of patients who had a significant exposure to radiation and they ended up getting cancer, which was attributed to that radiation. So certainly we don't want to be getting any sort of exposure that will will cause additional cancer down the road. This is another situation where the dose makes the poison. And in the case of radiation, dose matters and so does placement. Radiation has come a very long way, even compared to where it was ten or 15 years ago. You know, we now have the ability to target cancerous areas with excellent precision, with minimal damage to the surrounding areas, using lower doses than before. So there are potentially side effects with radiation, just as with any treatment. And that's why we must be very careful when and how we use radiation therapy as a tool. So I'm not against radiation therapy. I'm also not for it in all situations. I think it again, it's selective use of our tools. So there are several situations where I do think radiation can be helpful. The first is when we've gotten all the mileage we can out of other therapies and a tumor still remains. Let's say let's say we've done chemotherapy, we've we've done some endocrine therapy in cases where hormones are driving the cancer, we've really maxed out our nutrition. We were on a good supplementation regimen, but some cancer still remains. And maybe that cancer is is is not amenable to surgery or radiation can be a really good solution there to pinpoint that area and potentially eradicate the cancer in that area.

Speaker1:
The second situation where radiation can be viable, and I alluded to this a minute ago, is maybe surgery is not an option. You know, ideally, we like to think of surgery being the sort of the best case scenario, but maybe, maybe the location of a tumor is not amenable to surgery. So radiation can be a great solution there. The third situation is when surgery is an option, but radiation represents a less invasive approach that provides equal or better eradication of the cancer. Some locations you don't want to have to go do surgery, which is so invasive. It's an incision, it's anesthesia, it's moving around other structures to get to the tumor. And and maybe it's going to be a messy surgery or maybe surgery is going to be more dangerous. Radiation can be a really good option in those cases. Fourth, radiation can often be used to target an area that has previously been treated to address any microscopic cancer cells that remain. So an example of this would be a woman with breast cancer who has a breast mass. She has surgery in the form of a lumpectomy or a partial mastectomy. Clear margins were obtained, but maybe there some concern that some some cancer cells have escaped. Radiation can be can be very helpful in those situations to that area.

Speaker1:
And fifth, sometimes it can be used in palliative fashion to reduce pain and suffering. So maybe maybe a patient has some some pretty damaging bone metastases. And they have a lot of bone pain, which can be extremely painful. Your radiation can sometimes be used to to address that and really improve the the level of discomfort. So I would encourage you not to write radiation therapy off. It's a great treatment. That just might be the missing portion of your protocol. Our next question is, should I avoid scans using radiation or contrast? You know, I have a lot of patients who are concerned about certain imaging modalities which which incorporate radiation and or the use of contrast to produce an image. And this is an interesting question, and it's really similar to the previous question about radiation therapy as a treatment. We know that that radiation can be harmful in high doses. And we're discussing imaging. It's important to consider the amount of radiation exposure. For example, images such as x rays and mammograms contain less radiation than a CT scan or a PET CT scan. And of course, ultrasounds and MRIs contain no radiation. And of course, we sometimes need to use a contrast agent so that pictures pictures show up better on imaging and in contrast, typically is given either orally, which is by mouth or more commonly intravenously into a vein. And this does place some stress on the kidneys, which for most patients is not a problem at all.

Speaker1:
But patients who have impaired kidney function would need to be more careful with that. But this is another example of if we view cancer as a war, we might need to lose a few battles along the way. And again, in a perfect world, we'd be able to avoid radiation and contrast completely. But the reality is that some of these imaging modalities which do use radiation and or contrast, they're superior in their ability to provide us information we need to better evaluate and monitor cancer. So in those cases, I do think we should use those those modalities. We should we should understand that we're we're getting something that's not. We're getting some radiation and some contrast to give us the information we need to to best treat and manage the patient. Avoiding imaging simply because it isn't ideal, especially when that gives us crucial information we can't get any other way, is a mistake. So my approach is to get imaging when needed. A picture is truly worth 1000 words and we want to make sure we get the right picture. But we also must have a healthy respect for for imaging and not overuse it. I see a lot of patients who have, in my opinion, been over image, they've been over scanned, they've had CT scans and PET CT scans way too frequently, and I think that can be harmful. So we have to be careful.

Speaker1:
We have to approach it with caution, but we also don't need to be so scared of it that we're missing out on information that we need just because it's not ideal. And keep in mind, there are definitely some nutritional approaches using a few supplements that can can really help the body be more protected during and after imaging. So we're able to reduce some of those potential harmful effects. So these typically are things like some antioxidants. So things like vitamin C, vitamin E, curcumin can be helpful there. There are different supplements that we can we can often take the day or two before, as well as the day of and the day or two after imaging to to reduce those those risks. And this provides a nice segue into our next question, which is why should I get a mammogram when I can just have thermography? So thermography uses a thermal camera to image heat patterns. So this is typically used to to survey the breasts and the ability of thermography to detect a very small change in temperature is really quite amazing. So so we know that that even slight, you know, 10th of a degree change in temperature within an area can can really signal inflammation. And so we know that cancer is one of many things that can cause inflammation. So the logic is that thermography is a natural and safe alternative to mammograms, since we're able to detect these areas of of change and that these can be, you know, the thermal exams can be better than mammograms because they're not using radiation and they're not compressing the breasts the way mammograms do.

Speaker1:
And so they're they're promoted as an alternative to mammograms. But unfortunately, thermography is not FDA approved to screen for breast cancer, nor can it diagnose breast cancer. So mammograms are considered the first line screening test for detecting breast cancer. And then if there is a concern, then ultrasounds are typically sort of the second line. So mammogram, the disadvantage is they use radiation, they compress the breasts. And we don't know if that can cause a problem for some women other than pain, obviously, and discomfort, they're not comfortable. So thermal Graham's appeal, right. Thermal thermography is appealing because we're not using any contrast to the kidneys have to process the liver doesn't matter process we're not using radiation we're not compressing the breasts. Sounds amazing. I will tell you, though, I do think mammograms are the best way to evaluate for the presence of breast cancer. You know, I like thermography. I have I have a thermography camera in my office. I use it sometimes. I do think that it can be helpful, but only as an adjunctive or supportive imaging modality. Use it in addition to mammograms, not instead of mammograms. And I say that not only because we know that the FDA has been clear on mammograms being the image of choice to image the breasts.

Speaker1:
But I've seen patients who have relied on Thermo Graham's always got clear results. And then they they got a mammogram and and abnormalities were found that turned out to be cancer. So I've seen thermal gram's missed cancer that mammograms detected. I've also seen the reverse. I've seen patients who had a normal mammogram only to have thermography pick up an area of inflammation that turned out to be cancer. So I've seen it go both ways. So obviously neither modality is perfect. I feel that thermography shines in imaging the more surface level parts of the breast, so the skin and the area is close to the skin. The areas deep down are not going to be captured as well by detecting heat changes. Mammograms are better at those deeper areas. And so so I recommend that women have mammograms at regularly scheduled intervals. I think it's the best way to give a good a good picture, but supplement that with firmer grams. Why not why not try to get the best of both worlds and do both if if time and money and schedule allow do both do your mammograms don't don't skimp on those, but add thermography as well just in case the mammogram might miss something that thermography detects. And then obviously further investigation would be warranted at that time. So I hope that's helpful. Our next question is, does sugar feed cancer? So the short answer is yes, sugar feeds cancer. Absolutely. We know that the cancer cells gobble up sugar.

Speaker1:
Cancer cells are highly metabolically active that they need that that fuel to to grow and spread. And so sugar feeds cancer. The example of the PET scan is often given that we're using radio labeled glucose. Cancer cells readily take up that contrast agent because it has that that sugar in it. So yes, we know that sugar feeds cancer, but saying sugar feeds cancer is often followed by advice to avoid sugar and possibly eat a low carbohydrate diet. And this is this advice has given an effort to somehow starve cancer of its fuel source. The problem with this thinking is that sugar isn't the only energy source available to cancer cells. Cancer also loves protein. Cancer loves fat. Cancer even loves ketones, which are made when the body doesn't have carbohydrates. We make ketones. Cancer can readily use these macronutrients for energy, such as carbohydrates, protein and fat. So cancer cells, if you'll recall, were healthy cells at one time. And like healthy cells, various sources of energy can be used depending on what's available. So if you switch to a low carb ketogenic diet, the body is still going to make glucose from other sources, such as protein and fat. This process is known as gluconeogenesis. Cancer cells have high energy needs, and we'll use whatever energy sources that are available to continue to grow and divide at a high rate. So the idea that we can starve cancer by simply avoiding one macronutrient such as carbohydrates is wrong.

Speaker1:
If cancer were that simple, we would see people on ketogenic diets have their cancer vanish. And trust me, that's not what happens. I've seen many patients who tried ketogenic diets with little to no benefit, and at times it's actually seemed to make their cancer worse. So what we're learning is that, number one, cancer is highly adaptable. Number two, certain cancers will prefer some energy sources over others. And so obviously we want to make sure we're restricting those. But I found the best strategy is is to eat a balanced diet. And so that leads us into our next question. What kind of diet should I eat if I have cancer in? This question also applies if you're asking the question, what should I eat if I want to avoid cancer? So this is obviously the million dollar question. And to be honest, we don't have conclusive scientific research on this topic, but we do have good evidence that a diet high in fruits and vegetables, as well as legumes, grains, nuts and seeds is associated with lower risks of cancer compared to other diets. So so these these studies are based on observations of different cultures throughout the world, cultures that have been studied over time to see what they eat and what their health outcomes are. We also do have some research on patients who have cancer and what kind of diet seems to work best in terms of of of overall health and minimizing treatment side effects and that kind of thing.

Speaker1:
So we keep coming back to a plant focused diet, but beyond that, the details become less clear cut. So for example, how much animal protein is okay, if any? What about dairy is a little sugar every now and then? Okay, from time to time? To be honest, we don't know the answers to these questions and we possibly never will. I know a lot of you are probably on a specific diet, whether it be vegan, ketogenic, Gerson Therapy, the BUD Protocol. There are lots of anti cancer diets out there and you can find examples within each of these dietary approaches of patients who have supposedly had success with them. But I believe you have the best chance of success with a diet heavy in plants. And the reason for this isn't because there's something inherently wrong with animal protein. I believe our digestive systems are fully capable of handling animal protein just fine, and there are a lot of important nutrients and things in animal protein that you just can't get easily through plants. But the reason I favor a plant focused diet is because of the amino acid methionine. So if you've listened to some of my other episodes, I've talked about this amino acid. So amino acids are of course the building blocks of proteins. So when you eat a protein containing food where you're getting some or all of the various amino acids, and we know that cancer cells have a requirement for this amino acid methionine.

Speaker1:
And methionine is needed by normal healthy cells as well. The interesting difference is that cancer cells do not have the ability to recycle methionine. So all the methionine that they need has to be obtained in the diet. So normal cells can get by on a small amount of methionine because they can just recycle it. So healthy cells are recycling methionine for the various needs, but cancer cells cannot do that. So to me it makes sense. Let's restrict my. Signing as much as we can. So when you look at methane levels in food, you find that plants have the lowest level of methionine and animal products have the highest level of methionine. So to me, it just makes sense to to eat a diet that is heavily reliant on fruits, vegetables, beans, grains, nuts and seeds. Because if we eat a low methionine diet, we theoretically are depriving cancer of a very, very necessary amino acid that it needs. So again, we're focusing on highly nutritious foods from the earth. We're eating organic as much as possible. I would encourage you to purposely eat some foods raw and others cooked. I know some people will say you need to eat exclusively raw diet. I don't agree with that. There's been some research showing that some foods are better when they are lightly sauteed. Tomatoes are a great example of that.

Speaker1:
You can kind of Google which foods are better raw, which ones are better cooked and you'll you'll see some different research on that on on the first page of your search results. But it's actually pretty interesting. So, so a mix seems to be important, raw versus cooked. Obviously, avoid processed food as much as you can. I do believe that varying the diet as much as possible is important. That means eating a wide range of colors, textures and flavors. Absolutely incorporate herbs and spices in your cooking. A lot of really great benefits from herbs and spices, as well as imparting some really good flavor to food as well. And I think also it's not only about what we eat, but what we don't eat and when we eat, I think fasting has a real wide application here. I mean, research just keeps pouring in as to the value of fasting. I had a good interview a couple of seasons ago on this podcast with Dr. Valter Longo. He is an aging researcher at USC, and he he studied fasting and its effect on on health and aging and lifespan and in his research has just been incredible in terms of the benefits of fasting. So so that's strategically not eating at specific times, whether that's an intermittent fast where certain days you're you're not eating part of the day or you're actually taking a day or two or three or in some cases four or five in a row periodically and not eating.

Speaker1:
And there's different ways of doing that. There's water fast where you're only consuming water. There's there are broth fasts where you're only consuming vegetable broth or or chicken broth, something like that. And there's other ways to do fast as well. But you've maybe heard of Juice Fast, which again, if you're consuming calories, it's not really a fast but but the idea is that you're restricting certain foods in order to promote healing. And so so the this could be a whole episode but but but fasting is going to do a few key things. It's going to help regenerate the immune system. It's going to increase autophagy. So those normal, healthy cells are going to be able to recycle waste material and and improve their their function in their lifespan. Fasting has actually been shown to help response to treatment. So in my practice, we actually have patients fast leading up to chemotherapy. So that chemotherapy is enhanced and side effect profile is is improved, things like that. So fasting has a lot of potential value and obviously fasting is not something to to to do casually and please do it under the direction of your of your physician. But fasting can be a really good approach as well. So I think by fasting we're only going to help ourselves as long as it's done in a in an intelligent manner. Obviously, staying well hydrated is important. Minimize alcohol consumption.

Speaker1:
Don't smoke. If you're doing all these things I just went over, you're giving yourself a highly nutritious diet that puts you way, way, way ahead of 99% of the population. You can know that you're getting a plethora of cancer fighting components when you eat this kind of diet. And so by this point, whether or not you decide to have a serving of salmon once a week or a nice grass fed steak every now and then, or some dairy on occasion becomes a lot less of an issue if if it's an issue at all. So I mention that because I know that people people often will ask, well, Doctor Segal, what about this food? What about that food? I don't know the answer, because the research hasn't told us in terms of of how much of food is okay or is it certain food okay or is a certain food bad? We don't know that. But but if you're minimizing something that may be of questionable value, I don't think it's going to harm you as if it were a prominent part of your diet. So I hope that's helpful. I mean, think more in terms of guidelines than in terms of absolutes. And if you're taking care of the guidelines, then you're going to be in good shape and you can leave leave the details up to other people to argue about and figure out. So I hope you found this episode helpful. I know we covered.

Speaker1:
A lot. I realized that there are probably more questions out there that are frequently asked that I didn't cover. So this is a good reminder if if there's a question that you feel that you've been wrestling with that we didn't cover today or or you've you've seen covered a lot, you know, in books or online or somewhere else. You can leave us a voicemail. Leave us a voicemail message on our website with your question. And we will do our best to answer it on an upcoming episode. Just go to Cancer Secrets dot com for podcasts and click on the prompt on the right side of the page to record your question. And that question will get sent to us and my team will get that to me and I will do my best to answer that on a future episode. If you're enjoying these podcasts, please take a minute and provide a review on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. And as a reminder, please subscribe to the Cancer Secrets podcast to be notified when new episodes are released. We have some great shows planned later this season and I can't wait to share them with you. And as always, please share this podcast with your family and friends. All previous episodes are available for free on our websites at Cancer Secrets dot com or wherever you listen to podcasts. I look forward to many great episodes coming up later this season. Until next time. Bye bye.

Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.

Automatically convert your mp3 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.

Sonix has many features that you’d love including transcribe multiple languages, automated transcription, share transcripts, world-class support, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.