I thought I remembered something about certain nutrients (magnesium?) being something you could intentionally reduce to slow down cancer growth -- kind of like a DIY chemotherapy; your cells need Mg to grow and multiply, but cancer cells need it more. Paired with other treatments, where applicable, the reduced nutrient diet had positive clinical outcomes.
The comment I was replying to made a specific claim that I was referring to.
Regarding your definition of quality nutrition, you'll have to be more specific. You can find scientific research to support nearly any dietary choice.
Everything I have read on the subject says obesity, a nutritional imbalance, is one of the main contributors to cancer growth, and specifically a reduction in sugar and meat have significant positive results in combating cancer's growth.
>> But Mukherjee’s August 2018 paper in Nature also found that a ketogenic diet was helpful — even “synergistic” — with certain cancers and certain treatments. At least in mice.
>> “It’s probably most helpful in cancers that utilize the PIK3CA / AKT / MTOR pathway [an intracellular signaling pathway]”
Weird I feel like I read the opposite, that a high protein/fat diet would slow cancer because it thrives on glucose, so cutting carbs/sugar was key.
It seems counter intuitive to me that meat & sugar would both be correlated because they are almost opposites from a metabolic standpoint. One is pure fat/protein and one is just glucose.
There is no reliable evidence that red meat consumption increases cancer risk. You are spreading medical misinformation by incorrectly interpreting low-quality observational studies.