[JamesBell]

So since we all develop cancer cells at some point doesn't this same logic hold to not "feed" them? And we might not be able to starve constantly but we can avoid producing insulin. I hope more studies can prove the links between dietary choices and cancer.

[bryondowd]

From the abstract posted by Junto, it looks like the idea isn't to starve the cancer cells, it's to starve the healthy cells. The point being that when starving, healthy cells stop growing and become less susceptible to chemo drugs, while the cancer cells ignore the starvation and keep growing, so do not get the same protection.

Imagine a TV scene where the hero starts yelling 'get down' in a crowded area before a gunfight breaks out. The 'bad guys' stay upright and the confused civilians duck, so fewer civilians get shot.

IANABiologist

[ansible]

It is an interesting theory, that does make sense... not that "making sense" means that the theory is true!

It may be worthwhile to conduct more studies in this direction. I'd be interested to know how soon after the patient stops eating will be the maximum difference in response between normal and cancer cells. And if this is more effective for short chemo treatments, or for the longer ones.

[agumonkey]

A biology student told me that Cancer cells are "running" in a partial state and don't require the same amount of nutrients that normally functioning cells do, therefore if you stop feeding cells altogether, the healthy ones will die first.

[titanomachy]

The idea behind this article is that the normal cells will slow down in response to starvation, while the cancer cells will keep going at full tilt because their regulatory mechanisms are shot.