It’s always good to remember that healing requires nourishment, it’s not about deprivation. I personally eat for nutrient-density, and I never force myself to eat something I don’t like just because it’s labeled “healthy.” Our bodies have an innate wisdom, and sometimes we just need to listen to its cues.
- Does sugar feed cancer?
This idea is an oversimplification. All cells, including healthy ones, use glucose (sugar) for energy, so it’s not just cancer cells that “feed” on sugar. The real problem isn’t glucose itself, it’s the way cancer cells are forced to use it. Cancer cells are metabolically dysfunctional. They struggle to produce energy efficiently. Instead of relying on oxidative phosphorylation, the body’s primary and most efficient energy pathway, cancer cells shift toward glycolysis, a stress-driven, inefficient process that rapidly consumes glucose to compensate for their inability to generate ATP properly. This shift is often referred to as the Warburg effect, and it’s a sign of mitochondrial dysfunction, not simply sugar overconsumption.
Many have attempted to “starve” cancer by cutting off its glucose supply, but if that worked, we would have solved cancer a long time ago. The body is hardwired to maintain blood sugar because glucose is essential for life, not just for cancer cells but for healthy tissues like the brain, red blood cells, and immune cells. When dietary glucose is restricted, the body doesn’t just let energy levels drop, it breaks down its own tissues, including muscle, to create glucose. Cancer cells, which are highly adaptable, also find other fuel sources. They can shift to using fatty acids and glutamine through alternative metabolic pathways, meaning glucose restriction alone does not “starve” them.
So no, avoiding sugar will not cure cancer. In fact, completely cutting out carbohydrates weakens the rest of the body, slowing recovery and leading to muscle loss. However, not all sugars are the same. While I do not recommend high-fructose corn syrup, natural sources of carbohydrates are important for proper cellular function and energy production. The focus should not be on sugar restriction, but on supporting mitochondrial function, reducing metabolic stress, and maintaining the body’s strength to fight disease.
- Does fasting “starve” cancer and shrink tumors?
Although it’s widely promoted in the functional health space, I believe fasting is unphysiological. Animals in nature never fast, they eat when their body tells them to. In fact, if we see an animal avoiding food, we assume that they are sick. To heal, we need to nourish ourselves.
Cancer is already a low-energy state, where the body struggles to produce and use energy efficiently from the food we eat. Fasting can make this worse. It forces the body to rely on stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline, which break down our muscles and organs for energy, suppress immunity, and drive inflammation. Meanwhile, cancer cells are highly adaptable; they don’t just “starve” when glucose is low, they shift to using alternative fuels like glutamine and fatty acids.
Fasting doesn’t starve cancer. I’ve seen too many patients lose precious strength by trying to deprive their bodies instead of supporting them. Instead of restriction, the focus should be on restoring energy: nourishing the mitochondria, maintaining muscle, and restoring energy production. Cancer recovery isn’t about doing less, it’s about giving your body what it needs to heal.
- Does red meat cause cancer?
Many studies claiming that red meat causes cancer fail to make a crucial distinction: the difference between processed, industrially raised meat and organic, grass-fed meat. The majority of research linking red meat to cancer relies on epidemiological studies, which only show correlation, not causation.
These studies often group all types of red meat together—lumping processed meats like hot dogs and deli meats, which contain nitrates, preservatives, and oxidized fats, with high-quality, unprocessed grass-fed beef. They often rely on food frequency questionnaires, a notoriously unreliable method where participants self-report their diet over long periods.
From a biological perspective, grass-fed, organic red meat does not inherently promote cancer. It is rich in high-quality protein and key nutrients like zinc and B vitamins all of which support mitochondrial function and proper cell repair. Unlike conventionally raised meat, which contains higher levels of inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids from grain feeding, grass-fed meat has a more favorable fatty acid profile.
Historical and anthropological data show that groups like the Maasai, who consume a diet high in red meat and animal fats, have low incidences of cancer and metabolic disease compared to Western populations. The real problem is not red meat itself but the modern diet that often accompanies it—one filled with seed oils and chemical-laden foods. Blaming organic, grass-fed red meat for cancer is a misinterpretation of the data, failing to account for food quality, overall diet composition, and lifestyle factors that play a much greater role in cancer development.
- What does my diet look like?
- Eggs
- Beef – including lamb and bison
- Oxtails, lamb shanks, beef shanks
- Organ meats – liver
- Bone marrow
- Baked or roasted chicken
- Milk, butter, cheese, crème fraîche, ghee
- Orange juice
- Coconut water
- Coffee with cream and honey
- Raw coconut meat
- Gelatin – preferably as broth or soup but powder also
- Honey, pollen, royal jelly, propolis
- Fruit – bananas, plantains, berries, melons, dates, guavas, oranges, pineapple, cooked apples, cooked pears
- Potatoes, yams, sweet potatoes
- Grains – homemade sourdough einkorn bread, oatmeal, creamed rice, creamed einkorn wheat
- Vegetable fruits – savory squash, pumpkin
- Caviar and oysters on the half shell
- Carrots, well-cooked mushrooms