Overall, we estimated that 40.8% of incident cancer cases were attributable to exposure to the 24 factors included in the analysis (Table 2). Tobacco smoking was responsible for the greatest cancer burden, accounting for an estimated 15.7% of all incident cancer cases (2485 cases), followed by physical inactivity and excess body weight, which were responsible for an estimated 7.2% and 4.3% of incident cancer cases, respectively. All other exposures of interest were estimated to be responsible for less than 4.0% of incident cancer cases each. [Source]More specifically, researchers are pointing out the connection between the body's insulin response to food and cancer metabolism. In short, there is a paradigm shift taking place and we are admitting that food can either feed or starve cancer cells. Here, in a piece for The Los Angeles Times, writer Sam Apple explains this connection:
Lewis Cantley, the director of the cancer center at Weill Cornell Medicine, has been at the forefront of the cancer metabolism revival. Cantley's best explanation for the obesity-cancer connection is that both conditions are also linked to elevated levels of the hormone insulin. His research has revealed how insulin drives cells to grow and take up glucose (blood sugar) by activating a series of genes, a pathway that has been implicated in most human cancers.Does this mean that these new revelations about cancer and the foods which cause it will trigger a widespread shift in the consumption habits of ordinary people? Will people switch to real food and abandon fake food?
The problem isn't the presence of insulin in our blood. We all need insulin to live. But when insulin rises to abnormally high levels and remains elevated (a condition known as insulin resistance, common in obesity), it can promote the growth of tumors directly and indirectly. Too much insulin and many of our tissues are bombarded with more growth signals and more fuel than they would ever see under normal metabolic conditions. And because elevated insulin directs our bodies to store fat, it can also be linked to the various ways the fat tissue itself is thought to contribute to cancer.
Having recognized the risks of excess insulin-signaling, Cantley and other metabolism researchers are following the science to its logical conclusion: The danger may not be simply eating too much, as is commonly thought, but rather eating too much of the specific foods most likely to lead to elevated insulin levels — easily digestible carbohydrates in general, and sugar in particular.
This is not to say that all cancers are caused by too much insulin or that we should never eat sugar again. Michael Pollak, a metabolism researcher and director of cancer prevention at McGill University in Canada, says that the best approach to sugar is to think of it like a spice — something to occasionally sprinkle on foods, as opposed to an ingredient in nearly every meal and too many drinks.
... researchers have made progress in understanding the diet-cancer connection. The advances have emerged in the somewhat esoteric field of cancer metabolism, which investigates how cancer cells turn the nutrients we consume into fuel and building blocks for new cancer cells.
Largely ignored in the last decades of the 20th century, cancer metabolism has undergone a revival as researchers have come to appreciate that some of the most well-known cancer-causing genes, long feared for their role in allowing cancer cells to proliferate without restraint, have another, arguably even more fundamental role: allowing cancer cells to "eat" without restraint. This research may yield a blockbuster cancer treatment, but in the meantime it can provide us with something just as crucial - knowledge about how to prevent the disease in the first place. [Source]
Could it also mean that major food companies will face some degree of liability for producing addictive foods which are extremely high in sugars, artificial sweeteners, refined carbohydrates and other ingredients which trigger the body's insulin response?
Will we now see a link emerge between diabetes and cancer, since diabetes is now the fastest growing disease in America?
Meanwhile, expensive cancer treatments are increasingly being recognized as a common detriment to surviving cancer, and all the while alternative treatments are still being suppressed and banished from the country.
The cancer industrial complex is negligent in warning people that chemotherapy is now known to actually make some cancers spread and make some tumors more aggressive. Government and its myriad regulatory agencies work diligently to prevent access to natural or alternative cancer treatments, and doctors and the mainstream media give the impression that the causes of cancer are a mystery. [Source]It's important to remember that there is a wealth of information on how diet affects both the likelihood to get cancer, but also how diet can play a significant role in surviving cancer. Celebrity Tommy Chong told us how diet and cannabis cured his cancer. Blogger and activist Chris Wark recorded his recovery from cancer with the help of improved diet, and now shares survivor stories.
It is also important to remember that programs like Raw for Thirty are demonstrating significant results in helping people to reverse the symptoms of diabetes by switching to a raw foods diet.
Comment: Alternately, there has been much success in reversing diabetes with a paleo/ketogenic template.
Final Thoughts
Healthy choices clearly have a big impact on cancer, and now that mainstream sources are telling us that almost half of all cancers may potentially be preventable with dietary and lifestyle changes, we have all the info we need to drastically reduce cancer rates.
Spiritually, different foods are packed with life force (an energetic variable).