Cancer, Chemotherapy, and Exercise

Robert Thomas, a top oncologist over in the United Kingdom, says there's a mountain of evidence—real research here—showing that patients who stay active have a much higher shot at keeping cancer from coming back. Plus, they actually feel way better than people just banking everything on chemo.

Dr. Thomas even goes as far as claiming that hitting two hours of exercise a week can have the same impact on the disease as chemotherapy itself. Think about that. It would basically mean chemo isn't even necessary, especially when you consider all those brutal side effects.

It sounds absolutely insane!!!

What's everyone else's take on this?

Read more on my blog:

http://zdravljeinfo.blogspot.com/

urbanorca said:Prof. Dr. Robert Thomas, a leading oncologist in the United Kingdom, points out there is substantial evidence (and plenty of research) suggesting that patients who stay active have a much higher chance of preventing cancer recurrence and feeling significantly better compared to those relying solely on chemotherapy.

Dr. Thomas even goes as far as to claim that exercising for more than two hours a week can have an impact on the disease comparable to undergoing chemotherapy—which would imply, in principle, that chemo might not even be necessary (not to mention its brutal side effects).

It’s almost unbelievable!!!

What does everyone else think?

Read more on my blog:

http://zdravljeinfo.blogspot.com/

If that were actually true, someone like Lance Armstrong would have never even gotten sick. Look, while physical activity is definitely desirable whenever your body allows it—and always in coordination with your doctor—I'm still using Armstrong as an example here. 👍 Unfortunately, it isn't a silver bullet; after all, Terry Fox ran half of Canada, yet the disease ultimately won.

Angela Wright said:If that were true, Lance Armstrong wouldn't have even gotten cancer in the first place. Look, exercise is great—as long as your body allows it and you clear it with your doctor first—but I'm definitely using Armstrong as the example here. 👍 Sadly, there are no guarantees. Even Terry Fox ran half of Canada, and in the end, the illness still won.

Seriously? Of all people, you pick Lance as an example? That guy put everything in his body, so honestly, I'm not surprised cancer caught up with him.

stormyheron4 said:Seriously? Using Lance Armstrong as an example? That guy was using everything under the sun, so I wouldn't be surprised if cancer caught up with him.

What makes you think he was "using" anything? As far as I know, there isn't any proof—or even a scandal of that magnitude—to back that claim up.
We all push our bodies to the limit, and pinpointing exact triggers is nearly impossible. The bottom line is this: the man competed at the highest level of professional sports, beat cancer, and fought his way right back to the top.

Angela Wright said:How can you be so sure he was "using"? As far as I know, there isn't any actual proof or even a major scandal surrounding this.
Look, we all mess around with stuff sometimes, and pinpointing specific triggers is tough. The bottom line is the guy competes at the highest level, beat cancer, and fought his way back to the top.

Honestly, I just happened to hear some whispers in certain sports circles about what he might have been taking. Let’s be real—plenty of elite athletes use all sorts of banned substances. They just get really good at "cleaning up" in time. Basically, they make sure their performance doesn't tank before the big game, ensuring the drug test comes back clean.

There’s a ton of stuff floating around the internet about Lance Armstrong and his drug use. Just try searching for it on Google.

urbanorca said:Prof. Dr. Robert Thomas, a leading oncologist in the United Kingdom, points out that there is substantial evidence—and plenty of research, really—suggesting that patients who stay active have a significantly higher chance of preventing recurrence and generally feel much better than those who rely solely on chemotherapy.

Of course, it can be beneficial, but we’re talking about moderate exercise here, not anything extreme.
Then again, we aren't all built the same way, so the effects won't be identical for everyone—plus, it heavily depends on the specific type of carcinoma being dealt with and its current stage.

It’s possible that for those who haven't dealt with metastasis, they might not have endured the sheer terror of chemotherapy or had everything caught early enough. In many cases, a person is practically considered healthy, yet there's always that underlying, quiet fear lurking in the back of their mind about a recurrence or something surfacing elsewhere. Still, exercising in and of itself isn't going to cause any harm, though personally, I don't believe it will actually improve the situation. Cancer is much like weeds; you can pull them out by the roots, but there is never any real guarantee that they won't just sprout up again somewhere else.

If we’re all supposedly different individuals, then why on earth are doctors prescribing basically the exact same chemotherapy protocols to everyone, even when the side effects are absolutely brutal? Can anyone actually explain the logic behind this?

urbanorca said:If we're all different biological entities, why do doctors prescribe almost identical chemotherapy regimens that come with such brutal side effects? Can anyone explain this?

It’s because current research shows those standard therapies still yield the best results overall. Cancer treatment is strictly governed by evidence-based protocols right now. That said, there's groundbreaking work happening at universities like Stanford—including research involving Dr. Šikić—that focuses specifically on tailoring treatments to the individual. From what I gathered from his lecture at the Mayo Clinic, the results look incredibly promising, even for some of the rarer tumor types.

We all want to be perfectly healthy and completely cured once we fall ill. But the reality is that modern medicine can currently only offer life extension for those who have been diagnosed. Depending on the diagnosis, once a certain period passes and the cancer is in remission, a person might be considered "cured," though that doesn't necessarily guarantee the disease won't return. It's a hard fact people just have to learn to live with. However, most survivors who successfully navigate treatment end up with a totally rebuilt mental framework; through those new insights, they often go on to live much fuller, higher-quality lives.

urbanorca said:If we are all different species—or at least unique individuals—then why on earth do doctors prescribe almost identical chemotherapy protocols that carry such devastating side effects? Can anyone actually explain this?

Well, there's your answer from Angela Wright. Though, if you look closer, every single chemo regimen is technically distinct—which I suppose is the medical way of saying they are attempting an individualized approach, even if it doesn't always feel that way—and there are also various combination methods used.

Yes, the side effects are brutal, but when you consider the current reality of the situation, it’s essentially a choice between two evils; most people will opt for the lesser of them while simultaneously trying their best to maintain a healthy lifestyle along the way.

urbanorca said:If we are all different species biologically, why do doctors prescribe nearly identical chemotherapy protocols that carry such devastating side effects? Can anyone explain this?

Chemotherapy exists primarily to generate massive profits. Its function is simply to smother the cancer and lull it into dormancy while simultaneously destroying essential healthy cells in the process.
Once the treatment cycle ends, the cancer often returns even more aggressive, having utilized the body's own resources to defend itself. It remains invisible and unrecognizable to the host's immune system because the system perceives it as normal tissue.

The day the pharmaceutical industry finds they are losing more money than they are making from cancer will be the day a completely free cure is announced.
Personally, I know more people who died from the side effects of therapy—with their organs completely ravaged and poisoned—than those who actually died from the cancer itself. Rarely does the disease kill you in the end; more often, the white coats kill you with bad medicine.

ruggedscout91 said:Chemotherapy exists solely to line the pockets of Big Pharma; its only real function is to crush cancer into a temporary dormancy while simultaneously nuking every other vital cell in the body.
Once you pause treatment and the chemo wears off, the cancer comes back even more aggressive, having used up all the host's resources to fortify itself. Because it’s essentially invisible, the host's immune system just treats it like normal tissue.

The day the pharmaceutical industry starts losing more money than they make from cancer is the day they’ll suddenly announce a totally free cure.
Personally, I know more people who died from the side effects of therapy—with their organs completely trashed and poisoned—than I do from cancer itself. People rarely die from the disease; they’re killed by the white coats and their toxic drugs.

ruggedscout91, before I really dug into the specifics, I felt almost exactly the same way you do.
But look, life isn't as black-and-white as you're painting it. I had a mother who tried treating her cancer exclusively through alternative methods, and predictably, it came back. Eventually, she switched to conventional medicine, and that was the only thing that actually moved the needle. She passed away in the end, but not because chemo failed her—it was because she had glioblastoma, a disease that is basically a death sentence from day one. Chemo and radiation gave us more quality time with her; alternative routes gave us nothing.
I'm not being closed-minded; even today, I am still searching for someone who cured themselves of cancer using *only* alternative means, provided they can show me the clinical evidence before and after treatment. On the flip side, everyone I know who actually beat it was treated with conventional medicine.
The real issue lies in expectations and how we perceive malignant diseases. They are complex, aggressive beasts, and there is no "magic bullet" solution in this fight.
And honestly, the pharma industry isn't quite the monolithic superpower people make it out to be. They are hamstrung by massive regulatory hurdles they have to jump through just to develop a single drug and prove it's both effective and safe. There are multiple, independent layers of oversight deciding whether a drug hits the market. In fact, those very regulations are why so many drugs remain unavailable for certain uses, even when scientific evidence shows they actually work...
....but all of this only becomes obvious once you actually dive deep into the actual science.

Angela Wright, solid answer, thanks.

The only thing I don't get is why a top-tier oncologist in the United Kingdom would claim that exercise has the same effect on cancer—actually, a more positive one—than chemotherapy?

It's his reputation on the line!

We all know what kind of issues chemo brings to the table, so maybe it's worth looking into other options, especially if there aren't side effects and it doesn't cost a dime.

Doctors, both here in the States and pretty much everywhere else, tend to push whatever makes them the most money. Take statins, for example; in the US, they're prescribed at a massive scale, yet for about 90% of people, they do more harm than good.

urbanorca said:Angela Wright, great answer, thanks.

The only thing I can't wrap my head around is why a top-tier oncologist in the United Kingdom would claim that exercise has the same effect—actually, an even more positive one—on cancer than chemotherapy.

He’s putting his entire reputation on the line here!

We all know the baggage that comes with chemo, so maybe it’s worth looking at other options, especially if they don't come with side effects and don't cost a dime.

Doctors, whether here in the States or almost anywhere else globally, tend to push whatever generates the most profit. Take statins, for example; in the US, hundreds of millions are spent on them, yet for about 90% of people, they do more harm than good.

I suspect his statement was taken completely out of context. Anything positive that surrounds someone facing a fundamentally brutal situation like a cancer diagnosis can have a massive impact on how the body fights back.
It’s rare to see anyone who stayed trapped in a negative mindset actually beat cancer. Most survivors I've seen were positive, had a solid support system, and refused to let the illness dictate their lives; instead, they took control of the disease by focusing on things that genuinely enriched their quality of life. In that sense, physical activity is definitely one of those critical factors just as vital as taking medication, but one should never be used as a replacement for the other. This is incredibly slippery territory, which is why I think the quote was misinterpreted or ripped from its original meaning.

When it comes to cancer in America, the real issue is the lack of education and the sheer irresponsibility of a population that continues to fall victim to types of cancer that could be prevented or caught early enough to avoid chemo altogether. These specific types are the most common, and they're also where the hated pharmaceutical industry makes its biggest margins. Unfortunately, we live in a society where everyone is quick to wave their rights in the air but forgets to shoulder their responsibilities. If that dynamic changed, this whole conversation would take on a completely different dimension.

Angela Wright said:I think his statement was taken way out of context. Anything positive that can surround someone facing a fundamentally brutal situation—like a cancer diagnosis—can have an incredible effect on how the body fights back.
It’s rare to see anyone who stayed stuck in a negative headspace actually beat cancer. Most people who pull through were positive, had a solid support system, and refused to let the disease run their lives. Instead, they took control of the illness by focusing on everything that fulfills them and boosts their quality of life. In that sense, exercise is definitely one of those factors just as vital as the medication itself, but one should never replace the other. It’s a slippery slope, which is why I think his point was misinterpreted or just taken out of context.

I’ve read that article a few times now, and honestly, I don't think the doctor was misread. He’s recommending exercise alongside meds; he isn't saying you should ditch the drugs.

I'm really sorry about your mom. For treating glioblastoma (brain cancer), LDN (low dose Naltrexone) can actually be quite effective, but it’s not widely known because nobody makes any money off it.

http://www.ldners.org/

urbanorca said:I’ve read that article a few times now, and I don't think the doctor is being misinterpreted here. He’s suggesting medication alongside exercise; he isn't saying you should ditch the meds entirely.

If that's the case, I don't see why you think he's questioning his own expertise. Everything checks out.

I am so sorry about your mother. Regarding glioblastoma (brain cancer) treatment, LDN (low dose Naltrexone) can actually be quite effective, but it’s not widely recognized because there’s simply no money to be made from it.

http://www.ldners.org/

I have to admit, I haven't stumbled upon LDN yet, but I did put in the work to dig through PubMed—which is where they host all the relevant, verified studies that aren't just total garbage. From what I managed to find, there is nothing specifically regarding glioblastoma. It mentions its use for prevention and improving quality of life, and in the context of cancer, it’s mentioned as something that helps protect against inflammatory processes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

By the way, the whole research process for new drugs targeting rare tumors—which includes glioblastoma (defined as rare diseases occurring in fewer than 5 per 10,000 people)—is incredibly niche. To meet the standards for evidence-based conclusions required for a legitimate clinical trial on a new substance for a rare tumor, it is notoriously difficult to gather a large enough pool of patients in one single location. Because of this, Big Pharma is often hesitant to commit to such research. However, we have seen some progress over the last decade because the European Union introduced regulations providing specific incentives to pharmaceutical companies that develop and successfully prove the efficacy of a drug for a rare tumor, eventually gaining approval from the scientific bodies responsible for evaluation. Furthermore, there are current initiatives aimed at loosening the research rules for these types of indications, including requirements that any new substance tested for common tumors must also be tested against a rare tumor. Usually, it's a small biotech firm that discovers a substance for a rare tumor, but they lack the massive funding and infrastructure needed to run full clinical trials and register the drug across all American states; even if they do manage to get it registered, it usually only hits one major market.

ruggedscout91 said:Chemotherapy exists solely to line the pockets of Big Pharma. Its main job is just to crush the cancer enough to put it to sleep while nuking every other healthy cell in your body.
Once you stop treatment, the cancer comes back even stronger, having used all your own biological resources to build its defenses. It’s invisible to the host's immune system because the body thinks it's just normal tissue.

The day the pharmaceutical industry starts losing more money than they make on cancer will be the day they finally announce a totally free cure.
Personally, I know more people who died from the side effects of chemo—with their organs completely wrecked and poisoned—than from the actual cancer. People rarely die from cancer itself; they get killed by the doctors and their toxic drugs first.

👍

Exactly. You hit on two truths here:

1. Cancer is a massive industry pushing its own "solutions," regardless of whether they actually work.
Back in the '70s, Nixon himself declared a "war on cancer"—those were his literal words. Since then, the overall statistics haven't improved much (some techniques and treatments for specific types have evolved, but looking at the big picture, we're stuck). Every diagnosed patient in the US (even those with benign diagnoses) brings in over $100,000 for the industry. Multiply that by the number of patients—cancer is the second leading cause of death in the US. You see similar stats across the entire Western world.

2. Even though the "white coats" (great term, right? 🙂) list cancer as the cause of death on certificates, most people actually die from total systemic collapse rather than the tumor itself.
Because of terrible nutrition, the body burns out way before a tumor ever threatens a vital function (like hitting an artery or causing organ failure). Why is that? Always follow the money. There’s no massive profit in nutrition like there is in selling drugs and medical machinery, so nobody pushes it. That's why the white coats don't bother. Most of them don't even grasp the link between diet and cancer. Still, things are slowly starting to shift in that direction.

🙂

Angela Wright said:ruggedscout91, before I really dug into the details, I was pretty much on the same page as you.
Look, things aren't as black and white as you're making them out to be. I had a mother who tried treating her cancer using nothing but alternative methods, and obviously, the cancer came right back. Eventually, she decided to go with conventional medicine, and that was the only thing that actually moved the needle. She passed away in the end, but that wasn't because chemo killed her—it was because she had glioblastoma, a disease that’s basically a death sentence from day one. Chemo and radiation gave us more quality time together; alternative stuff gave us nothing.
I’m not saying I'm closed off to other options. Honestly, I'm still out here looking for someone who beat cancer using nothing but alternative methods—but they better have the medical records to prove the before and after. On the flip side, every single person I know who actually made it through? They stuck to conventional medicine.
The real issue is people's expectations. They don't get how complex and aggressive cancer actually is. There isn't some magic, one-size-fits-all fix for fighting this stuff.

So, you found it. Or rather, you found her. My mom (65) was rushed to the ER two years ago because her abdominal pain was getting out of control. The doctors saw something on the ultrasound, so they just went ahead and sliced her open. No prep work, no biopsy beforehand—nothing. They pulled out this massive tumor, but after running the tests, it turned out it wasn't even primary. They never actually found where the primary source was. Since the results didn't point toward chemo, they didn't bother applying any. Otherwise, they wouldn't have made things so complicated. Get moving!
Over the next few months, her markers shot up—they were right on the edge immediately after surgery. Various scans couldn't find a primary tumor. So, she started watching her diet and playing around with different supplements. Since then, those markers have been dropping steadily; now two are below the threshold and one is just hovering near it.

That's it. No chemo, no radiation. Just one giant, messy slaughterhouse. You want to see the marker results?

Yeah, she went down that rabbit hole with some "famous expert" pushing alternative therapies. Honestly? I think most of those people are just immoral. You’ve got some guy in Ljubljana selling overpriced water as if it's magic or something. $1000He’s dodging the question about what’s actually in that guide. I bet he's staying quiet because telling the truth would be bad for business. Fatal, really. 🙂

Angela Wright said:Big Pharma isn't actually the all-powerful monolith everyone makes it out to be. They’re stuck dealing with massive layers of regulation just to invent a single drug and prove it actually works and won't kill you. There are dozens of different, disconnected bureaucratic hurdles that have to be cleared before anything hits the market. Honestly, that’s exactly why so many effective treatments—things we already have scientific proof for—never even make it to the pharmacy shelves. Makes you wonder why it's so difficult, doesn't it?
Look, you don't really get any of this until you actually start digging into the heavy lifting. It only clicks once you dive deep into the actual material.

Look, I don't buy into conspiracy theories either. But I definitely believe in money and power. If you don't, you're just being naive. Power is what actually moves the needle and pushes things forward.
Ever wonder who actually runs the FDA? And more importantly, what was their actual background before they took over? Let me save you the trouble of searching on Google: they weren't spending decades working at universities. 🙂

velvetmarlin17 said:👍

Exactly. You stated two truths:

Cancer is a massive industry. They push their "solutions" aggressively, regardless of whether they actually work. Does anyone truly believe otherwise?
Nixon declared a "war on cancer" back in the '70s—those were his exact words. Since then, the overall statistics haven't actually improved. Sure, we've seen better techniques and treatments for specific types, but looking at the big picture? We're just spinning our wheels. Every... Diagnosed. A single patient in the US—even one with the most benign diagnosis imaginable—generates upwards of $100,000 for the industry. Now, take that figure and multiply it by the total number of patients. Cancer remains the second leading cause of death in the US. The statistics look just as grim across the rest of the Western world. Is it any wonder how the math works out?

2. Even though white corners—a brilliant expression, wouldn't you agree? 🙂Death certificates list cancer as the cause of death, but is that really the full story? Most people actually succumb to total systemic exhaustion rather than cancer itself. Why do we keep ignoring the bigger picture?
Poor nutrition leads to rapid physical depletion. We are still a long way from a tumor actually threatening a specific vital function—like compressing an artery or causing organ failure. Why is that the case? Always follow the money. There is simply no money in nutrition compared to the pharmaceutical industry and medical device sales, so nobody bothers to push it. Big Pharma doesn't exactly promote it. Most people don't have the slightest clue about the link between diet and cancer. Still, things are slowly starting to shift in that direction.

🙂

No, you certainly won't see anyone being admitted to the morgue for kidney failure—after being perfectly healthy—due to chemo therapy. Or perhaps liver toxicity? What about any other organ responsible for flushing out toxins? Does that ever happen?
I cannot wrap my head around it. We have already witnessed the complete destruction of the immune system, the swelling of lymph nodes, and the forced ingestion of toxic drugs that finish off everything cancer failed to touch. Now, we are seeing this new trend—though it’s hardly new, just more aggressive—of flooding the body with vitamins and minerals. Is anyone actually thinking? The digestive system is no longer capable of absorbing this constant influx of new chemicals. Let's be clear: both minerals and vitamins are chemicals. If they cannot be absorbed, or if they are taken in excess, they become harmful. What is actually happening here? Instead of healing, the body is being forced to deal with the expulsion of these additional "medicines." It treats them like waste, further clogging organs that are already struggling to process the cellular toxins present in the body. Why push it this far?

The goal is to boost the immune system to a higher level of activity. But what does that actually achieve? If the immune system doesn't even recognize the cancerous tissue as a threat, what is it actually fighting? It starts defending the cancer itself. The collateral damage? Every healthy cell in the body. No matter how many intense studies claim young cancer cells lack certain markers or specific traits, they adapt quickly. They learn to hide, and our own immune system ends up helping them along the way. Is that really the outcome we want?
From that perspective, one might argue that cancer remission is little more than a series of developmental stages. Is a first remission simply the transition from preschool to kindergarten? Is a second remission merely moving from kindergarten to elementary school? And a third? That would be the jump from elementary to middle school.

From what I’ve observed personally regarding those who have suffered or are currently battling illness, the results tell a grim story. Those strictly following official medical protocols seem to fare much worse. Is it simply because their condition requires constant hospitalization and clinical monitoring? Perhaps. But beyond that, they are left with far less quality time than anyone else.
You can't view everything through the lens of glioblastoma. Not every carcinoma strikes at the heart of a vital organ.