On August 2, 2010, Reuters released a story with that title. The first few paragraphs:
Pancreatic tumor cells use fructose to divide and proliferate, U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that challenges the common wisdom that all sugars are the same.I actually felt amazed to find the following statement in the article:
Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways, the team at the University of California Los Angeles found.
They said their finding, published in the journal Cancer Research, may help explain other studies that have linked fructose intake with pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest cancer types.
"These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation," Dr. Anthony Heaney of UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Center and colleagues wrote.
"They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth."
Tumor cells thrive on sugar but they used the fructose to proliferate. "Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different," Heaney's team wrote.Finally a mainstream article admits that "tumor cells thrive on sugar"! And how amazing also that a mainstream article discusses cancer and nutrition with nary a mention of the dreaded saturated fat or how meat supposedly promotes cancer!
Now we know that it is the fructose portion of sugar that promotes proliferation. This data of course helps explain why cancer occurred rarely or not at all among hunter-gatherers.
And I think of those who say "moderation in everything." Do you really want "moderate" amounts of a substance which so efficiently promotes cancer?
"I think this paper has a lot of public health implications. Hopefully, at the federal level there will be some effort to step back on the amount of high fructose corn syrup in our diets," Heaney said in a statement.I wonder what he has in mind...some form of regulation? Or does he know that cheap corn syrup is a product of taxation (essentially without representation) and agricultural subsidies, i.e. socialized farming (we support the corn farmers)? Did you, my dear reader, know that the processed food industry has the goons in Washington using their brute force (guns pointing at your head) to steal money from you and turn it over to their supply chain so that they can have cheap raw materials? Did you realize the extent to which we already live in a fascist nation?
Of course I favor ending those subsidies and retaining my hard earned dollars for my own use. In our current system, I am subsidizing corn, which I rarely eat, and thus have less money available for the foods I do eat, like grass fed meat and vegetables. This is NOT what I would call a free nation!
According to the article, "Now the team hopes to develop a drug that might stop tumor cells from making use of fructose."
I find this tragico-comic. Fructose is a dietary component, not produced by human cells nor essential in the diet. Thus, it is simple to stop tumor cells from making use of fructose....simply eliminate fructose from the diet, or limit it to the point where all coming in will get efficiently metabolized by the liver so that none extra will remain available for cancer cells!
But the corn syrup industry wouldn't find that palatable. As noted in the article:
U.S. consumption of high fructose corn syrup went up 1,000 percent between 1970 and 1990, researchers reported in 2004 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
I fear this research will suffer a crushing fate at the hands of the Sugar Industry. I doubt that those leaches will let their subsidies go easily. So maybe they will finance the quest for a drug to "stop tumor cells from making use of fructose"? And maybe they will put that drug right into their sodas and other corn syrup-laden products? A "value-added" product for you, eh?
Posts
16 comments:
"Now the team hopes to develop a drug that might stop tumor cells from making use of fructose."
Between the above and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20691321, I feel a sense of hopelessness regarding any large-scale health changes.
...so, to where should I move now if I don't want to worry about these things--it's stressful...
Hi John,
I saw reports of that. These people just have incredible thought processes. Is this what they mean by "health care reform"?
"They grew pancreatic cancer cells in lab dishes and fed them both glucose and fructose."
And how does this relate to reality?
Sushil,
How does it NOT relate to reality? Cancer cells are fed by blood in which we will find free glucose and/or fructose...the body is the lab dish and the blood is the nutrient source. It is on you to tell us why this experiment is an inadequate representation of what happens in the body.
It is true that some food components are fed on by some cancer cells.
This after all was Campbell's point about casein and rat liver cancers.
That does NOT mean that casein is a carcinogen - it a GROWTH factor once the cancer has begun.
Similarly, here, with respect to fructose. Just because chronic over-consumption of fructose beyond the need to quickly replace liver glycogen ( eg after a bodybuilder's session or for a marathon runner), and is thereby disposed of either by DNL or by the production of uric acid which eventually becomes dangerous, I would be very cautious of using this example, to conclude that fructose CAUSES cancer.
It may do in the case of those who have fructose malabsorbtion, where it is believed that fructose is be of in the gut, and thereby causes nasty gut problems.But any association with cancer not yet been shown in this quite different fructose problem area.
It is poor use of an experimental finding to overextend any finding without a precise pathway in place.
For example, there was recent report of an 800 kCal diet of an epileptic ketogenic composition to treat, an combination with chemo-therapy, a woman with a brain tumour, leading to remission.
See this from Mike Eades' Twitter for details.
Feed a cold, starve a tumor? Maybe so if starved with a ketogenic diet. http://bit.ly/9QgMOF
This does not mean we all go on 800 kCal keto diets to prevent brain tumours.
Correlation is not causation.
(BTW I keep my consumption of fructose to an apple or banana, as per Lustig's suggestion.)
Leon Rover,
I would appreciate it if you could point out anywhere in my post or the original article where anyone stated that fructose CAUSES cancer.
So far as I can see, no one said any such thing. The only claim here is that fructose feeds cancer and stimulates proliferation of cancer cells.
But this may be the most important thing, more important than cause. Because if we can avoid feeding ad proliferating cancer cells, our immune systems can effectively dispose of these renegades before they produce tumors and metastasize.
Hi Don
You are right, you said no such thing.
And secondly, I do agree that it is important to avoid feeding a cancer.
I think I may have inferred something you did not imply: that by avoiding a potential growth factor in advance, one can avoid the cancer later.
"Cancer cells are fed by blood in which we will find free glucose and/or fructose" - Don
Free?
"Fructose is absorbed in the small intestine, then enters the portal vein and is directed toward the liver."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose
Where it is fully metabolized. Are you saying that fructose is not always fully metabolized and will end up in the bloodstream in significant amounts? Interesting. How so?
Hey Don,
Great work with this topic and article. Sadly, you are so right when it comes to sugar companies protecting themselves. Of course, if this was an article about meat causing cancer, it would be everywhere without limitation (like the 2009 epidemiological study Meat Intake and Mortality).
The insights are great, as always. Thanks.
Sean Preuss
Marnee,
Interesting point. Would that mean the energy from fructose would only be directly available to liver cancer cells; and otherwise indirectly (to non-liver cancer cells) after the liver has converted it to either glucose or fat? Either way it looks like starving cancer cells by limiting fructose intake is worth doing, no?
Also, the researchers in the subject article looked at pancreatic tumor cells. Does the portal vein run through the pancreas?
Marnee,
As I understand it, liver does not always metabolize every molecule of fructose because it has rate limited processes, so under conditions of high fructose intake, some does get into blood circulation. I have been told that before labs offered the test for glycosylated hemoglobin, they tested for fructosamine--clearly testing for fructosylated proteins, which would presumably occur only if fructose entered the blood. Also, it appears that the brain can metabolize fructose and it affects brain metabolism:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090325091811.htm
Hi Don,
I have never come across a person that only eats fructose. That is the main reason I believe this result is meaningless.
I general, I consider most of these studies to be crap whether or not they support my point of view.
Regards.
Sorry to bother you with a question about fruit. What is your position on fruit consumption, do you have an upper limit per day? What about people who don't exercise (glycogen depleting) regularly?
Thanks.
Hi Lightcan,
It depends on what type of fruit. Things like melons and most berries have very low carb contents so you can eat a lot without getting much sugar. Others like bananas and pineapples have higher sugar concentrations. I eat 3-4 servings of fruit in a day but you'll need to find out the best amount for you by experiment.
Our body always contains some cancer cells. Fortunately most cancerous cells never develop into tumours. So it is best to starve all these potential tumours.
It should be noted that no cancers were ever observed by medical missionaries in Inuit populations living a traditional lifestyle.
My own total carbohydrate intake is <10g/day including no more than 2g of fructose.
Leonrover Dr William Colley combined starvation with an immunogenic fever to treat thousands of cancers with a high rate of success in the early 20th century.
Sudden and complete cancer cures following a fever are well documented by modern oncologists.
Post a Comment