Thank God none of us eat THAT shit!
Waiting for stronghold to get in here and defend fructose....
Wouldn't be surprised. With everyone getting cancer nowadays there has to be something causing it.
It is well known that cancers use glucose and other simple sugars as fuel for proliferation, it does not mean that these sugars actual cause the cancer.
I'm not saying HFCS isnt bad. High doses are certainly detrimental for a host of reasons. But high levels of sugar in general provide the fuel for proliferation. Cancer cells follow the same sort of rules as muscle tissue if your trying to induce growth. Thats maybe the simplest way to look at it.
When Dr Barry Sears devised his now widely-known "The Zone" diet, he had such things in mind. Owning patents on over a dozen chemotherapy drugs, and admitting that even these meds are weak weapons in the fight against cancer, the development of his Zone diet favored reasonable low-carb, low-glycemic diets tailored to the individual's lean mass, which subsequently put the individual into a favorable physical state for the body's own defenses against cancer.
Did you read the link?
Because if you had you wouldn't have made that statement.
I've summarized the important points nicely for you below:
I see your point about sugar being bad (generally) but the study actually looked really important and promising to me.
... but I see ID's point too.
Fructose outside of fruits & veggies is when things become problematic, it's cheap, effective and reliable which means it's effing everywhere. As long as your generally aware of fructose and it's ohhh sooo fancy derivatives it shouldn't be an issue for most of us.
We are in total agreement, but you missed the point of my post! I was not stating the fructose does not drive proliferation. From looking at the study it certainly does. I was saying that it does not CAUSE cancer, in reference to rocky2's post. I should have quoted it in retrospect.
It should also be pointed out that this study was only carried out in pancreatic cancer cells. Fructose has been shown to induce oxidative stress on normal pancreatic cells if fructose elicits the same effect on a pancreatic cancer cell then you will inevitably drive progression as oxidative stress can induce survival and growth in tumour tissue. Testing other tumour lines for this response is certainly needed, this fructose metabolism may be limited to that cell line and glucose has been shown to induce proliferation is multiple cancer cell lines to date. Further tests are needed before fructose becomes the be all and end all of cancer proliferation, as the article is leading the general public to think. However for pancreatic cancer cases, this study is very promising.
As to my statement about muscle and tumour cells following the same rules. They do. Muscles grow best when you provide them with simple sugars and amino acids, particularly leucine. The same as cancer. I stated 'rules' not specific sugars. Even the same microenvironment (hypoxia) could be said to be beneficial to both muscle and cancer in certain situations. So yes, very simplistically they do follow the same rules! The most important difference between the two is that muscle growth is regulated and controlled, cancer growth is not.
BP we are agreed on the study, just felt like I best defend my statements!
I also totally agree with fulfords post.
Edit: sorry for the bold! not sure why its there, or how to turn it off!
i find it hard to believe that all cancer cells, and all cells, in general wouldn't have varying preferences for fructose, glucose, and oxygen environments. The fact that some cancer cells like one form of sugar more than another is no more surprising than the existence of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. So what?
I'm sure there are some cancer cells that like oxygen too, and probably many many more which like glucose.
This article is the equivalent of saying carbon based life forms like to consume molecules with carbon.
As far as 'inventing cancer drugs that stop cancers from utilizing fructose' good luck.. i mean really. I think that if you were able to stop tumor cells from using glucose or fructose, of course you'd have a cure for cancer. The solution is simple. Starve the patient to death and the cancer cells will die.
Next there will be an article saying cancer cells like water, and they will cure cancer by 'finding a way to stop cancer cells from getting water'.
What's it take nowadays to get a research grant? An IQ of 50?
Oh god I just read the bottom half of the story.. lol political nonsense.. my eyes glaze over and i feel duped into reading something stupid. They should put a warning on top that it's political garbage, not science to save people time.
Well said. this is exactly my point.
You just saved me some time.
This just in! Everyone who dies of cancer in the US wears shoes, therefor, we should all go barefoot!
Excellent in vitro study with no attached abstract or link to the study.
Fructose and glucose are different? No shit?
Capped, still waiting on you to show me a solid (not self report) study where humans (not rats) fed moderate amounts (<50g daily) of fructose get sick.
Still waiting for you to understand the larger context of fructose being ubiquitous in the american diet.
Eating "normally", how many grams of fructose does the average american consume?
Still waiting for you to get that Americans consume excessive amounts of EVERYTHING and that attempting to pin obesity or related disease states on a single macronutrient subtype is willful ignorance of the ENTIRE context of the typical American diet and obesity-related disease states.
And why do Americans consume excessive amounts of everything?
It's not just Americans. It's not just western societies either.
Right. Americans are no different than people from any other country or part of the world.
Yet they have the most health problems and the highest obesity rates.
The glaring difference between everyone else and Americans being that the American diet is full of sugar.
So you're implying that fructose is the reason why people overeat. THE ONE and ONLY reason.
Next you're going to tell me it's why people are less active now than 30 years ago or why more people are involved in jobs that involve sitting behind a desk as opposed to manual outdoor labor or even more physical industrial work. Yep, gotta be the fructose.
The main reason, yeah.
Even people who work manual outdoor labor or industrial jobs are, on average, heavier now than they were 30 years ago.
Why are you so against the idea that the amount of sugar in the american diet is a major problem?