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!