Cancer cells feed on fructose, study finds

Research shows the refined sugar helps cancer cells proliferate

WASHINGTON — 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.

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.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38528161/ns/health-cancer/

IIRC, who uses hydrogen peroxide to abolish cancer cells. He treats cancer as a mold, or fungus, and it does seem in many respects to act as one - it moves from the original area of contamination, even after it is cut away during surgery, it feeds on sugar. And a few other similarities.

It is your own cells that have been genetically damaged. This doctor sounds like a quack.

If hydrogen peroxide cured cancer, we'd have figured it out the first time a cancer patient got a scraped knee or small cut.

it's where they derive their energy. Noting cancer cells that have a higher fructose metabolism is significant and might be a first step to getting HFCS out of all processed foods and limiting it to items where it is indispensable, like some candies. That's good news.

Peroxide is toxic to all cells. Cancer cells are not fungi and have no similarity to them in form or function.

This guy is a quack.

Maybe this will give some impetus to the death of HFCS.

Great article. Thanks.

HFCS is usually 55% fructose.

Sucrose--the "good sugar" that everybody prefers--breaks down to 50% fructose. It does so rather quickly, but it's not the speed that's at issue.

Now, here's the kicker: If you have a gram of HFCS it'll taste sweeter than a gram of sucrose. In other words, if you keep the amount of sugar the same as you go from sucrose to HFCS it'll probably be too sweet; if you keep the same sweetness, you'll have less sugar.

If you keep the sweetness level the same as you go from sucrose to HFCS, you almost certainly reduce the amount of fructose.

If you keep the sweetness level the same as you go from HFCS to sucrose, you'd wind up increasing the amount of fructose you're exposed to.

Critical thinking requires prior memorization of facts.

...you'll reduce the amount of fructose to zero.

What were you thinking? HFCS is DEVIL JUICE made by ADM to KILL US ALL!

(Oh, and please don't mention that the sugar found in plain ordinary organic fruit is fructose. You'll really explode some heads then.)

Limiting total intake of sugar should be the aim and getting HFCS out of processed foods is laudable. Replacing it with table sugar is not.

This thread is about how evul fructose is. Now is not the time for "facts," it's the time for alt-med demagoguery!

The Real Truth™ is all that matters, and the government wants to keep it from you. Sucrose schmucrose. That's not what it's about, you know...

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.

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.

That said fructose is found natually in many foods.

Is corn syrup fructose different than fructose found in other foods?

No, all fructose works the same in the body, whether it comes from corn syrup, cane sugar, beet sugar, strawberries, onions, or tomatoes. Only the amounts are different. For example, a cup of chopped tomatoes has 2.5 grams of fructose, a can of regular (non-diet) soda supplies 23 grams, and a super-size soda has about 62 grams.

http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/nutrition/a/fructosedangers.htm

fructose than a can of soda, but that fructose comes with fiber, vitamins and anti-oxidants. I suspect that the body handles large amounts of pure fructose differently than small amount accompanied by other chemicals.

It appears to occupy a place immediately adjacent to Aspartame, which has been responsible for thousands of cases of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome in keyboard users across the internets.

I found an article which appeared to present some interesting information from reliable sources and posted it. I don't have a horse in the race for or against HFCS, but continue thinking that if it gives your blood glucose levels a boost.

Sheesh...

Just read around the snark and arguing.
I know I do. (It's fun if you think about it as driving a bumper car, try not to get hit and drive around the arguments).

Now I'll be sure to watch my sugar intake in all forms. Maybe I'll stick with the sugars in fruits and vegetables and skip the rest.

:rofl:

...all sugars contribute greatly to obesity....fructose especially.

So maybe FAT is a type of tumor....think of it as a large alien living in your body...trying to run the show? And I think that this might really be the case in a way.

It's not fat that makes you fat...it is high glycemic foods.

Fructose should have been pulled from the market years ago. How many lives has it destroyed?

People would starve... everything has that stuff in it.

:rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Like, cells that die in neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, etc) -- do they survive better/proliferate more when fed fructose compared to glucose?

It's a question worth answering.