• Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
  • Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex

Is this Simple Sugar a Major Factor in the Failure of the War on Cancer?

Arnold

Numero Uno
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Nov 29, 2000
Messages
82,680
Reaction score
3,072
Points
113
Location
Las Vegas
Is this Simple Sugar a Major Factor in the Failure of the War on Cancer?
By Dr. Mercola

There's compelling evidence and agreement by many experts that excessive fructose is toxic to your body. Unlike fructose, nearly every cell in your body can directly use glucose. However fructose is primarily metabolized in your liver and can serve as a substrate for increasing cancer cell growth.

Fructose Helps Cancer Cells Thrive

ALL forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer, but in slightly different ways, and to a different extent, as I'll explain later. Fructose, however, clearly seems to be one of the most harmful sugars. A new article in Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets reviewed the relationship between increased dietary refined sugar and cancer risk, with specific emphasis on the monosaccharide fructose. The researchers noted:

"Recent observations indicate that cancer cells readily utilize fructose to support proliferation and preferentially use fructose for nucleic acid synthesis."

They named several ways in which dietary fructose can promote cancer growth, including:

  • Altered cellular metabolism
  • Increased reactive oxygen species (free radicals)
  • DNA damage
  • Inflammation

Research published in the journal Cancer Research also showed that the way the different sugars are metabolized (using different metabolic pathways) is of MAJOR consequence when it comes to feeding cancer and making it proliferate. According to the authors:

" Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different ... These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation."

In this case, the cancer cells used were pancreatic cancer, which is typically regarded as the most deadly and universally rapid-killing form of cancer. The study confirms the old adage that sugar feeds cancer because they found that tumor cells do thrive on sugar (glucose). However, the cells used fructose for cell division, speeding up the growth and spread of the cancer.

Why is This a MAJOR Threat to Public Health?

Whether you're simply interested in preventing cancer, or have cancer and want to live longer, you ignore these facts and listen to industry propaganda that fructose is safe and no different from other common sweeteners at your own risk. The truth of the matter is that fructose may very well be the most pernicious influence in the Standard American Diet, and is virtually guaranteed to cause chronic disease if consumed in excess.

The major problem is, the vast majority of Americans are consuming fructose at levels 3-600% of the upper limit!

Further, most people are seriously confused about fructose and still believe it is a "healthy" type of sugar because it is found naturally in fruits and touted as having a low glycemic index. But this is not a matter of eating an apple or a handful of raisins as a snack. Fructose, in one form or another, can be found in five of the 10 top sources of calories in America, and in some cases (particularly when processed or from a restaurant) may actually be in ALL of them:
continue reading article...
 
So now fruit causes cancer?

I think they make studies showing everything causes cancer because they have no idea what causes it.
 
Man, I love the spin that idiot Mercola is putting on fructose for his own benefit.

Some facts about the original author:
-Mercola has been warned 3 times by the FDA for violations of U.S. marketing laws.
-A 2006 BusinessWeek editorial criticized Mercola's marketing practices as "relying on slick promotion, clever use of information, and scare tactics."
-He is a critic of vaccination
-He claims microwave ovens are dangerous and that they 'alter food chemistry'
-Oh, and according to him, 'HIV does not cause AIDS'. No shit, he really supports that view, read it on his website here: HIV Does Not Cause AIDS

Check out Mercola on Quackwatch too, to get someone else's opinion of him.


So if you read this article, you probably come away with the (mistaken) impression that fructose really speeds up cancer growth, right?

WRONG.

It's all fear-mongering from him, as usual. Cancer does indeed preferentially use fructose in some processes, however it's no more effective than glucose, it's simply the 'preferred' energy source for some things. The study he cites is actually a study about possible *treatment mechanisms* for cancer, and in that paper it's suggested that since fructose gets used first for some processes, that it may be possible to design a drug that takes advantage of that to more effectively target cancer cells in chemotherapy situations.

This article should be taken with a grain of salt large enough to give you trouble bench pressing it.
 
Man, I love the spin that idiot Mercola is putting on fructose for his own benefit.

Some facts about the original author:
-Mercola has been warned 3 times by the FDA for violations of U.S. marketing laws.
-A 2006 BusinessWeek editorial criticized Mercola's marketing practices as "relying on slick promotion, clever use of information, and scare tactics."
-He is a critic of vaccination
-He claims microwave ovens are dangerous and that they 'alter food chemistry'
-Oh, and according to him, 'HIV does not cause AIDS'. No shit, he really supports that view, read it on his website here: HIV Does Not Cause AIDS

Check out Mercola on Quackwatch too, to get someone else's opinion of him.


So if you read this article, you probably come away with the (mistaken) impression that fructose really speeds up cancer growth, right?

WRONG.

It's all fear-mongering from him, as usual. Cancer does indeed preferentially use fructose in some processes, however it's no more effective than glucose, it's simply the 'preferred' energy source for some things. The study he cites is actually a study about possible *treatment mechanisms* for cancer, and in that paper it's suggested that since fructose gets used first for some processes, that it may be possible to design a drug that takes advantage of that to more effectively target cancer cells in chemotherapy situations.

This article should be taken with a grain of salt large enough to give you trouble bench pressing it.

Mercola may be doing his own thing. But there are more sources out there about fructose. It's the amount that we consume. And if you think about it...how much fructose without fiber and other nutrients to deal with it's metabolization, would we naturally be consuming in nature? Fruit has seasons and we've cross bred most of it to produce it's sweetest variations then we sell it and consume it year round in todays society. Not that fruit is inherently bad, but tack on all the other sources of fructose, i.e., every other time we see the word "sugar", and the average homebody is in for some trouble.
 
I can see highly concentrated fructose from genetically modified corn being a problem
however natural levels from sources such as fruit I don't think so.
 
Back
Top