Simple Carbohydrates Feed Cancer

It's a bold, simple statement with a great deal of science behind it.  Read more to understand why you may want to re-think your sugar habit.

I disagree my sugar intake and carbohydrate intake is always very high as I eat allot of fruit and Vegetables, I read part of that link and it states that Glucose feeds cancer not Fructose (found in fruits) so even though my sugar and Carbohydrate intake is high I still have a very nutritious diet.

You disagree with what, that sugar feeds cancer?  You should read the whole article, you'll definitely learn why that's a true statement.

From other research that I've done, including what I can gather from this article, consumption of sugars that occur naturally in foods is not harmful.  Consumption of sugars that are refined -- e.g. using fructose as a sweetner or table sugar -- is where the problems lie.  From what I gather this is because you can't consume such high amounts of sugars that are still in the fruits since you'll get full much more quickly than if you consumed sugars by themselves.  So assuming you do eat a lot (two words, allot is not a word -- sorry pet peeve) of fruits and veggies (hopefully they make up the vast majority of your diet) then there's no doubt you've got a nutritious diet.

Anyhow, maybe you should ... you know ... read the article.  It's pretty fascinating.

New Hope.com isn't exactly an unbiased source of information, nor is it clear that this article has been or will be Peer Reviewed. You can believe this if you like, but I would take stuff like this with a grain of salt until it is actually reviewed scientifically, by other professionals.

After all, anyone can post anything on the web.

It's an article summarizing findings from peer-reviewed research.  Saying that it isn't peer-reviewed itself is meaningless since this article is not a scientific study in and of itself. 

Here, since you didn't read it in the article apparently, is the list of peer reviewed resources for the article:

1. Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science 1956 Feb;123:309-14.

2. Volk T, et al. pH in human tumor xenografts: effect of intravenous administration of glucose. Br J Cancer 1993 Sep;68(3):492-500.

3.Digirolamo M. Diet and cancer: markers, prevention and treatment. New York: Plenum Press; 1994. p 203.

4. Leeper DB, et al. Effect of i.v. glucose versus combined i.v. plus oral glucose on human tumor extracellular pH for potential sensitization to thermoradiotherapy. Int J Hyperthermia 1998 May-Jun;14(3):257-69.

5. Rossi-Fanelli F, et al. Abnormal substrate metabolism and nutritional strategies in cancer management. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1991 Nov-Dec;15(6):680-3.

6. Grant JP. Proper use and recognized role of TPN in the cancer patient. Nutrition 1990 Jul-Aug;6(4 Suppl):6S-7S, 10S.

7. Brand-Miller J, et al. The glucose revolution. Newport (RI) Marlowe and Co.; 1999.

8. Mooradian AD, et al. Glucotoxicity: potential mechanisms. Clin Geriatr Med 1999 May;15(2):255.

9. Hoehn, SK, et al. Complex versus simple carbohydrates and mammary tumors in mice. Nutr Cancer 1979;1(3):27.

10. Santisteban GA, et al. Glycemic modulation of tumor tolerance in a mouse model of breast cancer. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1985 Nov 15;132(3):1174-9.

11. Sanchez A, et al. Role of sugars in human neutrophilic phagocytosis. Am J Clin Nutr 1973 Nov;26(11):1180-4.

12. Moerman CJ, et al. Dietary sugar intake in the aetiology of biliary tract cancer. Int J Epidemiol 1993 Apr;22(2):207-14.

13. Seeley S. Diet and breast cancer: the possible connection with sugar consumption. Med Hypotheses 1983 Jul;11(3):319-27.

14. Board M, et al. High Km glucose-phosphorylating (glucokinase) activities in a range of tumor cell lines and inhibition of rates of tumor growth by the specific enzyme inhibitor mannoheptulose. Cancer Res 1995 Aug 1;55(15):3278-85.

15. Chlebowski RT, et al. Hydrazine sulfate in cancer patients with weight loss. A placebo-controlled clinical experience. Cancer 1987 Feb 1;59(3):406-10.

16. Chlebowski RT, et al. Hydrazine sulfate influence on nutritional status and survival in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1990 Jan;8(1):9-15.

17. American College of Physicians. Parenteral nutrition in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. Ann Intern Med 1989 May;110(9):734.

18. Gatenby RA. Potential role of FDG-PET imaging in understanding tumor-host interaction. J Nucl Med 1995 May;36(5):893-9.

19. von Ardenne M. Principles and concept 1993 of the Systemic Cancer Multistep Therapy (SCMT). Extreme whole-body hyperthermia using the infrared-A technique IRATHERM 2000—selective thermosensitisation by hyperglycemia—circulatory back-up by adapted hyperoxemia. Strahlenther Onkol 1994 Oct;170(10):581-9.

20. Steinhausen D, et al. Evaluation of systemic tolerance of 42.0 degrees C infrared-A whole-body hyperthermia in combination with hyperglycemia and hyperoxemia. A Phase-I study. Strahlenther Onkol 1994 Jun;170(6):322-34.

So I guess you can choose not to believe it if you want even though the information it contains has been peer reviewed.  ;)

i absolutely and totally 100 % agree with this arcticle im only 22 and have been sayin it for years.... IT IS COMMON SENSE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! just admit it, you can't live healthy long lives and have you table sugar too lol however, you can have your NATURAL sugar in food already. stop eatting processed crap food sold by the industry!

is 100 grams of sugar to much?

Well, first of all, do you mean "feeds cancer" or "causes cancer"?  Because I am not a cancer sufferer, and I can't speak to what table sugar would do to my existing condition if I was.

But CAUSES cancer???? Absolute crap.  If anyone is so inclined to waste their time on this, you can find an avalance of peer reviews and reliable UNBIASED medical statements stating the opposite.  And I mean, COME ON!!  "Intravenous administration" of glucose to a tumor???  What does that have to do with eating sugar??  Body processes and metabolism are just taken completely out of the equation when you SKIP THE DIGESTIVE TRACT COMPLETELY!!

Verrrrry convincing.

A genetic predisposition to cancer is the main cause of it; as a matter of fact, a genetic predispositon to MANY things determine our length of life.  Some people are just longer-lived than others.  Good heavens, look at George Burns ... smoked cigars for 85 years, and drank alcohol every day.  Lived to be 100.

Certainly, beyond a "family history" of cancer, there are certain high risk exposure lifestyles that can alter cell activity, but eating sugar isn't one of them.

 

Actually AGE is the single most important cause of cancer.  Maintaining a healthy body weight, eating a balanced diet (with 5 - 8 portions of fruit & veg), and regular strenuous exercise can help keep you healthy, but you can't st op ageing....

I'm not going to claim that the research around this study is right or wrong. I will say, however, that it seems like there is always something new that "causes cancer".

I think when it comes right down to it, scientists involved with cancer research don't really know what causes it. There are theories and guesses, but nothing more than that. I think what stellajo and aoifek suggested are closer to the truth. Cancer may be more related to family background and aging.

If I paid full attention to every claim that "such and such" causes cancer, (beware!) I would never leave the house (or eat anything, for that matter). There's only so much you can do to prevent it.

Just my (non-scientific background) opinion.

Just about every substance on earth can cause cancer.

Original Post by stellajo:

Well, first of all, do you mean "feeds cancer" or "causes cancer"?  Because I am not a cancer sufferer, and I can't speak to what table sugar would do to my existing condition if I was.

I mean what I said, "Simple Carbohydrates Feed Cancer." The rest of your rant has nothing to do with what I wrote or what the article says, so I'll skip it.

Liked reading the article about sugar feeding cancer.  I had breast cancer in 1989--a non invasive form-there are several types.  Then I had paraneoplastic syndrome (which John Hopkins website says they know of only 2 survivors and I am the 3rd) which hid my lymphoma.  My mother is going to be 90 this year and my father was 88 when he passed.  Neither one have or had cancer.  My sister had cervical cancer at the age of 28.  My husband had colon rectal cancer at the age of 46 and both of his sisters have had breast cancer ( one was 32 and the other 50) and both of his parents are in their 80's with no history of cancer.  We were both the "Cleaver family" with sit down meals and no television.  What has changed is the fact that hormones have been added to our food.  When I was older I watched my father shoot the cattle with hormones which are fat soluable and not water.  It is in our dairy products along with pesticides on our fruits and vegetables.  I am here now trying to lose weight because of the predisone and chemo which put on over 100 pounds on me in 2 months.  It also left me with 3 compression fractured vertebrae.   It took the doctors almost a year to find out that I had cancer and during that time I was down to almost 100 lbs--I have to laugh about not eating sugar during that time--or hardly anything else!  Good article!

 

It is not as clear cut as "something in the water" as cervical cancer is one that we do know the cause - a virus passed via sexual intercourse.

I also think you will find that veggies sometimes get cancer and it is an unusual one that eats beef.

 

Original Post by fredajones:

It is not as clear cut as "something in the water" as cervical cancer is one that we do know the cause - a virus passed via sexual intercourse.

I also think you will find that veggies sometimes get cancer and it is an unusual one that eats beef.

 

I'm not sure what that last part means, can you elaborate?

Just about every substance on earth can cause cancer.

That's how it seems these days... *sigh*

This is all getting pretty rediculous; why not just enjoy everything in moderation, use common sense, and just SHUT UP! Unless you're downing multiple servings of "sugary" foods you're not going to drop dead.

the article may not be relevant to most of you, but to someone who has cancer this could be very important and could even alter whether the cancer goes into remission or progresses

Original Post by mikelane:

I mean what I said, "Simple Carbohydrates Feed Cancer." The rest of your rant has nothing to do with what I wrote or what the article says, so I'll skip it.

 Well, YOUR original post instructed "Read more to understand why you may want to re-think your sugar habit." 

So basically, to get any benefit from the article you posted, only cancer sufferers should have bothered to read it.  Maybe I should have skpped it.  Sorry to waste your time, even though you wasted mine first.

i don't think anybody is advocating eating refined sugar by the spoonful.  it's important to consider the source, that's all.  the article reads more like salesmanship than science, and without reading every one of those references, we have no way of knowing what those studies actually found.  it also tells us nothing about the studies that the author chose not to cite, which may give evidence to the contrary.

I didn't read the article but to all the people who feel this doesn't apply to them simply because they don't have cancer, I just want to point out it takes, on average, 10 years from the time cancer begins to the time it is clinically identified.

I don't have a citation for this handy right now but I learned it in my Cancer Epidemiology class. So, if anyone *really* cares I could dig out my notes.

Original Post by stellajo:

 Well, YOUR original post instructed "Read more to understand why you may want to re-think your sugar habit." 

So basically, to get any benefit from the article you posted, only cancer sufferers should have bothered to read it.  Maybe I should have skpped it.  Sorry to waste your time, even though you wasted mine first.

Mee yow! You sure you don't have cancer. You REALLY sure?

How about now?