Cancer cells slurp up fructose, US study finds

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,270
0
0
I don't take little news-bites about science all that seriously, because I know they really dumb it down. Furthermore the reporters themselves usually don't get the science or the subtleties behind in vitro vs in vivo or any other complexities all that well.

Anyways, I thought the study was interesting regardless, although I don't have access to any formal paper right now (if it even exists).

Cancer cells slurp up fructose, US study finds
Mon, Aug 2 2010
* Study shows fructose used differently from glucose
* Findings challenge common wisdom about sugars
WASHINGTON, Aug 2 (Reuters) - 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.
"They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth."
Americans take in large amounts of fructose, mainly in high fructose corn syrup, a mix of fructose and glucose that is used in soft drinks, bread and a range of other foods.
Politicians, regulators, health experts and the industry have debated whether high fructose corn syrup and other ingredients have been helping make Americans fatter and less healthy.
Too much sugar of any kind not only adds pounds, but is also a key culprit in diabetes, heart disease and stroke, according to the American Heart Association.
Several states, including New York and California, have weighed a tax on sweetened soft drinks to defray the cost of treating obesity-related diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer.
The American Beverage Association, whose members include Coca-Cola (KO.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Kraft Foods (KFT.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) have strongly, and successfully, opposed efforts to tax soda. [ID:nN12233126]
The industry has also argued that sugar is sugar.
Heaney said his team found otherwise. They grew pancreatic cancer cells in lab dishes and fed them both glucose and fructose.
Tumor cells thrive on sugar but they used the fructose to proliferate. "Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different," Heaney's team wrote.
"I think this paper has a lot of public health implications. Hopefully, at the federal level there will be some effort to step back on the amount of high fructose corn syrup in our diets," Heaney said in a statement.
Now the team hopes to develop a drug that might stop tumor cells from making use of fructose.
U.S. consumption of high fructose corn syrup went up 1,000 percent between 1970 and 1990, researchers reported in 2004 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
(Reporting by Maggie Fox; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)
 
Dec 10, 2005
26,446
10,102
136
Yeah. I can't get access to the actual paper itself unless I pay for it or hop over to my university to request it.. :s

That's how it is with most papers. I just use my old university proxy to access journals.
 

mcmilljb

Platinum Member
May 17, 2005
2,144
2
81
OMG! Cells metabolize 2 different molecules in 2 different pathways! That's just craziness!

I hate reading a lot of health articles. Those people take a piece of information and run around being stupid. The study is not even saying fructose is causing pancreatic cancer, but you would jump to the conclusion that it does because the article says fructose intake is linked with pancreatic cancer. This article is stating known information. The only thing they learned in the study is that the pancreatic cancer cells increase more rapidly in the presence of fructose.
 
Last edited:

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
Cancer cells are cells that need sustenance to sustain themselves as they reproduce? Shens!

Also, let's be clear: Fructose replaces Dextrose/Sucrose, not Glucose. Proving that they treat them differently and presenting that as the concern we have with Fructose is just plain dishonest.

Just like when the news reported on diet sodas seemingly having no effect on likeliness to get heart disease. "Why should I give my kids diet sodas instead of regular sodas if there it isn't going to affect his heart health in any way?" one deceptively/mockingly "asked" his co-anchor. Uh... because the main purpose is to have fewer fattening calories? Duh. Do you think she answered him? Nope. Another part was that it was only looking at people having two or more diet sodas a day, who likely use them as substitues for even more calories in a high calorie/fat diet.

Similarly, does salt really cause heart disease? Yes, it causes high blood pressure which is a risk factor for heart disease, but it's a risk factor because it also results from plaque-restricted arteries which is caused by bad cholesterol. The plaque-restricted arteries are what break loose and clog, causing a heart attack... NOT salt/high blood pressure.

There is WAY too much focus on risk factors and not the underlying causes in this world.
 
Last edited:
Mar 11, 2004
23,410
5,823
146
That's not good news, but its not very surprising either. We've known for a while that fructose is worse than glucose, especially in excessive quantities.

And before it starts another shitstorm, when they say refined sugars/fructose that includes both HFCS and sucrose, since they are roughly equivalent in their fructose/glucose composition (well and refined...).

As ever, you should try to keep an eye on and restrict your sugar intake.
 
Last edited:

BreastInspector

Senior member
Aug 15, 2009
308
0
76
HFCS needs to be outlawed. FOR THE CHILDREN.

Lets take that corn and do something that dosen't harm our bodies! Like making Ethanol.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
14,207
9,049
136
So, er, this means fruit and vegetables (both high in fructose) will give you cancer, right? I guess I better just switch to bacon. Good job I found out.
 

Judgement

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
3,815
0
0
BanDHMO.JPG
 

KeypoX

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2003
3,655
0
71
"U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that challenges the common wisdom that all sugars are the same."

LOL what?
 
May 11, 2008
21,094
1,213
126
OMG! Cells metabolize 2 different molecules in 2 different pathways! That's just craziness!

I hate reading a lot of health articles. Those people take a piece of information and run around being stupid. The study is not even saying fructose is causing pancreatic cancer, but you would jump to the conclusion that it does because the article says fructose intake is linked with pancreatic cancer. This article is stating known information. The only thing they learned in the study is that the pancreatic cancer cells increase more rapidly in the presence of fructose.

I find it interesting, but i have a few questions...
When thinking of increased division ( i assume that is what you mean) with cancer cells.

The big questions are then :

Is this the case with every form of pancreas cancer ?
Is this a general feature with pancreas cancer among humans ?
Is this a general feature among cancers ?

It would not mean that a life without fructose would make someone cancer free. I mean, the agent that started the cancer is not fructose. It would be a virus or a bacteria or some carcinogen.

But it could help to give people special low fructose diets while under treatment for cancer of this type. However, if the lack of fructose is dangerous in general because it is essential to sustain the body. Then this fructose free diet together with cancer treatment idea, might become a dead end.

However, i do agree that most of these "research" is used to promote the non beneficial use of a certain product. Well, it is only beneficial for the wallet of the manufacturer of the product. ^_^
 
Last edited:

TridenT

Lifer
Sep 4, 2006
16,800
45
91
Of course the whackjobs will latch onto the HFCS madness now even though fruits such as apples... (oh baby... you see how I did that? Pancreatic cancer, apples... steve jobs.. OH YEAAAH!!!) are basically fructose monsterz!
 

Mr. Pedantic

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2010
5,027
0
76
I would think the most medically relevant question would be: how would the cancer cells do in the absence of fructose? I mean, in the presence of both they use fructose preferentially, but if need be, is it possible for the cells to utilize glucose in the same metabolic pathways? And how much does the fructose increase, overall, the production of nucleic acids over a cancerous cell fed with only glucose, or only fructose?

Also, how well does a pancreatic cancer generalize to all cancers?

It would not mean that a life without fructose would make someone cancer free. I mean, the agent that started the cancer is not fructose. It would be a virus or a bacteria or some carcinogen.
That doesn't make any difference. It would be almost impossible to go without fructose in your diet for your whole life (no fruit, for a start). This would be good, though, for patients who already have cancer; I would imagine that though hard, cutting out fructose would be one thing that people would do preferentially over having chemo/radio and vomiting their guts out and having their hair fall to bits on the ground.

Also, I don't know of any bacterial carcinogens, initiator or promoter.

But it could help to give people special low fructose diets while under treatment for cancer of this type. However, if the lack of fructose is dangerous in general because it is essential to sustain the body. Then this fructose free diet together with cancer treatment idea, might become a dead end.
In what way? What is essential for human life that fructose provides, that cannot be substituted for with glucose?

Also, let's be clear: Fructose replaces Dextrose/Sucrose, not Glucose. Proving that they treat them differently and presenting that as the concern we have with Fructose is just plain dishonest.
Dextrose is glucose. And to your cells, there is no essential difference between consuming some fructose and consuming some sucrose. The sucrose just gets hydrolysed to fructose and glucose anyway.

Similarly, does salt really cause heart disease? Yes, it causes high blood pressure which is a risk factor for heart disease, but it's a risk factor because it also results from plaque-restricted arteries which is caused by bad cholesterol. The plaque-restricted arteries are what break loose and clog, causing a heart attack... NOT salt/high blood pressure.
Salt --> High blood pressure --> greater preload/afterload --> ventricular hypertrophy --> ischaemia --> ischaemic heart disease --> heart failure.

You are right, of course. Salt is usually merely a risk factor, neither necessary nor sufficient in and of itself to cause most heart conditions; but it definitely contributes. And because of the huge incidence of heart-related pathologies caused by preventable factors, even the smallest factor should be looked at; kind of the the last straw that broke the donkey's back, sort of thing.

OMG! Cells metabolize 2 different molecules in 2 different pathways! That's just craziness!
In the actual journal article they say that it's only in pancreatic cancer cells where the disparity exists - glucose accounts for 8 times the lactate and 3.5 times the carbon dioxide of fructose, but fructose accounts for 2.5x more nucleic acid synthesis via the pentose phosphate pathway. Whereas in normal pancreatic tissue, the proportions of lactate, CO2, and nucleic acid from both sugars is roughly equal.
 
Last edited:

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,270
0
0
you people are drawing all sorts of extrapolations from the article...

the most the study may suggest is that a diet high in fructose (notice we're talking relative terms, not NO FRUCTOSE or ALL FRUCTUOSE) could aggravate the aggressiveness of pancreatic cancer.

maybe in the future someone undergoing treatment for pancreatic cancer would respond better to treatment if put on a low fructose diet. We don't know.. but it could be part of designing a treatment regimen.

edit: I see William has said already what I just posted.. fail :D
 
May 11, 2008
21,094
1,213
126
I would think the most medically relevant question would be: how would the cancer cells do in the absence of fructose? I mean, in the presence of both they use fructose preferentially, but if need be, is it possible for the cells to utilize glucose in the same metabolic pathways? And how much does the fructose increase, overall, the production of nucleic acids over a cancerous cell fed with only glucose, or only fructose?
Good questions, i too would like to know that.

Also, how well does a pancreatic cancer generalize to all cancers?
That is something i would like to know as well.

That doesn't make any difference. It would be almost impossible to go without fructose in your diet for your whole life (no fruit, for a start). This would be good, though, for patients who already have cancer; I would imagine that though hard, cutting out fructose would be one thing that people would do preferentially over having chemo/radio and vomiting their guts out and having their hair fall to bits on the ground.

Well, that is the big question. But i too agree that a special but inhibiting diet would be far beneficial then chemotherapy if it works. Chemotherapy is no different then burning your skin off to get rid of ticks. But it beats death, that is fore sure. And that is why it is used. If i understand correctly, the theory behind chemotherapy is that cancer cells consume more nutrients and building materials then healthy cells, as such they will poison themselves faster then the healthy cells.

But to comeback to a low fructose diet, we have a few billion bacteria and other lifeforms as fungi inside the intestines. All of these need to be kept at a proper balance which is done through a regular diet. But to much food is unhealthy.

Also, I don't know of any bacterial carcinogens, initiator or promoter.


It is the combination of bacteria and viruses and/or carcinogens. I thought that with your background you would understand that in nature things works as much parallel as they do sequential.

Here is some information about current research developments :
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=330409&page=4#98.
My colleague has returned from holiday. I can finally ask about the relation between the virus infection and diabetes, about the experimental treatment in Canada. I will post the reply in the virus thread at HT.
[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Mar 22, 2002
10,483
32
81
Lulz at the people who have no understanding of biochemistry saying "Duh, two different molecules processed differently!" Fructose almost always gets converted to glucose and is then processed in the same way. The only problem is that it has no regulatory pathways, which we're only now finding out has some severe consequences, such as increased insulin resistance, adiposity, and apparently cancer proliferation. Also, fruit is a great source of energy still. The fiber from fruit slows metabolism so that the effects of typical fructose metabolism are negated. It slows the whole process down enough so that the body can convert it to glucose/glycogen without any of the negative aspects associated with large sways in glucose (from something like a soda).
 
May 11, 2008
21,094
1,213
126
Lulz at the people who have no understanding of biochemistry saying "Duh, two different molecules processed differently!" Fructose almost always gets converted to glucose and is then processed in the same way. The only problem is that it has no regulatory pathways, which we're only now finding out has some severe consequences, such as increased insulin resistance, adiposity, and apparently cancer proliferation. Also, fruit is a great source of energy still. The fiber from fruit slows metabolism so that the effects of typical fructose metabolism are negated. It slows the whole process down enough so that the body can convert it to glucose/glycogen without any of the negative aspects associated with large sways in glucose (from something like a soda).

The interesting part is, who is doing the conversion from fructose to glucose ?
Is it done in the gut by a specialized group of our symbiotic friends ?
Or is it done by our own body cells ?
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
30,051
2,444
126
I knew that HFCS was bad for you. You knew HFCS was bad for you. But the bad sceintists out there exclaimed otherwise, while pocketing profits of its production.

I stick to real sugar or none at all.
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
I knew that HFCS was bad for you. You knew HFCS was bad for you. But the bad sceintists out there exclaimed otherwise, while pocketing profits of its production.

I stick to real sugar or none at all.

This study doesn't indicate any difference between HFCS and sucrose.
 

disappoint

Lifer
Dec 7, 2009
10,132
382
126
Lulz at the people who have no understanding of biochemistry saying "Duh, two different molecules processed differently!" Fructose almost always gets converted to glucose and is then processed in the same way. The only problem is that it has no regulatory pathways, which we're only now finding out has some severe consequences, such as increased insulin resistance, adiposity, and apparently cancer proliferation. Also, fruit is a great source of energy still. The fiber from fruit slows metabolism so that the effects of typical fructose metabolism are negated. It slows the whole process down enough so that the body can convert it to glucose/glycogen without any of the negative aspects associated with large sways in glucose (from something like a soda).

So what you're saying then is fruit juice, which lacks most of the fiber, will give you cancer while the fruit itself won't. You know what? You're not just socially challenged. You're easily duped especially by a study that tells you what you want to hear, what you already thought you knew. Even if it's wrong.

You, like so many others in the world that make me sick, more than fructose ever will, would rather find studies that reinforce your already existing opinion, so that you may feel intellectually superior to all those peons that disagree with you, never mind if it's wrong, or lacks any credible evidence whatsoever.
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
The interesting part is, who is doing the conversion from fructose to glucose ?
Is it done in the gut by a specialized group of our symbiotic friends ?
Or is it done by our own body cells ?

I wish you'd get off the GI flora thing... Anyway the conversion is done by phosphoglucose isomerase, it's a cytoplasmic enzyme. So it's not really glucose to fructose, but phosphoglucose to phosphofructose. Fructose and glucose are both rapidly phosphorylated in the cytoplasm, you don't find much non-phosphorylated fructose or glucose in cells.