Researchers at Purdue University have precisely measured the impact of a high-fat diet on the spread of cancer, finding that excessive dietary fat caused a 300 percent increase in metastasizing tumor cells in laboratory animals.

The researchers used an imaging technique to document how increasing fat content causes cancer cells to undergo changes essential to metastasis. Then they used another technique to count the number of cancer cells in the bloodstream of mice fed a high-fat diet compared to animals fed a lean diet.

"It is generally accepted that diet and obesity are accountable for 30 percent of preventable causes of cancer, but nobody really knows why," Cheng said. "These findings demonstrate that an increase in lipids leads directly to a rise in cancer metastasis."

Researchers have theorized that tumor cells need more lipids than ordinary tissues to provide energy and material for tumor growth and metastasis.

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2009a/...gFatcancer.html

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/9/42

Lots of fat with lots of carbs = recipe for disaster

Most of what I've read here and there on the subject says that cancer cells like to eat sugar, so I guess I'm not surprised that they'd like fat also. As long as they get a good hearty meal, they're probably not fussy about what it is.

Meg

No news here. They fed the rats polyunsaturated fats which everyone knows is inflamatory.

I couldn't find the F/P/C ratios anywhere in the article. Typical ratios I have seen in these studies is 40% fat 15% protein and 45% carb. I don't know that is what they did here, since the reporter didn't see fit to mention the ratios.

*yawn*

Once again, BoBo tries to convince us that Fat Is Bad, with, as usual, no mention whatever of the carbs involved.

Now if they had done a study comparing rates of metastasis with a low carb high fat diet, and a high carb low fat diet, then I would pay attention. But as they don't so much as even give us the macros, this "study" means nothing.

I’m also surprised the ratios were not mentioned.

I did find that the lean diet was 4.25% fat and 3.82 Kcal/g. The high fat diet was 34.9% fat and 5.24 Kcal/g.

Bo

Mice?

Oh Please. Please. Tell me how humans are like mice?
Please?

Maybe if they wanted to prove that excess dietary fat caused cancer, they would feed their test subjects strictly fat. Otherwise we may never know what exactly the findings correlate with.

Omega-3 or Omega-6 or something else?

From http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2009a/...gFatcancer.html...
Linoleic acid is an omega-6 PUFA.

As Utah Jake stated, this isn't news. It's been known for years that PUFA's, and omega-6 PUFA's in particular, are associated with inflammation and increased risk for cancer.


Doreen

This study is extremely interesting. We could argue that a 34.9 % fat diet is NOT an high fat diet but this is not the point I want to make. The study demonstrate that a diet rich in polyunsaturated fats (vegetable oils) induces a change in cell membrane (change in polarity and increase in surface binding capability) thus enhancing metastasis... and it clearly demonstrate that these changes do not occur with saturated free fatty acids.

Let me give an example that can help us to understand better the concept: we know that grass-fed animals have harder meat and given them a cereal diet (high in polyunsaturated oils), the meat get tender. This <tenderising process> is well explained with all the changes observed in the study. So let us imagine how it can weaken all the cells of an human body when directly given directly to us in our diet...

To enhance our cell resistance to attacks from outside, we need to eat a diet rich in saturated fats. We have a lesson to learn here: it is not ONLY a question on cutting on carbohydrates!!!

We are not mice. We do not grow fat, nor sick, on a high fat diet. Unless the fat is from vegetable source or is hydrogenated. Even then, not all vegetable fats are harmful as shown by coconut oil.

I was excited <at first anyway> to read this article. How on earth people can be expected to make decisions on experiments with unknown values is beyond me. How much fat? What kind(s)? Carb levels? Ugh...

I was surprised that fat is a contributor to metastatic rates, but perhaps not too surprised as I'm convinced that diet is critical when fighting cancer. I know this is a tad bit off tangent with this thread, but research has convinced me that sugar in a diet is a major culprit, so it wouldn't surprise me all that much to find out that obesity is a contributor as well. Hormones are fat stored and excessive fat would equal excessive hormones which could have devestating effects on the growth of tumors.

The way that I understand it, cancer thrives in an acidic environment and sugar changes the body to acidic. Has anyone read of the effect that a ketogenic type diet would have on the acidity levels of the body?

IMHO protein would be needed both for the energy that the body needs to overwhelm the errant cells and the amino acids for regrowth < repair > once the cancer is under control.

All too often selection of food is based on emotional needs or family traditions etc... instead of the values needed at that particular time.

For example, I passed on the research I'd gathered on nutrition and cancer while fighting my ex-husband's brain and lung cancer to friends who are fighting a particularly virulent sarcoma in their 25 year old son. The next few days I read in his journal that :

He had been told by his doctor to increase protein
He was excited to learn Hershey bars had 4g protein (huh????)
The nurses had fixed him a birthday cake, cookies and punch to celebrate his birthday
He felt well enough to eat pizza, and they made it pepperoni for the "increased protein"
"Today, J felt like eating a quarter pounder meal from Mickey D's.. we immediately ran to get it for him"

This poor kid has gained 30+ pounds of excess fluid in a month..

*sighs* 'nuff said here I think.

Yeah:

Like the only "high fat" these short-sighted researchers can envision is one rich in canola, soy or corn oil! Once again, the spin wins the headlines.

Useless research until they remove the carbs and re-do it. Or use primarily saturated animal fats. Then I might listen.