Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Tue, Jul-25-17, 23:30
Rosebud's Avatar
Rosebud Rosebud is offline
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23,355
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 235/135/135 Female 5'4
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Unhappy Cancer and sugar: Does changing your diet starve cancerous cells?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2...to-know/8701870

By James Bullen

You may have heard that 'sugar feeds cancer cells', fuelling their rapid growth.

Or that eliminating sugar from our diet can starve or stymie cancer growth.

But is there any truth to these beliefs?

Well, the oft-repeated claim that sugar feeds cancer cells is true in a strict sense — and that may seem scary. But of course, it's not the whole story.

The reality is that alongside cancer, sugar feeds most cells in the body and is vital to our everyday function.

The most simple forms of sugar are single molecule sugars, like glucose and fructose. These can combine to form more complex sugars like table sugar (sucrose).

All carbohydrates are sugars too, meaning foods you wouldn't think of as sugary — like potatoes, pasta and grains — do eventually break down to simple sugars in the body.

And sugar plays a critical role in fuelling the body's cells. Glucose, either eaten directly or broken down from carbohydrates, is critical to cell functioning.

This is the grain of truth at the heart of the concern around sugar and cancer — yes, sugar feeds cancer cells.

But it fuels them in exactly the same way it feeds all other cells in the body.

And our body can't dictate which cells it sends energy to and which it doesn't.


What happens if we eliminate sugar?

"Stopping sugar getting to cancer cells would also mean that your body's healthy cells get starved of necessary sugars," says the CEO of Cancer Council Australia, Professor Sanchia Aranda.

"I think that would make you lose weight, [and] would make your immune system less efficient and more likely that a cancer would progress."

What's more, our bodies are clever — they have other ways of getting glucose.

Even if you do try and cut it out, the body will just convert fat and protein stores into glucose where necessary.


How do cancer cells grow?

While sugar does feed cancer, the true picture of how cancer cells grow is a "lot more complicated than that," says University of New South Wales cancer biologist Dr Darren Saunders.

He says there's strong evidence some cancer cells also feed on amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) or lipids (substances including fats and oils).

These sources are used as metabolic fuel to power the cell's necessary processes, and as raw materials for building new cells, in much the same way sugar might be used.

But they also have a secondary purpose — helping cancer cells protect themselves against chemical damage.

It's a complex picture — different cancer cell types using different fuel sources at different times. But that mirrors the direction cancer diagnosis and treatment is heading in, Dr Saunders says.

"We're looking more and more at differences within individual cancers between patients, rather than trying to treat them all with a blunt instrument."


Too much sugar is still bad, right?

Though we needn't be worried about sugar feeding cancer, that doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention to your overall sugar consumption.

An excessive sweet tooth can lead to a whole host of health problems, including a greater risk of developing certain cancers.

Just as fat can be converted to sugar when it's needed, the reverse can also happen — sugar being stored as fat when the body doesn't require it.

Professor Aranda says people with higher sugar intakes are more likely to be overweight or obese, which is a contributing factor to cancer.

"We've estimated that just over 3 per cent of the total number of cancers diagnosed in Australia are related to obesity or being overweight," she says.

Evidence suggests being overweight or obese is a risk factor for 10 different cancers — including bowel, breast and liver cancer.

And while limiting your sugar intake won't starve cancer cells, it can help decrease the risk of you developing certain cancers, Professor Aranda says.

"It's actually not the sugar that's evil, it's the volume in which it's eaten and that link to obesity."

Dr Saunders agrees.

"Obesity is a risk factor, and eating too much sugar is a risk factor for obesity, so there's no doubt a link there, but you can't make the jump then to saying 'Stop eating sugar to starve a tumour'," he says.

"It really comes down to an individual basis. It's impossible to make a blanket statement."


A new way forward?

Eliminating sugar from your diet won't help you, because you'll be depriving other cells of a valuable fuel source too.

But what if cancer cells could selectively be starved of glucose? This is a growing focus of research for oncologists.

In 2015, research published in the journal Nature Communications found the over-production of a particular protein, PARP14, let cancer cells accelerate their growth via glucose consumption. Reducing levels of that protein in cells starved and killed them.

"There's a few different ways of approaching it, but they're all usually based on either blocking the ways that cells can access the fuel, or the way they can use the fuel and convert it into other things that they need to grow," Dr Saunders says.

And he stresses that it's not as simple as shutting off the supply of sugar to cancer cells.

"There are some cancer cells you can kill by blocking their supply to sugar, and some you can kill by blocking their supply to lipids, and some by blocking amino acids. It's impossible to oversimplify."
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Tue, Jul-25-17, 23:37
Rosebud's Avatar
Rosebud Rosebud is offline
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23,355
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 235/135/135 Female 5'4
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

Quote:
All carbohydrates are sugars too, meaning foods you wouldn't think of as sugary — like potatoes, pasta and grains — do eventually break down to simple sugars in the body.
Nooo! Who'd have thunk it!

I just can't believe the stupidity of some of these so called scientists sometimes. I'm just embarrassed that this piece came out of Australia. Why on earth did I post it?
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, Jul-26-17, 15:23
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,692
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Must have been a slow day for James Bullen, Roz. This piece could have come from anywhere there's an abundance of media sources and a perceived need to publish information for the "public good" . . . . . The author did an excellent job in conflating this information to the maximum!
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, Jul-26-17, 15:57
VLC.MD VLC.MD is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 220
 
Plan: Atkins/LCHF
Stats: 209/185/185 Male 69
BF:reducing
Progress: 100%
Location: Toronto, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosebud
A new way forward?

Eliminating sugar from your diet won't help you, because you'll be depriving other cells of a valuable fuel source too.

Yes it will.

I think the burden of proof should be in the opposite direction.

There is no proof that sugar is good for you, especially in cancer, and that until it is shown to be useful "as a valuable/essential food source for non-cancer cells" it should be avoided.

3% of cancer from obesity seems low to me.

The US figures are more like:

Quote:
How many cancer cases may be due to obesity?
A population-based study using BMI and cancer incidence data from the GLOBOCAN project estimated that, in 2012 in the United States, about 28,000 new cases of cancer in men (3.5%) and 72,000 in women (9.5%) were due to overweight or obesity (32). The percentage of cases attributed to overweight or obesity varied widely for different cancer types but was as high as 54% for gallbladder cancer in women and 44% for esophageal adenocarcinoma in men.

A 2016 study summarizing worldwide estimates of the fractions of different cancers attributable to overweight/obesity reported that, compared with other countries, the United States had the highest fractions attributable to overweight/obesity for colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, and postmenopausal breast cancer (33).


source - https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer...sity-fact-sheet

The big difference between men and women is largely due to the significant effect obesity has on breast cancer and how common breast cancer is in post-menopausal women.

A ketogenic diet needs to be studied in many different cancers as it could be helpful for many reasons.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Thu, Jul-27-17, 03:45
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,193
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/172/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 94%
Location: NC
Default

I don't know those Australian doctors...but I do these two.

Craig Thompson, MD, president of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, video on what causes cancer, more specifically about carbohydrates starting at the 17:40 minute mark.Why We All Don't Get Cancer He has been quoted: “I have eliminated refined sugar from my diet and eat as little as possibly can, because I believe ultimately it’s something I can do to decrease my risk of cancer”

Lewis Cantley, director of Weill-Cornell Cancer Center, says more succinctly: “Sugar scares me.” Author of “Metabolic Syndrome: F stands for Fructose and Fat”, an interview on: Cancer, metabolism, fructose, artificial sweeteners, and going cold turkey on sugar and 60 Minutes
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, Jul-27-17, 04:48
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 10,862
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

We're supposed to know, through the blunt instrument of epidemiology, that 3 percent of cancers are caused by obesity.

I don't know what percentage of cancers would respond well to a ketogenic diet. The studies haven't been done. By the current evidence it's likely to be at least "some." A ketogenic diet won't be effective for all cancers, there are even some where the evidence points at ketones making things worse--a minority, but they're out there. It's a promising area of research, just not something anybody can really make any promises about at this point. Assuring somebody that it absolutely won't help, at this point, is as much of a lie as assuring that a ketogenic diet will help. Notice that in his criticism of avoiding sugar to fight cancer, Dr. Saunders actually cites what should be evidence that it could be helpful in some cases.

Quote:
Eliminating sugar from your diet won't help you, because you'll be depriving other cells of a valuable fuel source too.

But what if cancer cells could selectively be starved of glucose? This is a growing focus of research for oncologists.

In 2015, research published in the journal Nature Communications found the over-production of a particular protein, PARP14, let cancer cells accelerate their growth via glucose consumption. Reducing levels of that protein in cells starved and killed them.

"There's a few different ways of approaching it, but they're all usually based on either blocking the ways that cells can access the fuel, or the way they can use the fuel and convert it into other things that they need to grow," Dr Saunders says.


I mean, how do you say this and not even consider a strict ketogenic diet, at least in some cases?



http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/843630

Saunders commented on this case, where an Australian blogger faked her own remission of a cancer she never had, claiming Ayurvedic medicine and a sugar-free diet cured her. So maybe he came by his attitude about this whole thing honestly.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Thu, Jul-27-17, 16:03
mike_d's Avatar
mike_d mike_d is offline
Grease is the word!
Posts: 8,035
 
Plan: PSMF/IF
Stats: 236/174/175 Male 72 inches
BF:disappearing!
Progress: 102%
Location: Alamo city, Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosebud
Nooo! Who'd have thunk it!

I just can't believe the stupidity of some of these so called scientists sometimes. I'm just embarrassed that this piece came out of Australia. Why on earth did I post it?
Well, if the "Caveman" was still around I am sure he would have some input on that

I think it depends on the cancer. Many have damaged mitochondria and have to rely on 'dirty glycolosis' as they cant effectively utilize fats for energy.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Thu, Jul-27-17, 16:41
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,197
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/213/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 34%
Location: Texas
Default

Warburg effect. I think that's that lot of cancers appear to have such damaged mitochondria that they must rely on fermentation of glucose alone for their survival. While most (but not all) other body cells can utilize ketones/fat for fuel. Here's what I wonder: since a small number of human cells absolutely must have glucose for fuel, hence the body will manufacture glucose by way of gluconeogenesis from other substrates in the absence of dietary glucose (why the adult human dietary requirement for carbs is zero), can the cancer cells actually be successfully starved out through dietary carb restriction or will the body be forced to increase glucose availability by glucononeogenesis to keep its critical glucose-using cells fed because greedy cancer cells are snapping up most of the glucose for themselves? I don't know the answer to this. I do think cancer and insulin resistance are related in some way, hence the statistical connection between obesity (a sign of insulin resistance) and some cancers. If the relationship is causal (insulin resistance causes cancer) then taking measures to reduce insulin resistance like eating low carb, weight loss, etc. should lead to some reductions in cancer risk. Plus a lot of other diseases which have been tied to insulin resistance.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Thu, Jul-27-17, 16:52
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,851
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/162/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: USA
Default

Gee, what does science say?

Quote:
The Links Between Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cancer

Although the precise mechanisms and pathways are uncertain, it is becoming clear that hyperinsulinemia and possibly sustained hyperglycemia are important regulators of not only the development of cancer but also of treatment outcome.


Quote:
The epidemiology and molecular mechanisms linking obesity, diabetes, and cancer.

The worldwide epidemic of obesity is associated with increasing rates of the metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes. Epidemiological studies have reported that these conditions are linked to increased rates of cancer incidence and mortality.


Certainly seems like something worth studying.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 17:01.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.