Is there a positive correlation between eating sugar and cancer?
There is a growing trend among sugar haters, blaming sugar for cancer; this time.
Can eating sugar be linked to cancer?
You can also add to the debate by leaving your comment at the end of the page.
Don Ayer is a professor in the Department of Oncological
Sciences at the University of Utah.There 'is' a weak link between eating sugar and cancer. Since the link between excessive insulin production and cancer has been established. Insulin is produced in the Pancreas( islets of Langerhans) and insulin production is surged when you eat a lot of sugar. The job of insulin is to regulate sugar, too much insulin can cause hypoglycemia and too little hyperglycemia(a sugar high).
However, eating sugar in general will not tamper with insulin levels too much, it's only when an abnormal(and this differs from person to person) is consumed. [[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090817184539.htm]]
The article professes that the amino acid, 'Glutamine', is just as responsible for cell growth as glucose is. Also, all cell growth isn't bad. The growth of a tumor is bad but otherwise cell growth keeps people young. There should be no issue with normal cells growing and only the growth of cancer cells should be monitored, controlled and restricted. Such as; by the process introduced in the article quoted on the left.
Cancer is 'weakly' linked/correlated with almost everything. The true cause of cancer is still unknown; most cancers are idiopathic; any how. "Warburg's hypothesis stated that cancer growth was caused when cancer cells converted glucose into energy without using oxygen. Healthy cells make energy by converting pyruvate and oxygen. The pyruvate is oxidized within a healthy cell's mitochondria, and Warburg theorized that since cancer cells don't oxidize pyruvate, cancer must be considered a mitochondrial dysfunction. Now that we know more about the genetics of cancer, we know that cancer is not a mitochondrial dysfunction, but is caused by genetic mutations, such as appear on the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2."- [[http://breastcancer.about.com/od/cancerfightingfoods/a/cancer_sugar_myth.htm]]
There 'is'a connection, eve if Sugar doesn't 'cause' cancer or does not act alone in the growth of cancer cells
It is known that the Glutamine (An amino acid) and glucose work together to help cells grow. Tumors are made up of cells, which will grow, the more sugar you take. Sugar is solely blamed for innumerable diseases and if the link between cancer and sugar is not very strong(but still exists) sugar intake must be regulated for healthy living.
The human body produces sugar from excess protein and carbohydrates(sugar is a carbohydrates) And if this sugar is not fully utilized it is stored as fat. The link between obesity and cancer is quite strong.
"The concept that sugar feeds cancer is not useful. Sugar feeds every cell in our bodies. Our bodies need glucose, or simple sugar, for energy. Even if you cut every bit of sugar out of your diet, your body will make sugar from other sources, such as protein and fat.
So cancer cells need sugar to grow, just like healthy cells. It helps to remember that there is nothing particular about sugar that “feeds” cancer cells any more than sugar feeds all cells in our body."
sugar causes obesity, strong link between obesity and cancer. Most closely linked with pancreatic cancer
The fatter you get the greater your cancer risk. The more sugar you eat the greater your obesity risk. [[http://www.aces.edu/dept/extcomm/newspaper/mar12a03.html]]
"A tablespoon of sugar, for example, contains between 50 and 60 calories but very little else from the standpoint of nutritional content. A 12-ounce nondiet soft drink will have 3 tablespoons of sugar, totaling between 150 and 180 calories with no other nutrients."
small quantities of sugar contain major caloric content.[[http://www.everydayhealth.com/pancreatic-cancer/pancreatic-cancer-and-obesity.aspx]]
"Pancreatic cancer is the fifth-leading cause of cancer death, with a survival rate of less than 5 percent,” says Margaret Lewin, MD, medical director of Cinergy Health and clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Medical College of Cornell University in New York. “Prevention is, therefore, key.”
"Researchers at the Karolinska Institute studied the diets of almost 80,000 men and women between 1997 and 2005. A total of 131 developed pancreatic cancer, a deadly form of the disease that is difficult to treat.
“The researchers have now been able to show that the risk of developing pancreatic cancer is related to the amount of sugar in the diet,” the institute said in a statement.
The group of people who said they drank fizzy or syrup-based drinks twice a day or more ran a 90 percent higher risk of getting cancer of the pancreas than those who never drank them."
Sugar, insulin and the Pancreas are impossible to disconnect(since insulin is produced in the pancreas to counter vicissitudes in blood sugar levels), and when it comes to the cancer of pancreas, sugar plays the title role.
"he largest of these studies was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in January 2005. The researchers used data from the Korean Cancer Prevention Study (KCPS) which involved more than 1.2 million Koreans between the ages of 30 and 95.
During the ten year study period, a total of 26,473 cancer deaths were recorded. The researchers found that death rates from cancer were 29 and 23 percent higher for men and women respectively for those in the group with the highest fasting blood glucose levels (>140mg/dL) compared to those with the lowest fasting glucose levels (< 90mg/dL)." ..."pancreatic cancer was found to have the strongest association with blood sugar levels. Women in the highest blood sugar group had more than twice the risk of developing pancreatic cancer compared to those in the lowest group while men in the highest group had a 91 percent increased risk of pancreatic cancer."
Agreed that sugar regulation is linked with the pancreas, but to say that sugar is the culprit because obesity is, is transgressing to irrelevant extrapolation. Even if you don't eat sugar, other foods(fat, protein, carbohydrates, vitamins and nutrients) that you do eat, will be converted to glucose/sugar to account for the body's energy needs. Growth of any kind is more closely related to protein than sugar anyhow. Sugar is a fuel, protein on the other hand is a change-agent. The word protean means pro·te·an/ˈprōtēən/Adjective
1. Tending or able to change frequently or easily.
2. Able to do many different things; versatile
And protein comes from the same Latin prefix.
Point is, blood sugar levels and sugar consumption are not directly linked. Consuming any kind of food will temporarily increase blood sugar levels(hyperglycemia) and hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) causes hyperglycemia because that is how homeostasis works. (Any extreme shortage is countered by the body taking involuntary measures to reserve/store so as to counteract an impeding shortage, this applies to everything floating around in the bloodstream), [[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/protean]]
Everything is weakly , loosely and supposedly related to cancer
And at the end all and be all of things; no 'real' connections have been determined. And in the case of sugar the connection made in 1934 has now been rebutted, disproved and dismissed. Back in the day, because cells normally grow on sugar and protein; mitochondrial processes were blamed for the abnormal growth and emergence of tumors(benign and malignant). However, despite the fact that 'all' cells feed on protein and sugar, Tumors(cancerous growth) come to be, via genetic mutations, such as the kind that appear on the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. [[http://breastcancer.about.com/od/cancerfightingfoods/a/cancer_sugar_myth.htm]]
High sugar consumption does not not equate to high blood sugar levels unless your insulin(islets of Langerhans-pituitary gland) is out of whack. And even then extreme blood sugar levels do no lead to cancer neither do they cause a significant surge in tumor growth, since tumors work differently.
So you admit that there's a connection? [[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090817184539.htm]]
It is known that sugar and protein feed cells of all kinds and of the ways scientists are looking into to curtail tumor growth is cutting off cancer cell food supply(in the shape of the protein "Glutamine" and the sugar "Glucose".
"Cancer Myth #1: "“I heard cancer feeds on sugar. Should I avoid eating all sugar?”"
Holen: "No. Almost every new patient will ask me about this. A theory prevalent on the Internet holds that sugar will influence blood sugar levels, feed cancer and cause it to spread. The truth is you can't really control blood sugar by what you eat. The body's complex system processes what we eat and manages to keep blood sugar levels stable. You could starve yourself for weeks and yet your blood sugar will remain stable. The exception to this, of course, is people with diabetes who don't have proper insulin-regulating systems. But if you apply the theory that sugar can affect your insulin levels and feed cancer, diabetics with cancer would all be dying of their cancer." "
bottom line: If this myth were even remotely true diabetics with cancer would be dying of their cancer.
But everyone with cancer is dying of their cancer? until and unless of course the cancer is somehow removed, in which case the patient is no longer a patient nor suffering from cancer.
What is known is this: Cell growth occurs when cells feed on sugar and protein.
This holds true for both cancer and normal cells. [[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090817184539.htm]]
What do you think?