A study by Peeters et al. (2017) suggests that sugar traps cancer in a 'vicious cycle' which make it more aggressive and harder to treat (1). On the question-and-answer site Quora, Ray Schilling, MD, concludes: "there is a connection between the consumption of sugar and starchy foods and various cancers in man. Animal experiments are useful in suggesting these connections, but many clinical trials including the Women’s Health Initiative have shown that these findings are also true in humans. It is insulin resistance due to sugar and starch overconsumption that is causing cancer" (2).
References
1. Peeters K, Van Leemputte F, Fischer B, Bonini BM, Quezada H, Tsytlonok M, Haesen D, Vanthienen W, Bernardes N, Gonzalez-Blas CB, Janssens V, Tompa P, Versées W, Thevelein JM. Fructose-1,6-bisphosphate couples glycolytic flux to activation of Ras. Nat Commun 2017; 8: 922. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01019-z. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01019-z.pdf
2. Schilling R. Why isn't sugar portrayed as bad like cigarettes? https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-sugar-portrayed-as-bad-like-cigarettes
Study by Peeters et al. (2017) provides a potential molecular mechanism by which cancer cells acquire growth/proliferation advantage over over non-transformed cells to stay in cell cycle and proliferate. Important question would be how to eliminate cancer cells selectively that are dependent upon sugar.
Although I am not a researcher in this field, I do not think that sugar per se is a carcinogenic agent. Given the very common use of sugar , it would be expected that the risk of cancer could become many folds its current level.
No sugar is not a carcinogen. Many generations in the past have taken it without any significant carcinogenic effect on them.
Sugar plays a role in the agressiveness of cancer. It's consider a fuel by some. There are trials going on to study the effects of sugar in the body. I can tell you that there is a direct correlation to a man's A1C reading to his PSA reading.
I think it is repeated exposure to overwhelming concentrations that feeds the pathway. No it is not carcinogenic by the strict definition of the term but as other have pointed out it does enhance and stimulate the pathways and over time this may actually provide selective pressure for cancer cells that arise normally during life.
The current furor (sugar is carcinogenic) is yet an extrapolation of a study in yeast, not in human. The results say, high concn of sugar in lab. media activated Ras gene in yeast (to stimulates cancer growth). It sounds much like the observation of Warburg (Nobel winner) 80 yr. ago that cancer cells must consume glucose to survive. but it's not yet known if cancer cell needs simple and dietary sugar or not. So, it may be a wake-up call, as excess sugar consumption leads to obesity, insulin resistance etc. to weaken immune system. Ancesters also consumed surgars, but not simple one, they ate whole grains & irregularly, preventing their excess calorie intake.
Your question is very important to help clarify points of view on this discussed topic that, incidentally, raises a growing concern: the consumption of sugars associated with the onset of cancer. For my part I can speak from the perspective of health promotion according to applied biological studies, I can not do it from the oncological studies themselves.
Depending on the modifying attribute of this food, its integral productive cycle and the carcinogenic additives, the possibility of impacting the cellular genetic material is reserved.
Modifications in these nucleic acids, as is known, lead to anomalous replication processes and result in new diseased cells. The vulnerability of each person to such affectations is given, by inherited predispositions, in this way the principle is fulfilled: "Genetics predisposes, but the environment ends saying what is going to happen".
It would not be scientifically responsible to claim that sugar causes cancer.
However, any excess of nutrients can be potentially risky for the human organism, but it does not always lead, at least immediately, to a redundant genetic change in the appearance of cancer.
From the perspective of health promotion, the behavioral convenience of avoiding excessive consumption of sugars is established, as well as preventing the contamination of this food with materials of which there is greater certainty about its carcinogenic properties.
In this sense, it should also be prioritized the personalized Genomic Medicine Approaches (Fortina, P 2017). There is also the case of a report that realizes that most types of cancers do not have an environmental or genetic cause for which it is practically impossible to predict them and, consequently, self-care behaviors are irrelevant.
These according to (Knapton, 2014) available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11320497/Most-cancers-are-caused-by-bad-luck-not-genes-or -lifestyle-say-scientists.html
The report adds that of 31 types of cancer studied by scientists at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in the US, just nine were found to be related to lifestyle or genetic defects. The remaining 22 were mainly just the result of "bad luck".
Even so, a professional health promoter should ( it's my case ) not shy away from divulging the preventive measures that until now have been considered valid for the behavior of people.
Studies also show that excess protein intake may promote ageing & cancer by stimulating mTOR (mammalion target of rapamycin). Balanced diets are said to support heanlth & longevity, as diets influence hormone secretion (insulin, leptin) nutrient sensors (IGFreceptor, & mTOR etc) regulating energy flow to growth, repair, proliferation etc. High concentrations of amino acids, glucose & (in turn, insulin, IGF) up-reregulate mTOR and their lower concentration will downregulate mTOR. So, it sounds reasonable that cancer growth may ressult from long term imbalanced diets, dietary choice & life style etc.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4214394/pdf/ol-08-06-2367.pdf
depending on the condition sugars are carcinogenic if they are react with other groups like Acrylamide and millard formation. the degraded or polymerized compounds formed after sugar reaction are potential for cancer
Sugar may not be the initiating cause of cancer, if one prefers a balanced diet. But if it is true that cancer cell can only survive on glucose or other sinple sugars, it sounds quite reasonable that by limiting glucose & other simple sugars in diets, may statrve the cancer cells, thus limiting proliferation and crusing over the whole body. Let us expect some more breakthrough results on sugar utilization by cancer cells etc.
High sugar intake may increase cancer risk by promoting insulin–glucose dysregulation, oxidative stress, inflammation, and body adiposity, but epidemiologic evidence is unclear.
Article Consumption of Sugars, Sugary Foods, and Sugary Beverages in...
Normally sugar does not cause cancer, but if the concentration of sugar is high, it can cause cancer.
Hello, It is suggested that previously reported carcinogenic effects following repeated s.c. injection of sugar solutions may be due to the presence of carcinogenic chemical impurities in the sugars used, possibly eluted from charcoal employed for the decoloration of sugar solutions
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Oncology
- Cancer Research
- Cancer Biology