9 Year Study: Scientists reveal the relationship between SUGAR and CANCER

Scientists reveal the relationship between sugar, cancer
www.sciencedaily.com...

A nine-year joint research project...led to a crucial breakthrough in cancer research. Scientists have clarified how the Warburg effect, a phenomenon in which cancer cells rapidly break down sugars, stimulates tumor growth. This discovery provides evidence for a positive correlation between sugar and cancer, which may have far-reaching impacts on tailor-made diets for cancer patients.

This project was started in 2008...Its main focus was the Warburg effect, or the observation that tumors convert significantly higher amounts of sugar into lactate compared to healthy tissues. As one of the most prominent features of cancer cells, this phenomenon has been extensively studied and even used to detect brain tumors, among other applications.

Sugar awakens cancer cells

"Our research reveals how the hyperactive sugar consumption of cancerous cells leads to a vicious cycle of continued stimulation of cancer development and growth. Thus, it is able to explain the correlation between the strength of the Warburg effect and tumor aggressiveness.

Yeast as an advantageous model organism

Yeast cell research was essential to the discovery, as these cells contain the same 'Ras' proteins commonly found in tumor cells, which can cause cancer in mutated form. Using yeast as a model organism, the research team examined the connection between Ras activity and the highly active sugar metabolism in yeast.

"We observed in yeast that sugar degradation is linked via the intermediate fructose 1,6-biophosphate to the activation of Ras proteins, which stimulate the multiplication of both yeast and cancer cells.

"The main advantage of using yeast was that our research was not affected by the additional regulatory mechanisms of mammalian cells, which conceal crucial underlying processes."

How sugar can increase risk of cancer...video below:


I have studied cancer here and there and there always has been some sort of pattern or relationship existing between sugar, oxygen and cancer. Even all the alternative cancer treatments call out to you to eliminate sugar from the diet. Now whether this is to counter the Warburg effect or not, the implications of finding this relationship to cancer is a very important one nevertheless.

I am glad that this lengthy research is finding what aides in tumor growths and of course you will never hear this research make the MSN.

Hopefully this will add to more evidence to help us understand how cancer develops or spreads in humans. Oh. and if this means subbing more fruits and veggies into your diet instead of cookies and pop then so be it! (which I already abstain from a lot of non healthy sugars anyways)

I was reading about that the other day.
So glad were finally being exposed to the truth on the dangers of sugar!!

Ideas change very slowly here in France, and as I have to constantly put up with people lecturing me because I eat high fat and low carb, I keep these sorts of studies on hand. I also get my blood tested regularly and keep the latest results in my purse to prove my perfect health - plus the tests before I cut out sugar and started high fat. My cholestrol levels went down drastically after that!

So sick of people telling me sugar is fine and needed for energy, while fat makes you sick!

The sugar industry has made fools of us for too long a time.

I have some solid nodules on my thyroid and wonder if this way of eating might help shrink them. It would be great if that's the case.

Oh sugar...

Sugar, like salt is only harmful if you take too much of it. I get the whole deflection thing though. There are plenty of cancer causing toxins in our food and water that are dangerous in the itty-bitty, tiniest trace (Parts Per Billion) amounts.

But we don't want to hear about that, tell us more how sugar is 'cancerated' .

originally posted by: intrptr

Sugar, like salt is only harmful if you take too much of it. I get the whole deflection thing though. There are plenty of cancer causing toxins in our food and water that are dangerous in the itty-bitty, tiniest trace (Parts Per Billion) amounts.

But we don't want to hear about that, tell us more how sugar is 'cancerated' .

Sugar has no defineable benefits.

Sugar has many toxic properties and is highly addictive.

Who's deflecting?

originally posted by: intrptr

Sugar, like salt is only harmful if you take too much of it. I get the whole deflection thing though. There are plenty of cancer causing toxins in our food and water that are dangerous in the itty-bitty, tiniest trace (Parts Per Billion) amounts.

But we don't want to hear about that, tell us more how sugar is 'cancerated' .

originally posted by: intrptr

Sugar, like salt is only harmful if you take too much of it. I get the whole deflection thing though. There are plenty of cancer causing toxins in our food and water that are dangerous in the itty-bitty, tiniest trace (Parts Per Billion) amounts.

But we don't want to hear about that, tell us more how sugar is 'cancerated' .

Had to think the same!

My mother, who never smoked, never ate too much sugar(she simply didn´t want to get fat) suddenly had cancer in one of her eyes. If you open the door to that house where she lived almost her whole life, you look at a main road! Guess where that cancer in her eye came from... not from sugar!

The funny thing is, since exactly yesterday i am testing something. I really eat and drink way too much sugar normally, but since yesterday i am drinking water instead of coke ,put one sugar cube in my coffe, instead of four or five. But it´s because i want to get my naturally sense of taste back, that got destroyed by all that industrial food, fast food, ready meal stuff that is full of sugar and chemicals, instead of real food. To make you an addict. And that kind of human feed is cheaper to produce and there is more profit to make than with real, normal food.

Another reason is, my whole family(the german side), had diabetes later in life, grandma, grandpa, mom, dad.
So i am pretty sure that i will have diabetes too, in the future. Then it´s better to go away from that sugar addicition now, so that later it doesn´t get so hard to change everything, when you are forced too.

Ah, and i am not fat or getting fat, that is not the reason.

I just started with water in the morning. In the afternoon i drank some coffee wit "only" two sugar cubes per cup, and it was sweet for me. Normally i drink coke the whole day and if i don´t put four or five sugar cubes in my coffee or tea then, i can´t drink it, because it is not sweet enough. Just because of drinking water for several hours, the two sugar cubes almost taste like the four or five before, that i was used to. I will reduce that to one cube soon.

After a while of decreasing sugar consumption i will test what others told me, that if you eat fruits then, they will be sweet like never before, taste like never before, so that you don´t need any chemical sweets anymore. Same is for everything else, as those people say, vegetables, meat, everything you eat and drink tastes really better again.

I want my sense of taste back that i had as a child, where we stole all kinds of fruits from the neighbours trees and didn´t need to buy Snickers, Haribo or stuff like that.

If i hear: This makes cancer, this is unhealthy, i just wait for the: Buy our product instead, with less of the unhealthy, for example sugar(but full of chemicals, pssssst)...

It´s particular matter, it´s chemicals and plastics in our human feed(can´t call it food anymore), it´s work circumstances(what some people have to enhale at work, materials they have to work with), it´s pollution, those are the main causes of cancer.

a reply to: Skywatcher2011

I'm at a loss here what to think about this touted recent finding.

For how long have we been told that sugar feeds cancer cells?

As my wife died of the spread of her breast cancer in 1997 I believe that it was already proven that cancer cells thrived on sugar.

Darn, I really gotta give up my Dr.Pepper habit. I know, I know, I don't need a lecture,
I KNOW how bad it is, it's just so darn good. Water,water,water,water...Gotta keep telling myself, WATER!

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

Sugar has many toxic properties and is highly addictive.

Who's deflecting?

People are addictive.

Too much of anything is 'toxic'.

a reply to: DerBeobachter

all that industrial food, fast food, ready meal stuff that is full of sugar and chemicals, instead of real food. To make you an addict. And that kind of human feed is cheaper to produce and there is more profit to make than with real, normal food.

The more processed food is the less food value it retains.

Sugar is brown until its refined. Same with white, enriched , homogenized food 'products' like flour, milk. Everything is toxic nowadays on some level.

Keeping it simple, eat foods that are whole, not processed, packaged and full of additives.

Fruit, vegetables, grains, nuts are less 'dangerous'.

Sorry about you mums.

originally posted by: intrptr


The more processed food is the less food value it retains.

Sugar is brown until its refined.

I was about to protest, but then remembered you might be in the US, where sugar cane is most common. Here in Europe, sugar comes from beets. It is white, though a darker sugar can be bought, which is actually cooked and caramelized to create the color.

The thing is, as mentioned, all of our processed foods have tons of sugar added.
Plus, drinking a glassful of pressed orange juice ends up being more than one orange, minus the fibers.
Eating tons of fruit even in winter is not what our bodies were made for.

The carbs we need can be supplied through veggies and a few grains or nuts. There just isn't any reason to add it to anything.

It's shown to be more addictive than coc aine - not emotionally addictive (which could be said about anything) but physically addictive.
I don't think there is any evidence that it is causing cancer - but a lot of evidence that it feeds cancer.

a reply to: DerBeobachter

It's true.

Your palate will reset if you treat sugar more like an occasional treat rather than a necessary and ever-present food supplement.

We've trimmed most of the sugar out of our diets here except for the occasional treats like fresh baked cookies or similar I might make or the occasional soda husband or son might have when we go out.

But we buy the natural peanut butter and the jams that are fruit, pectin, juice. We look hard for things that don't have sugar on the label. And natural fruit tastes good without needing to be sugared. Our goal is to raise our kid that way, so that he never has to reset himself.

a reply to: Bluesma

No, in the US, most sugar additive is corn syrup, not cane sugar.

This is an interesting development but the study focuses on the link between sugar and yeast and cancer and not the whole body metabolism and functions.

So, I would like to share a little bit of information of what I found while looking at sugar alternatives and which speaks to why our bodies need natural forms of sugar/glucose. So what may be needed here is a sugar/glucose balancing act, which includes natural choices and moderation. Does it make sense?

Many people favor stevia as a primary sweetener, because they are afraid of feeding Candida overgrowth. Stevia may not feed Candida, but going sugar free to address Candida overgrowth is a big mistake because it can lead to systemic candida overgrowth and severely impaired metabolism. What is so wrong with the popular Candida Diet, a sugar-free diet that uses only stevia as a sweetener? I recently debunked candida myths and offered a safer, healthier alternative to the Candida Diet in my post Busted: Candida Myths.

empoweredsustenance.com...

Our bodies need glucose, supposedly -

Choose sweeteners that have stood the test of time: fresh fruit, raw honey, maple syrup, jaggery, and coconut sugar.

Many people choose stevia over natural sweeteners like fruit and honey, but this is not a good choice. Fruit and raw honey, in particular, are excellently balanced sources of glucose and fructose, providing the liver with building blocks to create glycogen (glucose stores). Stevia, however, does not support glycogen formation.

Why is glycogen so important? When blood sugar is low, glycogen is broken down and released as glucose in the bloodstream. When the diet lacks sufficient glucose, there will be inadequate glycogen stored. If sugar is not immediately ingested to raise blood sugar levels, the body releases extra adrenaline and cortisol to convert muscle protein and fat into glucose. If this pattern is repeated, the frequent release of these stress hormone takes a toll on the body… and one of the most manifest symptoms of excess cortisol is abdominal weight gain.

How to eat sugar

Balance carbohydrate intake with fat and protein. Quality fats slows down the absorption of glucose into the blood stream, providing satiation and satisfaction. Protein helps pull sugar into the cells so your body can use it for energy. So enjoy your baked sweet potato with a dollop of ghee and alongside a portion of meat.Text

empoweredsustenance.com...

Cancer is a mould ......it requires an acidic environment to take hold.

Sodium bicarbonate should neutralise it on contact.

Sugar in some way is sympathetic to the creation of cancer friendly environments....which are acidic in nature...soooooo....how does sugar do this.

a reply to: Bluesma

Cane vs. Beet sugar

Cancer is still flesh. It is flesh in rebellion, but still flesh. It feeds on the same nutrients as the rest of your flesh. The immune system doesn't target cancer because it is fooled into thinking cancer is 'of the body'.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Bluesma

No, in the US, most sugar additive is corn syrup, not cane sugar.

I was replying to the comment that raw (unprocessed ) sugar is brown, not white. I assume he was talking about granulated sugar.... because dark corn syrup is not raw at all, it has additives like molasses for the color.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Bluesma

Cane vs. Beet sugar

Not sure why you linked to images? Beet sugar comes in brown, but only because it has been processed to become brown (molasses derived from cane sugar is added). Without the added processing, beet sugar is white- unlike cane sugar.

But this is why I prefer feeding my flesh energy from ketone bodies.

a reply to: Bluesma

Sorry, wrong link. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Fixing...