5

votes

Are there cancer cells not requiring glucose or fructose for proliferation?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created March 21, 2011 at 2:11 PM

If ALL cancer cells require glucose/fructose for proliferation and metastasis, eliminating these carbohydrates are simple and wonderful strategies(Warburg). Questions are whether ALL cancer cells require carbohydrates? Are there any cancer cells known which do not depend on glucose/fructose and which can proliferate on ketone bodies?
If there are such cancer cells, I would like to know which cancers such that I can devise alternative strategies to prevent.

F26fbc92b18f4689769d6f8746ea40f7

(334)

on February 05, 2013
at 04:44 AM

Don't have access, but in the very short and non-informative abstract, they mention amounts of 14 and 28mg/kg. Based on the fact that a mouse weighs a few grams, the data has been generated with amounts in the microgram range. I would love to have a look at the paper but I doubt the results will have any physiological relevance.

4bd4e2fe6a095663f80c69656936e487

(744)

on February 05, 2013
at 03:58 AM

Cancer cells are well adapted to live off of fat and proteins. -Ray Peat

E644cb0db27318ceda19322f59f0b9c3

(165)

on December 03, 2011
at 01:43 PM

Doesn't anyone smart want to analyse this ?

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22923)

on March 24, 2011
at 07:53 PM

Yay anonymous downvote!

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22923)

on March 21, 2011
at 10:16 PM

Or the multiple fructose cancer studies...

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22923)

on March 21, 2011
at 10:16 PM

http://www.google.com/search?q=fructose+multiply+cancer&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

Fa9f340eddbad9a544184c688fa4dcdd

(6433)

on March 21, 2011
at 07:50 PM

+1 Informative comment. Since my mother is a cancer survivor who has been supplementing glucosamine for the past 3 years, I'd be especially appreciative if you could elaborate.

425aa4bfb79556ed50ea693c3edd7e13

(609)

on March 21, 2011
at 07:47 PM

This wont work. Your body manufactures some amount of glucose to maintain blood glucose levels. See gluconeogenesis.

425aa4bfb79556ed50ea693c3edd7e13

(609)

on March 21, 2011
at 07:46 PM

Cite for the latter?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on March 21, 2011
at 06:54 PM

paleo CW of course! LOL

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on March 21, 2011
at 06:53 PM

regarding Warburg...The deficiency in the p53-mediated regulation of glycolysis and mitochondrial respiration greatly accounts for the deficient respiration of the predominance of aerobic glycolysis in cancer cells (the Warburg effect), while the deficiency in the p53-modulated antioxidant defense mechanisms contributes to mutagenesis and additionally boosts the carcinogenesis process.” The suggestion is therefore that maintaining strong P53 activity is an important aspect of maintaining health.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on March 21, 2011
at 06:04 PM

What did all that mean.........eat paleo and avoid foods that push cells down apoptotic pathways.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on March 21, 2011
at 06:02 PM

Dont look for the Bullet Jeff......its not important what they use after they undergo transformtation. What is most important is why did they travel on the pathway to cancer to begin with. The data is overwhelming that anything that increases insulin and cortisol long enough and sustained will lead to NF kappa beta IL1-8 and TNF alpha turned on itself.....and cancer generation. The goal is to never let the cell travel this path. This is the real failure of cancer researchers. After the fuse is lit you cant stop the firecracker from going off. Its too hard.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on March 21, 2011
at 05:58 PM

In addition, p53 generally confers the cancer cell sensitivity to chemoradiation......and we now know that there is a serious epigenomic control of the entire process by dietary and environmental cues. Those changes are coded by DNA methylation and histone acetylation in our genome and it can be change if we change.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on March 21, 2011
at 05:57 PM

Carcinogenesis is a multistage process, involving oncogene activation and tumor suppressor gene inactivation as well as complex interactions between tumor and host tissues, leading ultimately to an aggressive metastatic phenotype. Among many genetic lesions, mutational inactivation of p53 tumor suppressor, the “guardian of the genome,” is the most frequent event found in 50% of human cancers. p53 plays a critical role in tumor suppression mainly by inducing growth arrest, apoptosis, and senescence, as well as by blocking angiogenesis.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on March 21, 2011
at 05:56 PM

The P53 protein provides a first line of defense against cancers, causing cancer cells to commit apoptosis. Insulin and cortisol are huge promotors of p53.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on March 21, 2011
at 05:54 PM

When you have hyperinsulinemia and hypercortisolism.....you have the death tandem for a cell. One is a fuel source the other limits the immune system. A tissue becoming cancerous may entail simultaneous mutation, activation or inhibition of hundreds of genes. Cancers may be initiated due to oxidative DNA or mitochondrial DNA damage or cell senescence. Inflammation both supports cancer growth and is often caused by it. And a healthy immune system, one that detects and wipes out cancer cells, is key to defense against many kinds of cancers.

6670b38baf0aae7f4d8ac2463ddc37c0

(3946)

on March 21, 2011
at 04:28 PM

But dp ALL cancers require glucose and possibly fructose or are there some that thrive regardless of sugar supply?

Ac1e55cf06c2180f4008ff01953d10dd

(3524)

on March 21, 2011
at 04:05 PM

Carbs are also metabolised into glucose

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on March 21, 2011
at 03:06 PM

I don't think that is accurate at all. Do you have some reason to believe this?

  • 2bc6d4294c42a78bf9e7c754f87ef427

    asked by

    (172)
  • Views
    2.6K
  • Last Activity
    1281D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

10 Answers

best answer

5
F9a0b72f38860d7601afd5a45bb53394

(3618)

on March 21, 2011
at 02:58 PM

Researchers have noticed a connection between cancer and sugar for a while but it is not completely understood, and it depends on the type of cancer cell. It was once believed glucose was the main feeder of cancer but researchers are discovering fructose also works as a cancer feeder. This does NOT let glucose off the hook, however; it still feeds cancer! And there are good reasons not to eat glucose-forming foods to excess and cancer is only one of those reasons.

Otto Warburg's idea that sugar causes cancer is in dispute (see also here and the related talk page) but no one's denying there's a connection between sugar and cancer, even if the former doesn't cause the latter.

A lot of attention is given to the idea of genetic mutations being involved in cancer. This is a nice little mythology for people wanting to make money from biotech. I suppose there's some validity, maybe, but for example, the second link I gave you cites the "breast cancer genes" as "proof" of genetic mutation being the cause of cancer. How many women with breast cancer actually have those "breast cancer genes"? Very few. Most of them aren't carriers. I think that if genetic mutation is related to cancer, it doesn't necessarily have to exist in the original DNA code. We know radiation contributes to cancer, so that's mutation after the fact, so to speak, not mutation in the original genes.

Well, the fact is we're exposed to mutagens every day. They even exist in the natural world. You may have heard that AIDS patients and other immunocompromised people are more susceptible to cancer. That's because their immune systems are their front line of defense against developing a malignancy. Same for us. On a world that receives daily radiation and also contains radioactive minerals, we need some way to keep rogue cells in check.

I'd say the key to reducing risk is twofold: one, keep your immune system healthy; two, cut way down on sugar sources. Fructose is a gimme, pretty easy to avoid if you're not eating junk food, but if you're intaking glucose-forming foods over and above your energy requirements, that's something to look at critically as well. Possibly it won't matter as much in the absence of fructose. But if you're paranoid, cutting back on glucose production and consumption will at least let you feel like you have some control over possibilities.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on March 21, 2011
at 05:58 PM

In addition, p53 generally confers the cancer cell sensitivity to chemoradiation......and we now know that there is a serious epigenomic control of the entire process by dietary and environmental cues. Those changes are coded by DNA methylation and histone acetylation in our genome and it can be change if we change.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on March 21, 2011
at 05:57 PM

Carcinogenesis is a multistage process, involving oncogene activation and tumor suppressor gene inactivation as well as complex interactions between tumor and host tissues, leading ultimately to an aggressive metastatic phenotype. Among many genetic lesions, mutational inactivation of p53 tumor suppressor, the “guardian of the genome,” is the most frequent event found in 50% of human cancers. p53 plays a critical role in tumor suppression mainly by inducing growth arrest, apoptosis, and senescence, as well as by blocking angiogenesis.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on March 21, 2011
at 06:04 PM

What did all that mean.........eat paleo and avoid foods that push cells down apoptotic pathways.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on March 21, 2011
at 06:53 PM

regarding Warburg...The deficiency in the p53-mediated regulation of glycolysis and mitochondrial respiration greatly accounts for the deficient respiration of the predominance of aerobic glycolysis in cancer cells (the Warburg effect), while the deficiency in the p53-modulated antioxidant defense mechanisms contributes to mutagenesis and additionally boosts the carcinogenesis process.” The suggestion is therefore that maintaining strong P53 activity is an important aspect of maintaining health.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on March 21, 2011
at 05:56 PM

The P53 protein provides a first line of defense against cancers, causing cancer cells to commit apoptosis. Insulin and cortisol are huge promotors of p53.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on March 21, 2011
at 05:54 PM

When you have hyperinsulinemia and hypercortisolism.....you have the death tandem for a cell. One is a fuel source the other limits the immune system. A tissue becoming cancerous may entail simultaneous mutation, activation or inhibition of hundreds of genes. Cancers may be initiated due to oxidative DNA or mitochondrial DNA damage or cell senescence. Inflammation both supports cancer growth and is often caused by it. And a healthy immune system, one that detects and wipes out cancer cells, is key to defense against many kinds of cancers.

best answer

9
B9bfd6e543f2b8c8ac71d4a4e28a76d2

on March 21, 2011
at 03:20 PM

I work as a primary cancer researcher with an interest in metabolism and cancer. Glucose is definitely used by cancer cells for fuel. The fructose story is a little more unsettled. One paper got a lot of press on this, but needs more work. It should also be pointed out this paper can not be interpreted as 'fructose causes cancer'. Glutamine can be used as cancer fuel also. Raises question on glucosamine supplementation.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on March 21, 2011
at 06:02 PM

Dont look for the Bullet Jeff......its not important what they use after they undergo transformtation. What is most important is why did they travel on the pathway to cancer to begin with. The data is overwhelming that anything that increases insulin and cortisol long enough and sustained will lead to NF kappa beta IL1-8 and TNF alpha turned on itself.....and cancer generation. The goal is to never let the cell travel this path. This is the real failure of cancer researchers. After the fuse is lit you cant stop the firecracker from going off. Its too hard.

6670b38baf0aae7f4d8ac2463ddc37c0

(3946)

on March 21, 2011
at 04:28 PM

But dp ALL cancers require glucose and possibly fructose or are there some that thrive regardless of sugar supply?

Fa9f340eddbad9a544184c688fa4dcdd

(6433)

on March 21, 2011
at 07:50 PM

+1 Informative comment. Since my mother is a cancer survivor who has been supplementing glucosamine for the past 3 years, I'd be especially appreciative if you could elaborate.

3
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on February 05, 2013
at 12:46 PM

There is no one singular cancer so generalizing cancer is impossible. That is the single biggest problem in cancer research and what makes it challenging - each type of cancer is different and each case of the same cancer is nuanced by individual factors. Causes are manifold and multifaceted.

There are cancers that like glucose, some fructose, others neither. Some might even favor ketone bodies (there goes that blanket recommendation for ketogenic diets for cancer patients).

1
7fdefd6c747b2a2973d4f143aba508b3

on June 04, 2013
at 03:18 PM

All seems a bit far fetched to me.

As far as I know there are no in vivo studies looking at fructose, and very few in vitro. The main study people site states that fructose was found equal to glucose in cancer proliferation, but uses a different pathway.

So it amazes me how people extrapolate this to crazy notions of 'fructose lighter fuel', and 'glucose is fine but fructose is deadly'.

Lets get back to basics here - cancer cells need fuel and building blocks to grow. Given their adaptable nature, I wouldn't be surprised to see that they can feed off many different substances. We can't starve them out - even if we stop all glucose, our body generates it as fuel for our cells.

It seems to me a much better use of time to focus on nutrients that selectively attack cancer cells, repair DNA damage, turn off cell proliferation, turn on programmed cell death and cut off the blood supply - and generally bolster the immune system to enable it to do it's job.

The immune system deals with cancer cells every single day of our lives.

So instead of focusing on cutting every last fructose molecule from our diets, would it not be wiser to focus on flooding our systems with things like turmeric, sulphurofane, cruciferous vegetables, medicinal mushrooms, astragalus, resveratrol, and lots of other cancer fighting nutrients - as well as of course sunshine, sleep, exercise and reduced exposure to carcinogens?

1
4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on March 21, 2011
at 07:00 PM

Certain cancers, such as some blood cancers, can use glutamine for fuel, with the result that ketosis may be less effective against them.

1
4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

on March 21, 2011
at 03:15 PM

What ive read said Glucose is the food. Whether thats dietary or gluconeogenesis derived. but Fructose is the Lighter Fluid. The Cancers studied didnt MULTIPLY until fructose was introduced...

425aa4bfb79556ed50ea693c3edd7e13

(609)

on March 21, 2011
at 07:46 PM

Cite for the latter?

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22923)

on March 21, 2011
at 10:16 PM

http://www.google.com/search?q=fructose+multiply+cancer&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22923)

on March 24, 2011
at 07:53 PM

Yay anonymous downvote!

0
F26fbc92b18f4689769d6f8746ea40f7

(334)

on February 05, 2013
at 04:34 AM

The immune system is highly efficient at clearing transformed cells. People should not be surprised to see individuals developing cancer but rather be surprised that there are not many more of them. The topic of what drives cancer genesis and progression is highly debated. One hypothesis (the one I believe in) is that cancer is a metabolic disease. Warburg recognized that fact (although there were a few flaws in his reasoning) and researchers such as T. Seyfried in Boston support that notion as well. But whether you believe that the genomic instability that preceded cell transformation is due to environmental carcinogen or due to mitochondrial insufficiency, it is well accepted that every cancer cell is highly glycolytic and a 'sugar-burning-beast'. Its primary fuel is usually glucose, but some tumors can rely on glutamine as well. That being said, I cannot believe that glucosamine supplementation would have any significant detrimental effect on disease progression. BTW, radio-labelled glucose is routinely used for in vivo imaging of tumor masses (i.e. you ingest a radio-labelled sugar analog solution and the tumor masses will show up on a PET).

0
39a1187587862a014f0b27d35896d346

on February 05, 2013
at 03:34 AM

My professor told me that glucose is never used by cancer cells, they survive off of fruitcose and so radioactive fructose should kill cancer cells.

0
3fe9cfcccbc02c53301592601ee3342e

on September 23, 2011
at 02:34 AM

Sugar kills cancer!

Authors: S. Paiva, G.; A. Taft, Carlton; A. de Souza, Ivone

"In this work we studied the tumor effect of fructose and glucose on the mice xenotransplant model of sarcoma 180 (S180) in in vivo. The experimental results suggest that for dosages of 14 mg/kg and 28 mg/kg glucose (and fructose in a lower rate) show a great inhibitory behavior on tumors".

Source: Letters in Organic Chemistry, Volume 8, Number 8, October 2011 , pp. 596-598(3)

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/loc/2011/00000008/00000008/art00016

Best regards

Gerson Paiva

Brazil

E644cb0db27318ceda19322f59f0b9c3

(165)

on December 03, 2011
at 01:43 PM

Doesn't anyone smart want to analyse this ?

F26fbc92b18f4689769d6f8746ea40f7

(334)

on February 05, 2013
at 04:44 AM

Don't have access, but in the very short and non-informative abstract, they mention amounts of 14 and 28mg/kg. Based on the fact that a mouse weighs a few grams, the data has been generated with amounts in the microgram range. I would love to have a look at the paper but I doubt the results will have any physiological relevance.

0
0dc1d63c3d5975f5115f535c6a90c9dd

(2283)

on March 21, 2011
at 02:23 PM

I am not sure that glucose is the problem. Fructose, for sure, though.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22923)

on March 21, 2011
at 10:16 PM

Or the multiple fructose cancer studies...

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on March 21, 2011
at 03:06 PM

I don't think that is accurate at all. Do you have some reason to believe this?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on March 21, 2011
at 06:54 PM

paleo CW of course! LOL

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!