Pancreatic Cancer Likes Fructose: Time to Panic?

Reason Magazine ^ | 8/05/2010 | Ronald Bailey

[toma29]

Perhaps it is enough to hate high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) because the federal government has encouraged its production for decades by imposing high tariffs on sugar imports and by subsidizing corn farmers. (It’s certainly enough for me.) In addition, HFCS-haters blame the sugar for making Americans ever fatter and less healthy. So with so much to hate to go around, when UCLA researchers reported earlier this week that feeding HFCS to pancreatic cancer cells boosts their proliferation in lab dishes, the media jumped on the story. The study’s chief author even suggested that a federal effort should be launched to reduce refined fructose intake modeled on earlier anti-smoking campaigns. Can it be long before health nannies like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the Center for Science in the Public Interest begin crusading against the offending sweetener? Of course, this is not the first cancer panic over sweeteners, all of which proved false.

So before jumping on the ban-wagon, let’s consider a couple of points. HFCS generally contains a mixture of 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose. The favored sweetener, sucrose (a.k.a. table sugar) is actually a molecule combined 50/50 of fructose and glucose. When sucrose is digested in the stomach it is dissociated into the two molecules which are then absorbed into the bloodstream.

The authors of the UCLA study ominously note that our consumption of HFCS has gone up 10-fold since 1970, and you know the conclusion you’re supposed to reach: cancer epidemic! But according to Cancer Facts & Figures 2010 issued by the American Cancer Society: "Incidence rates of pancreatic cancer have been stable in men since 1981, but have been increasing in women by 1.7% per year since 2000." In fact, the overall cancer incidence rate in the U.S. has been going down for nearly a decade, even as Americans pigged out on all those cakes and soft drinks sweetened by HFCS. But it would be silly to argue that HCFS consumption is preventing cancer.

[Bobsvainbabblings]

Thank you for your posts, I agree with all you have posted.

One only has to look around to see we have a problem as a nation. Now that we have both lost a few pounds, we are among the few close to what the government BMI claims is a normal weight. Most are overweight with at least 10% obese as I was at 235.

I wish I could wave a magic wand and have everything with HFCS leave their shopping cart as it has ours. Better yet, have it disappear from the store shelves..

I can't wait to see how that will play out with Obamacare. BVB

[Mase]

Our body cannot handle the amount we now have in our diet and it goes straight to stored fat.

You never took any graduate level courses in biochemistry did you? Fructose does not go straight to stored fat. That's a bunch of nonsense and underscores the many misperceptions people perpetuate regarding the issue.

Trans fats are a problem. They are not natural and our body goes tilt trying to process them.

This is more garbage. Your body has no problem processing trans fats. Up to 25% of your total trans fat consumption comes from naturally occurring sources. You've been reeled in by the internet charlatans who practice junk science.

I am fully convinced that if we can educate the public about how fructose is different from other sugars metabolically

We've known for as long as I can remember that fructose is metabolized by a different pathway than other sugars. Dr. Mercola is one of the best known internet snake oil salesmen.

we can actually reverse and eventually eliminate the obesity epidemic.

Dr. Mercola is going to rid us of the obesity epidemic through reduced fructose consumption rather than reducing our average daily caloric intake and getting us to exercise more? Apparently, Dr. Mercola is also an idiot.

The over-consumption of fructose could cause all kinds of problems just like overcomsuming most ingredients can. I saw a study recently where lab rats suffered all sorts of afflictions when they were fed fructose for 60% of their total daily calories. Of course, the average American gets only about 8%-10% of his daily calories from fructose. Researchers do all sorts of ridiculous things to keep the grant money flowing.

Did you know that India and China are experiencing the same problems with obesity, diabetes, IR etc. as we are? Yet they consume but a fraction of the fructose found in the average western diet. England and Mexico are also experiencing these same problems yet they have very little HFCS in their foods. Go figure.

A Calorie is Not a Calorie

This one makes me laugh. I see it so often. This is another mistake made by people who don't have enough training to be commenting on the subject. A calorie is a measure of the amount of energy. It is always the same no matter what. Metabolizing fat, carbs, amino acids etc will all require different pathways and the efficiencies will not be the same for all of the processes. Even so, a calorie is still a calorie.

This post is rife with misinformation. I highlighted just a few that caught my eye. You need new sources that aren't mired in junk science.

[Mase]

Lustig's point is the dramatic increase in fructose - primarily HFCS - in the diet is the cause of many problems. He suggests getting rid of all sugared drinks - only water and milk for children.

I guess Lustig is unaware that HFCS has replaced sucrose on a nearly one-for-one basis since the early 70's. Where there was once (or would be) regular old table sugar, there is now HFCS. Since HFCS and table sugar are made up of the same two chemicals, in almost identical proportions, I don't see what his point is....other than demonizing HFCS.

Does Lustig realize that milk contains sugar?

Lustig did say Fructose and Ethanol are metabolized the same way - only the liver can metabolize fructose.

Yes, the liver metabolized fructose. Ethanol and fructose are not metabolized in the same way. It's hard to believe an accomplished man like Lustig wouldn't understand the citric acid cycle.

Knowing that Lustig believes that ethanol and fructose are metabolized in the same manner disqualifies him from commenting on whether or not the process yields a "multitude of toxic effects." He has an agenda and he's not going to let the truth get in his way. He's just another charlatan trying to needlessly scare people for some unknown reason. Money?

[Mase]

Much of what you ask are answered by him in my post @ 73.

No, it wasn't. Post #73 only showed how much you misunderstand the subject.

The video is him giving a lecture to college medical students.

That's unfortunate and explains a lot as to why the subject of nutrition is such a mess today.

would like to think you would agree that all the problems he speaks too have all been since the advent of HFCS and our country's unbridled use of it.

I wonder if the good doctor understands the old saying about correlation and causation. I once saw a book that convincingly correlated the amount of rain in Fiji to the price of peanuts in Georgia. It must be true.

Fruits and vegetables usually have enough fiber to limit the bad side effects of fructose.

Exactly how does this happen?

Both should be eaten with the knowledge that when you imbibe more fructose than your body can absorb with your daily activities, the excess will turn to fat

Wow. The same things happens with glucose. Or fat, or protein. Are they bad for us too then?

HFCS has no fiber to buffer it

To buffer what?

[FatherofFive]

I don't see what his point is....other than demonizing HFCS

If you bother to watch his video – which is admittedly long – you would see his point. Because of a mistaken belief that fat causes classic metabolic syndrome, Americans have reduced fat consumption, but significantly increased fructose consumption over the past 30 years which has resulted in an obesity epidemic. The way fructose is metabolized, it becomes fat in the body.

Does Lustig realize that milk contains sugar?

Yes, but not HFCS. It is the quantity of increased sugar consumption, powered by HFCS that is the problem.

Yes, the liver metabolized fructose. Ethanol and fructose are not metabolized in the same way. It's hard to believe an accomplished man like Lustig wouldn't understand the citric acid cycle.

Fructose is capable of promoting hepatic and skeletal muscle insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia, dyslipidemia, hepatic lipid deposition, and inflammation; similar to the dose-dependent toxic effects of ethanol. Furthermore, fructose is capable of promoting hypothalamic leptin resistance and activation of the reward pathway, resulting in an abnormal drive to continuous consumption, also similar to ethanol. Indeed, fructose may be described as “alcohol without the ‘buzz’”. The metabolic and central similarities between fructose and ethanol are striking. (Lustig’s words) Perhaps you can describe the differences you believe exist?

Money?

Big Sugar and Big Corn have the money. Do you work for either?

Think about it - he is promoting the drinking of water and eating real food. Lot's of money in that. Maybe he works for Big Water.

[Bobsvainbabblings]

Mase, I find it interesting that you would like us to believe this man is a charlatan.  Would you please show me what credentials you have to make such a statement.

This is Lustig's bio from wikipedia,

Robert H. Lustig, MD

 

Professor of Clinical Pediatrics, in the Division of Endocrinology Director of the Weight Assessment for Teen and Child Health (WATCH) Program at UCSF

Dr. Lustig is a nationally-recognized authority in the field of neuroendocrinology, with a specific emphasis on the regulation of energy balance by the central nervous system. He is currently investigating the contribution of biochemical, neural, hormonal, and genetic influences in the expression of the current obesity epidemic both in children and adults. He has defined a syndrome of vagally-mediated beta-cell hyperactivity which leads to insulin hypersecretion and obesity, and which is treatable by insulin suppression. This phenomenon may occur in up to 20% of the obese population. He is interested in the hypothalamic signal transduction of insulin and leptin, and how these two systems interact. He is studying the cardiovascular morbidity associated with hyperinsulinemia, and developing methods to evaluate and prevent this phenomenon in children. He is also analyzing the contribution of the autonomic nervous system to insulin secretion and insulin resistance in obese children, and the utility of assessing insulin dynamics in targeting obesity therapy.

Dr. Lustig graduated from MIT, and received his M.D. from Cornell University Medical College. He performed his pediatric residency at St. Louis Children's Hospital, and his clinical fellowship at UCSF. From there, he spent six years as a post-doctoral fellow in neuroendocrinology at The Rockefeller University in New York.

Dr. Lustig has authored over 70 research articles and 35 chapters.  He is the Chairman of the Obesity Task Force of the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society, a member of the Obesity Task force of The Endocrine Society, and on the Steering Committee of the International Endocrine Alliance to Combat Obesity. 

The video we have asked people to watch is him in his role as a teaching professor at the University of Cal. San Francisco explaining his concerns with HFCS. 

I would like to believe he knows a little more about the subject of HFCS and how our body processes it compared to other sugars than you do.

 

[handmade]

Yes. However I have the advantage of being an old bird, and my nursing was back when it was nursing instead of paper work. In my day one still gave backrubs in the hospital setting to releave stress and pain, when that was appropriate, instead of automatically pushing another pill. Later as a supervisor in a nursing home I had no problem cleaning a bottom that needed attention. Or with one lady who had a problem for awhile, cleaning the poo from the carpet in the dining room. Part of the reason I did that was so both my staff and the residents knew I could and would.

I have gone through the death of my oldest son from cancer, my brother two years later, also cancer— and the hardest, a three year old grandson- the only child my daughter was able to conceive. He was sick for four days total, and only the last day did he become acutely ill. Most recently a 23 year old grandson. again cancer. I do know that route.

However I do not ever say “I know how you feel”. That is something unique to each individual.

Keep battling when you need to- you should not have to, but you do have to. I know that. It should not be that way but it is. And I wish your family the best you can have.

[GourmetDan]

Without the promise of eternal life, our struggles in this world are ultimately empty.

May God bless you and your family.

[Mase]

This guy has some pretty impressive credentials too:

Michael F. Jacobson (b. 1943), who holds a Ph.D. in microbiology from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, co-founded the Center for Science in the Public Interest in 1971, along with two fellow scientists he met while working at the Center for the Study of Responsive Law. When his colleagues left CSPI in 1977, Jacobson served as executive director.[1] Today, Jacobson sits as secretary on the board of directors of the organization.[2] He has been a national leader in the movement to require nutrition labels on all foods and most beverages to help consumers make informed decisions about what to consume. It was Jacobson who coined the now widely used phrases "junk food"[3] and "empty calorie".

Michael Jacobson - Center for Science in the Public Interest

Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), is the undisputed leader of America’s nutritional scolds. From fettuccine alfredo to soda to french fries, Jacobson is more than willing to use junk science and sensationalism to scare Americans about the food they eat. He notes that “CSPI is proud about finding something wrong with practically everything.”

Jacobson founded CSPI in 1971 with two co-workers from Ralph Nader’s Center for the Study of Responsive Law, so it’s no surprise that he is a strong supporter of fast-food lawsuits. He hopes that “regulation through litigation” will result in limits on children’s access to food advertising, extra taxes on foods he considers unhealthy, and government-mandated nutritional information on restaurant menus all across America.

But he has a PhD in Microbiology from friggin MIT. He must know what he's talking about, right? So what if he's a Naderite and wants to tell you how to live your life....just look at his credentials. Truly a resume conservatives can embrace.

I would like to believe he knows a little more about the subject of HFCS and how our body processes it compared to other sugars than you do.

I guarantee you I've had more training in food science and nutrition than Dr. Lustig. He said some incredibly ignorant things in his video. I can't explain why he said such things but there is no excuse for someone with his vitae to be making such blunders. I don't know his motivations, but he is spreading nonsense based on junk science. There is a lot of it going around these days.

[Palladin]

Prayers for your daughter and for you...

[Mase]

Americans have reduced fat consumption, but significantly increased fructose consumption over the past 30 years which has resulted in an obesity epidemic.

Fructose causes obesity rather than the fact that people consume more calories than they burn? The things some people will believe.

The way fructose is metabolized, it becomes fat in the body.

You don't have any idea how fructose is metabolized in the body but you want us to believe that it is instantly converted to depot fat? Good grief, does Lustig also buy into this ignorance? Anyone completing a graduate level course in biochemistry knows this is utter nonsense. I can't imagine this is something Lustig would attempt to justify.

Yes, but not HFCS. It is the quantity of increased sugar consumption, powered by HFCS that is the problem.

It's increased sugar consumption, rather than the consumption of calories, that's responsible for all the maladies cited by Lustig? And HFCS is the culprit even though HFCS has replace sucrose on nearly a one-for-one basis since the early 70's? Does Lustig know that the formula of HFCS used in most processed foods only contains 42% fructose while sucrose is comprised of 50% fructose? You'd think Lustig would be singing the praises of this formulation of HFCS rather than condemning it. I guess consistency isn't important to him.

Fructose is capable of promoting hepatic and skeletal muscle insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia, dyslipidemia, hepatic lipid deposition, and inflammation; similar to the dose-dependent toxic effects of ethanol. Furthermore, fructose is capable of promoting hypothalamic leptin resistance and activation of the reward pathway, resulting in an abnormal drive to continuous consumption

Do you have any understanding of what you're writing or are you just copying and pasting? What a pantload. Does Lustig realize that drinking too much water can be deadly?

The metabolic and central similarities between fructose and ethanol are striking.

Yet he offers no details. This is a fairly complicated subject. You'd think he would explain. Ethanol is already a 2-carbon unit and it is quickly converted to acetyl-CoA. Fructose has its own pathway to becoming acetyl-CoA but it involves many more steps than ethanol. Fructose is not broken down in your liver just like alcohol nor does it produce the same side effects as alcohol (without the buzz). I don't know why he claims they are identical but anyone with his training should know better.

Big Sugar and Big Corn have the money.

Then I suggest you invest in them. How many research grants have you applied for?

Do you work for either?

If you wanted to learn about corn or sugar would you go to someone in the industry or to someone who has no experience with either?

Think about it - he is promoting the drinking of water and eating real food.

Good for him. How does he define "real food?" Beer is bad, fruit juice is bad, soda is bad, lemonade is bad, wine is bad and so on.....Anyone following this guy's advice must be boring as hell. This is no way to live your life.

Maybe he works for Big Water.

Maybe he's just another idiot like Michael Jacobson at CSPI? An educated idiot, that is.

[Bobsvainbabblings]

Once again I find it interesting that you engage in name calling and innuendo about Dr Lustic to FatherofFive and myself instead of proving where he is wrong.

You claim to have more training in food science and nutrition then him. What does that vast reservoir of knowledge lead you to believe is the reason we have obesity and diabetes near epidemic levels with all the other maladies related to them?

Curious minds want to know.  BVB

[from occupied ga]

thanks. Sorry I took a while to get back to you, but I got busy. I was wondering if there were any peer review statistically significant evidence to support Servant-Schrieber. I’ll have to see if I can find a copy of the book to look up his references. I have my doubts about the clinical significance, because I haven’t heard of any cancer treatment regimens including elimination of fructose from the diet which you would expect if there were a significant effect

[FatherofFive]

Fructose causes obesity rather than the fact that people consume more calories than they burn? The things some people will believe.

This is exactly the point. HFCS has been substituted into the food supply, so they are consuming more. And the way the body processes fructose, a calorie is not a calorie. Lustig goes through the science. Vatch the video. HFCS is everywhere. Lustig cites a source that went shopping for bread - 32 or so different types, only one with no HFCS. He also talks to the way fructose supresses the "I'm full" digestive process, causing people to overeat. It is not an either/or. I really suggest you watch his video.

As an ancedote, I exercise every day. I eat a healthy diet. Real food, ie, no processed stuff. Yet, when I changed yogurt to one with no HFCS, I dropped an additional 4 lbs. None of the criticism I've seen challenges his basic science - it questions things like the amount of sugar in the Japanese diet.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is exactly the point. HFCS has been substituted into the food supply, so they are consuming more.

Yeah, one for one substituted for sucrose.

Is HFCS 42 better or worse than sucrose, in the same quantity?

[10Ring]

Yet, when I changed yogurt to one with no HFCS, I dropped an additional 4 lbs.

All you did was change to a non-HFCS yogurt? Really?...no calorie difference between the new and old? You ate the same amount each week? Everything was the same except one had HFCS and the other had, what, sugar?

None of the criticism I've seen challenges his basic science

The blog you cited challenges the doc for cherry picking data from 1989-1995 when the data from 1970-2007 is readily available. Weird, huh?

[Mase]

Once again I find it interesting that you engage in name calling and innuendo about Dr Lustic to FatherofFive and myself instead of proving where he is wrong.

Oh, good grief. Have you read nothing that I've written? Dr. Lustig, according to you guys, says that fructose metabolism is the same as ethanol metabolism and that it creates all sorts of toxic effects, including NAFLD. That isn't true and I find it hard to believe that a man with his training would say such a thing. You also claim he said that fructose is metabolized immediately into fat. If so, that statement would highlight a gross misunderstanding of fructose metabolism, especially the citric acid cycle.

Father of Five also said this:

Fructose tricks your body into gaining weight by fooling your metabolism

It does no such thing.

it turns off your body’s appetite-control system.

It does no such thing.

Fructose does not appropriately stimulate insulin

If fructose was supposed to stimulate the release of insulin, it would. This is a meaningless statement.

Fructose rapidly leads to weight gain and abdominal obesity (“beer belly”)

Did you/he mean to say that the over-consumption of fructose leads to weight gain? Again, your misunderstanding of fructose metabolism causes you to say things that don't make sense.

Do these statements belong to you or do they come from Lustig? I'm curious to know who the misinformed party is. I don't have time to slog my way through 90 minutes of his lecture, dig up his research and look at all the supporting literature. I don't think you two understand what Lustig is saying so it makes it difficult to defend him on the forum.

I could invest a great deal of time and effort explaing why the statements above are misguided but you wouldn't understand much of it and nothing I offer would change your minds.

Lustig wants to indict one chemical for obesity, and the many afflictions that result from obesity, with little consideration given to the fact that it's the increase in caloric consumption, mostly from carbohydrates, and a decrease in physical activity, that is responsible for the problems he cites in his lecture.

What does that vast reservoir of knowledge lead you to believe is the reason we have obesity and diabetes near epidemic levels with all the other maladies related to them?

My knowledge of the subject prevents me from blaming a single factor like Lustig does. Lustig cites studies touting consumption of fructose that have no relationship to real world usages. If you overwhelm the body with anything, adverse health effects will occur. It is a proven method for obtaining grant money but provides nothing in the way of truth.

Much of the problems we see today can be attributed to obesity. Obesity is caused by people consuming too many calories while leading a sedentary lifestyle. Michael Phelps consumes 12,000 calories a day when in training and much of those calories come from carbs. He consumes a lot more fructose than the average American and he's ripped. If you place a rat on a treadmill for 10 hours a day and feed it fructose for the majority of its diet, it will not gain weight. In India and China, obesity (and the many subsequent maladies that result) is rapidly increasing yet their diets are not nearly as high in fructose as are the western diets. Mexico and England are also experiencing a rapid increase in obesity, and obesity related diseases, yet we find little HFCS in the foods they consume. I would love to hear Lustig address this contradiction.

I don't know what motivates Lustig and, quite frankly, I don't really care. I do know what motivates a guy like Michael Jacobson and he (and his organization) should be a cause for concern among all people who value truth and freedom. Like Lustig, Jacobson is highly intelligent and well educated in life science. But there he is alarming the public and using junk science to achieve his desired ends. And people who don't know what they're talking about will defend his conclusions here all day long.

Go figure.

[Mase]

This is exactly the point.

Huh? What is the point? People are consuming more calories than they burn so they're becoming fatter?

HFCS has been substituted into the food supply, so they are consuming more.

Consuming more what? HFCS has replaced sucrose on a nearly one-for-one basis. HFCS and sucrose offer the same number of calories per gram. What are you talking about?

And the way the body processes fructose, a calorie is not a calorie.

A calorie is a measure of the amount of energy. This is how it is defined. It is always the same no matter what. We understand that efficiencies will be different. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? If you don't understand even this simple thing, maybe you shouldn't be offering opinions on Lustig, or anything to do with nutrition.

Lustig goes through the science

I don't believe for a second that Lustig thinks a calorie is not a calorie.

HFCS is everywhere. Lustig cites a source that went shopping for bread - 32 or so different types, only one with no HFCS.

Have you ever tried to make bread without sugar? Good luck. If they didn't use HFCS, they would have used sucrose. That example pretty much explains why HFCS has replaced sucrose on a nearly one-for-one basis.

He also talks to the way fructose supresses the "I'm full" digestive process, causing people to overeat

The HFCS used in bread is 42% fructose. Sucrose would be 50% fructose. Since the bread with HFCS has less fructose, and more glucose, it must cause people to NOT overeat because it provides greater stimulation to the "I'm full digestive process" than sucrose, right?

I eat a healthy diet. Real food, ie, no processed stuff.

Real Food? What does that even mean? No processed stuff? What an absolutely boring was to go through life. No ice cream? No pasta? No pizza? No juicy burgers with a sourdough bun? No fried chicken? No spicy chicken wings? No fresh bread right out of the oven? No beer? No wine? No fresh squeezed orange juice or apple cider? No iced tea? No fresh brewed coffee? You never enjoy any Christmas candy? Don't eat chocolate? Never go to an Italian or Mexican restaurant?

Good grief, now I'm feeling sorry for you.

Yet, when I changed yogurt to one with no HFCS, I dropped an additional 4 lbs.

Was there no sweetener used in the new one at all or did you switch to one using sucrose? Since HFCS offers the same relative sweetness as sucrose, and both ingredients offer 4 calories per gram, please explain how this is possible. No, on second thought don't.

None of the criticism I've seen challenges his basic science

Saying that fructose and ethanol are metabolized in the same manner would place his understanding of basic science in question. Using studies where rats are fed three times (or more) the amount of fructose that the average American consumes might be problematic, don't you think? If Lustig thinks that the human body handles HFCS differently than hydrolyzed sucrose, then he is, once again, at odds with established science. Given these glaring problems, I am not surprised that he would be wrong about the amount of sugar in the Japanese diet. It would also be interesting to hear him explain away why the same problems he cites are occurring in countries that don't eat nearly as much fructose as we do and where HFCS isn't used.

[FatherofFive]

Yeah, one for one substituted for sucrose.

It really would be helpful if you watched the Lustig video.

His premise is that based on the bad science and faulty analysis from Ancel Keyes in his Seven Countries study, we started removing fat from foods. However, this made foods taste like cardboard, so sugars and HFCS were added. They subutituted sugar for fat. Obesity levels have risen ever since.

Really not hard to grasp. Watch the video.

It's the fructose.

[Toddsterpatriot]

It really would be helpful if you watched the Lustig video.

I've watched it before.

we started removing fat from foods. However, this made foods taste like cardboard, so sugars and HFCS were added.

That's a different claim than the one that HFCS 42 is less healthy than sucrose.

Really not hard to grasp

LOL!

It's the fructose.

From sucrose or from HFCS?