Sugar Makes Cancer Light-Up in MRI Scanners

[silverweb]

[font color="black" FACE:"Arial"]A new technique for detecting cancer by imaging the consumption of sugar with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been unveiled by UCL scientists. The breakthrough could provide a safer and simpler alternative to standard radioactive techniques and enable radiologists to image tumours in greater detail.

The new technique, called 'glucose chemical exchange saturation transfer' (glucoCEST), is based on the fact that tumours consume much more glucose (a type of sugar) than normal, healthy tissues in order to sustain their growth.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Quite a discovery!

Fully article: [font face="Arial"]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130707162759.htm

[peacebird]

1. Fascinating! Question: if tumours "take up" more sugar than healthy cells is there a correlation

Between eating high sugar diet and the speed of cancerous growth? (Could you 'starve' it to slow it down?)

[dkf]

2. That is the obvious question and scary.

[yellerpup]

4. The answer is yes.

Sugar feeds cancer.

[quakerboy]

11. Its an interesting question.

Its also important to remember that there are different types of sugars. The article mentions glucose as the sugar cancer feeds on.

Table sugar is sucrose. Which is about 50% glucose, 50% fructose
HCFC formulations vary, from 55% glucose in soda to 42% glucose in baked goods

Much of what we eat has glucose built into various carbs. Rice. Corn. Wheat. Soy.

As I foggily recall, Glucose is what basically all cells use for energy, And, your body can make glucose out of virtually anything. Even such a non sugary food as steak eventually gets broken down to glucose if you dont provide other, easier sources. That would be the idea behind the low carb diets.

So glucose is going to be there no matter what you do. And if cancer cells uptake it more efficiently, it would seem that they would get a higher proportion no matter what. My instinct is to say that trying to starve cancer would likely starve the rest of your cells just as much or more. But I'm sure there are plenty of complexities that I am unaware of.

[kaiden]

3. Cancer loves sugar.

When my husband was diagnosed with lymphoma, one of his first diagnostic tests was a PET-CT scan. He was to limit all carbs for 24 hours before the scan. At the scan, he was given a glucose solution intravenously. The doctors then watched which areas of his body "lit up." Afterward, we had that "come to Jesus" moment about sugar.

A week later, we had dinner with a friend who had had a double mastectomy five years ago, before we knew her. First thing out of her mouth when we sat down? "Cancer loves sugar."

We wondered if the increasing rates of cancer (especially Stage 4 colon cancer in young adults) could be directly related to the increase in high fructose corn syrup in all of our foods.

[Thor_MN]

7. One need not invoke HFCS, just the sugar content in food

HFCS, if you are going to wade into the woo, actually has slightly less glucose than "cane sugar". That would ironically make HFCS BETTER for someone with cancer than "Pure Cane Sugar"... Mostly, the invective surrounding HFCS is that it has more fructrose, the most commonly used being 55% fructose. The reason it is used is that it is cheaper to add fructose to corn syrup than to refine and transport cane sugar. It is also perceived as tasting sweeter than the same amount of table sugar.

The corn lobby sure isn't going to like "Cancer loves glucose" as corn syrup is 100% glucose.

Table sugar, sucrose, is a 50-50 mix of glucose and fructose. It really doesn't matter where the sugars come from, it is the total amount consumed.

And whatever amount consumed, cancer cells, if present, will grab it up faster than slower growing cells. Cancer cells are fast growing, so of course they will consume more energy. Many Chemotherapy drugs target fast growing cells, which is why they often cause hair to fall out as hair comes from fast growing cells.

I imagine that a person's scalp also "lights up" in the test mentioned, as well as all other fast growing cells. I doubt one could starve a cancer by limiting sugar consumption any more than one could starve a tapeworm by limiting any food.

[BuddhaGirl]

10. Interesting theory about HFCS

That crap is evil and is in everything!

[Fuddnik]

5. Mother Jones had an article in Nov-Dec 2012 about the sugar industry cover-up since the early 60's.

Industry documents show that they knew sugar was a toxin since the 50's, and did a tobacco industry style disinformation campaign to derail any federal investigations.

[Maineman]

6. In other words, sugar feeds cancer!

[bemildred]

8. Precisely. nt

[Marje]

9. Cancer's Natural Enemy Actually Starves it to Death

At the website, foodconsumer dot org, find the article titled Cancer's Natural Enemy Actually Starves it to Death .....

This is the link.... http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Nutrition/Diet/ketogenic_diet_0630131220.html