SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the I-got-colorectal-cancer-from-YouTube-comments dept.
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
High-fructose corn syrup boosts intestinal tumor growth in mice
First, Yun and her colleagues generated a mouse model of early-stage colon cancer where APC gene is deleted. "APC is a gatekeeper in colorectal cancer. Deleting this protein is like removing the breaks of a car. Without it, normal intestinal cells neither stop growing nor die, forming early stage tumors called polyps. More than 90 percent of colorectal cancer patients have this type of APC mutation," Yun said.
Using this mouse model of the disease, the team tested the effect of consuming sugar-sweetened water on tumor development. The sweetened water was 25 percent high-fructose corn syrup, which is the main sweetener of sugary drinks people consume. High-fructose corn syrup consists of glucose and fructose at a 45:55 ratio.
When the researchers provided the sugary drink in the water bottle for the APC-model mice to drink at their will, mice rapidly gained weight in a month. To prevent the mice from being obese and mimic humans' daily consumption of one can of soda, the researchers gave the mice a moderate amount of sugary water orally with a special syringe once a day. After two months, the APC-model mice receiving sugary water did not become obese, but developed tumors that were larger and of higher-grade than those in model mice treated with regular water.
[...] The team then investigated the mechanism by which this sugar promoted tumor growth. They discovered that the APC-model mice receiving modest high-fructose corn syrup had high amounts of fructose in their colons. "We observed that sugary drinks increased the levels of fructose and glucose in the colon and blood, respectively and that tumors could efficiently take up both fructose and glucose via different routes."
Using cutting-edge technologies to trace the fate of glucose and fructose in tumor tissues, the team showed that fructose was first chemically changed and this process then enabled it to efficiently promote the production of fatty acids, which ultimately contribute to tumor growth.
[...] To determine whether fructose metabolism or increased fatty acid production was responsible for sugar-induced tumor growth, the researchers modified APC-model mice to lack genes coding for enzymes involved in either fructose metabolism or fatty acid synthesis. One group of APC-model mice lacked an enzyme KHK, which is involved in fructose metabolism, and another group lacked enzyme FASN, which participates in fatty acid synthesis. They found that mice lacking either of these genes did not develop larger tumors, unlike APC-model mice, when fed the same modest amounts of high-fructose corn syrup.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Freeman on Monday April 01 2019, @11:11PM (7 children)
It would be very interesting to see this exact test done with various sweeteners. Say, cane sugar, guava syrup, honey, etc. Then with artificial sweeteners stevia and aspartame.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday April 02 2019, @01:45AM
Too lazy to read at this time of night: were the control group fed an equally calorie dense diet? Tumors grow when they are fed, and HFCS is just about as calorie dense as cane sugar. Do the tumors also grow when they're on a high calorie Atkins diet?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday April 02 2019, @01:40PM (5 children)
Your phrasing suggests stevia is an artificial sweetener - it's not, stevia leaves have been used as a natural, sugar-free sweetener for decades before the highly refined pseudo-sugar products were created.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday April 02 2019, @03:22PM (4 children)
"Some manufacturers call their sweeteners "natural" even though they're processed or refined. Stevia preparations are one example. And some artificial sweeteners are derived from naturally occurring substances — sucralose comes from sugar." https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/artificial-sweeteners/art-20046936 [mayoclinic.org]
I was on the fence about Stevia, but other references compared it with other artificial sweeteners. Also, Mayo Clinic is a good source.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday April 02 2019, @04:10PM (3 children)
Once you involve chemical changes (e.g. sucrose to sucralose) all bets are off - different molecule, different properties. Doesn't much matter where the original molecular feedstock came from, it doesn't exist anymore.
Stevia is a natural product in that you can pluck some leaves fresh from the plant, soak them in your tea, and get the sugar-free sweetening effect. That's the traditional way to use it. (well, dried and possibly powdered). It doesn't look or behave like sugar in that form, and can be far sweeter.
There are of course lots of refined stevia-based products, including anything that resembles sugar, that must be judged on a case-by-case basis, but the basic sweetener is completely natural.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday April 02 2019, @04:55PM (1 child)
"Stevia is the common name for extracts from the plant Stevia rebaudiana. In the U.S., a purified component form of the plant — called rebaudioside A (rebiana) — is "generally recognized as safe" by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and may be used as an artificial sweetener in foods and beverages." https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/stevia/faq-20057856 [mayoclinic.org]
"In 1991, the FDA refused to approve stevia as a sweetener as an additive in foods. However, in 2008, after the purification process was developed and patented by Coca-Cola, the FDA approved the stevia extracts as GRAS." https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/287251.php [medicalnewstoday.com]
It's definitely derived from a natural source, but it's highly processed. The form of Stevia that has been consumed for centuries in other countries is not.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday April 03 2019, @02:12PM
True enough. Only in America would a sweetener used for centuries not be GRAS, while a largely untested chemically extracted and refined derivative is.
I understand that heavy lobbying by the sugar industry as involved in keeping natural stevia products from being sold as a sweetener here. If I were to guess, the change of heart came when the artificial sweetener industry decided to embrace it as a more natural option and started a counter-lobbying effort. And of course, unrefined stevia is a threat to both industries, so remains unmarketable as a sweetener. However, you do still have the option of buying it as a less-regulated herbal supplement if you're so inclined.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @10:07PM
> Doesn't much matter where the original molecular feedstock
Unless there is an isotope irregularity. Is H = D? Carbon dating? And so on. But using the 'original molecular feedstock' phrase is good, thank you, I shall adopt that usage.