Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Monday April 01 2019, @10:57PM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by FatPhil on Monday April 01 2019, @11:13PM (25 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday April 01 2019, @11:13PM (#823309) Homepage
    HFCS is barely different from normal sugar, both are almost entirely blends of two saccharides, just in slightly different proportions. Cancer-related metabolic pathways are known for both components. (And several other negative effects.) So they shouldn't be demonising HFCS. They should be demonising sugar. More info available at the end of a youtube search for "Sugar: The Bitter Truth", I'd hunt it out for you but I don't have time, as it's time for pudding!
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday April 01 2019, @11:28PM (3 children)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday April 01 2019, @11:28PM (#823315) Journal

    Indeed. I was about to write something similar. Sucrose is just a bonded fructose and glucose molecule that mostly disassociates by the time it reaches the intestines, leaving a 50:50 glucose-fructose solution, very similar to HFCS. Natural honey also has a similar glucose-fructose mixture to HFCS (though with some other sugars and trace stuff mixed in in relatively small quantities). And note that other stuff "natural foods" folks tend to use as substitutes -- like agave nectar -- often tend to have an even higher (worse?) ratio of fructose to glucose.

    I'm by no means a defender of HFCS, which seems to show up way too much in all sorts of foods where it's unnecessary. But this study likely got a bigger grant and more media attention by being able to run a headline complaining about a substance people are anxious about now. I hope they do similar studies with sucrose and honey and other things to see if there's any significant difference in effect.

    TL;DR: Mexican Coke (or your agave-nectar infused drink) is likely not a health food, and I doubt drinking loads of it is better than drinking loads of HFCS-filled Coke.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday April 02 2019, @01:50AM (2 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday April 02 2019, @01:50AM (#823365)

      My mother has been preaching the "sugar is sugar" thing ever since she took bio-chem in the 1960s. While she's not wrong, the agricultural residues from Agave and Maple farms are quite different from those found in sugar cane fields and corn farms. Of all those, I would think that corn has the most exposure to pesticides, herbicides, and all those other "perfectly harmless" productivity enhancing chemicals brought to us by our friends at Monstranto.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @10:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @10:14PM (#823821)

        Indeed. Honey in particular brings a lot "with it"

        For a single-signal sample, eg. "tests by Abraxis found glyphosate residues in 41 of 69 honey samples" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-food-agriculture-glyphosate-idUSKBN0N029H20150410 [reuters.com]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @10:46PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @10:46PM (#823839)

        yeah, it's not the "high fructose" part we don't understand it's the "corn syrup" part some people don't seem to understand. the whole point of the gmo corn this slurry is made from is that it can live while being drenched with pesticide, ffs.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @01:07AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @01:07AM (#823344)

    I guess it depends on the barely.
    Apes are barely different than humans, humans are barely different than fruitflies, yet this minute difference change everything on a bigger scale.
    That said just about everything cause cancer so, choose your poison I guess.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 02 2019, @07:26AM (1 child)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday April 02 2019, @07:26AM (#823508) Homepage
      Nope. Barely different. HFCS is ~9 parts glucose, ~11 parts fructose, in solution. Sucrose is 10 parts glucose, 10 parts fructose, paired as disaccharides in a way that gets broken down into the component monosaccharides before any other processing happens. HFCS may be a little sweeter, but the perceived sweetness is in the approximate ratio 1.05:1, it's barely worth the effort from that perspective.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @10:17PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @10:17PM (#823825)

        Flawed argument though. If 1:1 doesn't cause a pathway to activate and 11:9 does, for example. If this were pH and not saccarides, that ~20% shift would clearly give different reactions or rates. The thing is, we don't know for sure that there isn't a balance-sensor of sorts, in the human genome's expression or in gut dwellers, where some slightly-worse-for-the-human outcome toggles if and only if the fructose/sucrose ratios are in whatever range.

        We'd need in vivo!

        Let's pay for cannulated humans!

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday April 02 2019, @01:47AM (4 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday April 02 2019, @01:47AM (#823364)

    Is the problem with sugar, or just with excessive caloric intake? Butter is even more calorie dense, if the mice would eat an equivalent serving of butter it would make a good test of whether sugar is the demon, or fat.

    Just to be sure, you can eat butter-cream icing.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 1) by DECbot on Tuesday April 02 2019, @04:26AM (2 children)

      by DECbot (832) on Tuesday April 02 2019, @04:26AM (#823438) Journal

      A high sugar diet is a high fat diet. Fructose and excess glucose enters the liver and gets processed into fat cells. There's a lot additional damage the sugar (specifically fructose and ethanol) does to the liver, cardiovascular, and metabolic systems because it (sugar) is a cronic toxin. And what's the best detox for this? Naturally occurring fiber consumed with the sugar. That's why an apple is healthy and apple juice is not. Juicing the apple separates the sugars from the fiber.

      A high calories diet is the demon. Luckily for us in the western world, it comes in many different flavors to choose from.

      --
      cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 02 2019, @07:02AM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday April 02 2019, @07:02AM (#823497) Homepage
        In the same way not all monosaccharides are created equal (fructose vs. glucose), not all fats are created equal. You're generally safer with the solid stuff that marbles muscles than the slime that squirts out of chemical plants. Likewise, butter's better than margerine, despite all the propaganda to the contrary that it-may-as-well-have-been-monsanto-considering-the-effects pumped out over the decades.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday April 02 2019, @05:06PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday April 02 2019, @05:06PM (#823684)

        Luckily for us in the western world

        If we all lived forever, overpopulation would be an even bigger problem.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 02 2019, @06:49AM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday April 02 2019, @06:49AM (#823489) Homepage
      Alcohol is almost equally implicated, fat less so.

      You could have just watched the vid I pointed you towards, all the answers are there.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 0, Redundant) by ilPapa on Tuesday April 02 2019, @04:31AM (3 children)

    by ilPapa (2366) on Tuesday April 02 2019, @04:31AM (#823442) Journal

    HFCS is barely different from normal sugar

    How would you know, except from reading HCFS industry press releases? That corn syrup doesn't make itself, you know. Who the fuck knows what goes into it? And how much Roundup is used on that corn (which is now shown to be a carcinogen)?

    --
    You are still welcome on my lawn.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 02 2019, @06:50AM (2 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday April 02 2019, @06:50AM (#823491) Homepage
      Because you can measure what's in it.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 1, Redundant) by ilPapa on Tuesday April 02 2019, @02:40PM (1 child)

        by ilPapa (2366) on Tuesday April 02 2019, @02:40PM (#823627) Journal

        Because you can measure what's in it.

        If they're the same, why does the body process them differently?

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2682989/ [nih.gov]

        Both sugar and HFCS are bad for you. This is not in question.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26376619 [nih.gov]

        --
        You are still welcome on my lawn.
        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 02 2019, @03:35PM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday April 02 2019, @03:35PM (#823641) Homepage
          You, sir, are a high quality fucking idiot. As you've wasted my time having to hit you with a clue-by-four.

          Fructose and Glucose, what you "they're differnt things" link is referring to, are different things.

          HFCS is an almost-equal mixture of fructose and glucose.
          Sucrose ("sugar") is an equal mixture of fructose and glucose.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 2) by petecox on Tuesday April 02 2019, @05:50AM (4 children)

    by petecox (3228) on Tuesday April 02 2019, @05:50AM (#823470)

    HFCS is barely different from normal sugar

    Taste? USA Coke tastes bloody awful.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 02 2019, @06:53AM (2 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday April 02 2019, @06:53AM (#823492) Homepage
      There are different recipes, from the flavour-ingredients (cola, vanillin, citric acid, etc.) perspective. Central Europe's coke (the "new" coke of ~30 years back) sucks, North Western Europe's coke (the "classic" coke of ~29.5 years back) sucks less.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday April 03 2019, @02:22PM (1 child)

        by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday April 03 2019, @02:22PM (#824085)

        Be honest though - go eat a spoonful of sugar and a spoonful of HFCS side by side. Maybe dilute them in equal amounts of water so the texture doesn't distract you. I've got both in my pantry, and can tell you in no uncertain terms that the flavor is NOT the same.

        Presumably that's because either bonding the molecules together into sucrose changes the way it interacts with taste receptors, and/or because of lingering impurities found in HFCS. Obvious candidates include the mercuric chloride and enzymes used to produce HFCS from the corn starch feedstock.

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday April 03 2019, @08:41PM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday April 03 2019, @08:41PM (#824231) Homepage
          I'm quite an astute taster, and like to believe I would be able to tell not just that they were different but also which is which, despite never having tasted HFCS.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @02:15PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @02:15PM (#823618)

      i am pretty sure the 'murican sugar is way more difficult to ferment into ethanol.
      the corncrap might even be a leftover from prohibition times?

  • (Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Tuesday April 02 2019, @01:33PM (1 child)

    by Hyperturtle (2824) on Tuesday April 02 2019, @01:33PM (#823593)

    I agree, sugar of any kind can feed gut tumors. Refined sugar makes it easy for the tumors to feed; you are delivering fuel right to them. They don't have to work for it, for similar reasons as to why its so easy to get fat eating refined sugars. The body readily uses or stores it. Peeing too much of it out can lead to urinary infections caused by bacteria that also feeds on sugars; drugs made to help excrete sugars can cause problems even on the way out...

    Dietary fiber, soluable and on-soluable, can scrub away tumors to some extent, and help prevent them from establishing, while also making it harder to absorb the sugars you ingest--I think they call that the glycemic index for how readily a food gives up its sugar content, which is a handy reference for choosing foods sometimes. ANyway, cutting back on sugars can starve tumors, eating fiber can help clean tumors away and assist in suppressing their growth once established. An apple a day keeps the doctor away, right?

    Remember how there was a miracle tumor drug that focused on the blood vessels connecting the tumors to the bloodstream? It worked by starving them--it made the soda straw skinnier and so the tumors couldn't get as fat. Tumors shrunk, but often were not eliminated--they just didn't get as much sugar. Not consuming sugar is better for you, but... it's not so easy to avoid sugar as compared to taking miracle pills. Both work better than either once the tumors start.

    Somewhat related, also note (not in the article) that carbonated beverages make people feel hungry due to tricking the gut, whether or not they are diet drinks or just carbonated water. It causes a sense of fullness (the bubbles) that rapidly disspiates (the burps), leading to gut signaling that something is wrong and the "food" isn't working. Then the hunger becomes more urgently signaled. Fake sugar substitutes can exaberate this response mechanism. The best option is to drink (cold) water--or unsweetened teas/beverages if water is just too plain. Carbonated sugary drinks "push" the sugar into the bloodstream more quickly; I expect studies will find that they are causing tumor growths to grow even more efficiently than refined sugars by themselves, which is bad as it is.

    High fructose corn syrup deserves some vilification, but not all of what it receives--added sugar and refined carbohydrates are to blame, and HFCS just happens to the cheapest type added to many products. Switching to glucose/fructose or molasses or maltodextrin or... it's all bad when skewed way out of moderation. That said I still prefer real maple syrup if I ever pour stuff onto pancakes/waffles.. even into coffee. but it's just a different type of refined sugar, so it's not any better except for perhaps the taste and texture... (I still have sugar weaknesses even if I think I know better...)

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 02 2019, @03:42PM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday April 02 2019, @03:42PM (#823644) Homepage
      The hunger is a direct effect of sugar's interaction with ghrelin, IIRC - it actually tricks your brain into not recognising that it's had enough. Glucose correctly gives the right (i.e. negative) feedback into the system, fructose doesn't.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday April 02 2019, @02:08PM (1 child)

    by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday April 02 2019, @02:08PM (#823617)

    True - however there does remains the question of exact biological processes - it is possible our bodies can process equal parts of sucrose and fructose without problems, but encounter problems processing fructose on its own. In which case HFCS with a 55/45 blend will leave 10% unpaired fructose to cause problems.

    I'm not arguing that that is the case - just saying that there have been far larger surprises in medical science on a semi-regular basis.

    There's also the question of the enzymes added to the glucose syrup to produce the fructose - are those enzymes completely scrubbed from the solution, or left in as presumed harmless? I could easily see enzymes merrily converting glucose to fructose in our bodies causing problems, even assuming they don't cause any other problems.

    And of course there's the RoundUp from within the corn itself, which may be concentrated or modified by the syrup-making process, and is a probable carcinogen at high doses at least.

    All that said - I don't go far out of my way to avoid HFCS, but then I mostly try to avoid heavily sweetened foods altogether, so I figure my dosage is far below average regardless.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 02 2019, @03:38PM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday April 02 2019, @03:38PM (#823642) Homepage
      The glucose/fructose pathways are quite distinct, in particular fructose focuses almost entirely on the liver, hence the association with liver damage, and the glucose by that stage is nowhere to be seen in either mixture.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves