It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Corn byproduct fructose literally fuels cancer cell growth, study finds

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:01 AM

Originally posted by airspoon
We knew that it was bad for us, however now we know that it fuels cancer, which can explain the extremely high cancer rates in the American public.
So if a study was done that found that cancer cells grow faster in people who eat 2000 calories a day and are well-nourished, when compared to people that only eat 500 calories a day and are malnourished, does that mean we should all start eating 500 calories a day and become malnourished because cancer cells won't grow as fast? I think you are drawing conclusions that aren't in the study.

I also think these guys need to work on their linguistic skills if the difference between glucose sugar and fructose is as great as they say:

Tumor cells thrive on sugar but they used the fructose to proliferate. "Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different," Heaney's team wrote.

Thrive: to grow vigorously
Proliferate: to grow by rapid production of new parts, cells, buds, or offspring
If the difference is that large, their choice of words aren't communicating it that well. Thrive is a pretty strong word.

I think the biggest risk of high intake of ANY sugar is obesity and the risks related to obesity.

If you don't want cancer cells to grow rapidly there are lots of ways to slow their growth, and many of them are not good for you. I think it's better to focus on not getting the cancerous cells in the first place.

Also, would this affect your perception of only processed fructose? What about eating corn on the cob for example, that seems like a natural food which is unprocessed, right? Or is even unprocessed corn on the cob now considered something you would avoid because of its fructose content?

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:17 PM
Wondered why I had the worst aftertaste in my mouth ever after eating Haribo Starmix, totally put me off them for life, my mouth felt a burnt sort of aftertaste afterwards.

The body knows even if the scientists don't sometimes.

This makes complete sense to me.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Xadaz]

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:23 PM
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

However, is that the same chemical composition? Remember, something can have the same formula but be a different molecule.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:24 PM

How great is hot roasted corn on the cob with real butter and sea salt?

Can't give that up.

I just bit my keyboard.
Corn, good stuff !

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:29 PM
reply to post by PurpleDog UK

This begs the question of whether or not we should be putting things into our bodies that our bodies cannot metabolically recognize in the first place. It is not enough to simply say that [the substance] is not recognized as [another substance] per se -- so, what is it recognized as then?

Free radicals? Some other "inconsequential" molecular chain?

And we all wonder why we're stumping around sick and dying all the time.

Any society that outlaws plants that natrually grow out of the ground and -- instead -- embraces the All Mighty Twinkie [insert your favorite artificially flavored goodie here] with avarice deserves exactly what it gets: pancreatic cancer, diabetes, and host of other complications too numerous to list...

Why do we add sugar to fruit? Ever ask yourself that question? We may as well be dipping our bacon in a congealed bacon-grease-salt sauce.

Since I'm in ramble mode, I'll say that one of the worst conspiratorial triumvirates include us -- the consumer, the pharmaceutical companies -- the supplier, and the food industry -- the catalyst.

Anyone who doesn't see a business model here needs to get their head checked and take an elementary refresher course on economics.


posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:32 PM
reply to post by airspoon

I think I disagree with this and call BUNK!!!! Because one, it's a natural byproduct of corn which is wholly organic, it is true that everything natural in moderation cannot and will not harm anyone!!!! I am so sick of this crap, it's the things they tell people so we buy the garbage the junk food they deem is good for you like sacharin and aspartame which is Frikking POISON!!!!! What a load of S****~~!!!

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:37 PM
reply to post by airspoon

Now, you do realize that fructose is not a "byproduct" of corn manufacturing? It's a sugar that is naturally found in corn as well as fruits and vegetables. You are attempting to mislead everyone who reads this into thinking corn consumption stimulates the growth of pancreatic cancer - not true. Fructose is one of the component monosaccharides found in sucrose. Anytime sucrose is metabolized by the human digestive system, fructose and glucose are the resulting metabolites. So, you could say that simply being human stimulates pancreatic cancer-growth and partly be correct. However, YOU ARE WRONG.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by o22a6ar]

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:37 PM
Indeed. Splenda is made of sucralose, maltodextrine and dextrose, not fructose.

Originally posted by PurpleDog UK
reply to post by airspoon


How does the modified product 'Splenda' fit into this then..?
Would it have the same effect ?

I used to work for J&J who own McNeil foods, the guys who sell Splenda and from memory (i was in medical devices) they have 'altered' the moelecular structure of sugar so that the body doesn't recognise it as a sugar..

Sucralose (Splenda®)
Made by replacing three hydroxyl groups with chlorine. The resulting molecule is not recognized as sugar by the body and as such, is not digested. Some refer to Sucralose as Chlorinated Sugar. Sucralose does not occur in nature.

Just wondering

PurpleDOG UK

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:41 PM
reply to post by airspoon

Isn't it kind of obvious that a cheap, easily consumed form of energy would be used by cells to fuel their functions?

I'm against the HFCS because it tastes terrible, and is terrible for you.. but this seems sort of obvious to me.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:42 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Whenever the word "sugar" is used in scientific settings, it usually refers to sucrose. You can deduce that is what they were referencing by the other sugars they mentioned: fructose, glucose.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:59 PM
Research done in the late 1800's showed that fructose led to excess production of uric acid. When the kidneys cannot keep up with the production of uric acid, it then finds its way into the blood stream. Most are aware of this being the condition resulting in gout, but a book I read written in 1933 stated explicitly that the first vulnerable tissues it attacks are those of the joints (arthritis), and that of the pancreas. Interesting, since the frequency of diabetes now is so incredibly high.

I also know a retired doctor who had spent the last decades of his career as a researcher. He strongly suspects that the free flowing uric acid is attacking another soft tissue; the brain. He feels this is where the rise in depression is coming from.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:05 PM
As a cancer survivor, I can tell you that cancer cells love them some energy-packed fructose and sucrose. It is possible to starve those little bast@ards by eating very lean with lots of high fiber (lots of cruchy raw veggies). No dairy (lactose is cancer fuel too). No dense fruits like mangos (so damned good though) or bananas. Supplement with high D and C. Absolutely zero alcohol. No sodas. No caffeine, except green tea (drink lots of that).

Find the oldest, wisest Chinese and Indian folks you can meet and pay attention.

Pray or meditate (same thing physiologically)!

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:17 PM
Because it comes from corn does not mean it is natural. Why do people think that the original form is the point. Further, while corn is tasty, the version we eat in this country cannot be properly digested at all. Though I am proud to be a supporter of the FDA on this, people's right to get this stuff is written in the constitution, but raw milk is pure communism and must not be available.

The location of the cancer is important. This suggests the destruction to the pancreas is the leading cause of glucose issues in the country. So your HFCS is not only going to enhance your cancer, it is going to screw up your metabolism long before the cancer happens - so your life will be half it could be. Watch a doc on corn from two guys who grew their own acre of corn, study the part of HFCS and tell me it is natural.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:20 PM
Some may find it interesting to know that carbohydrates (bread, rice, grains, sugar, fruit, etc.) are non-essential to human survival. Your body can adapt to live entirely off of fat and protein, using fat instead of carbohydrates for fuel. Once your body adapts to using fat for fuel by entering a state known as 'ketosis', the liver converts fat into ketones, which are used by the brain for fuel instead of glucose. Once the body is in ketosis, energy levels become much more constant, as you do not get the insulin spikes and subsequent crashes that result from the intake of high glycemic index carbohydrates.

If you think about it, our hunter-gatherer ancestors were almost always on a ketogenic diet - consuming high amounts of animal fat and animal protein, with carbohydrates being rather rare (like finding some berries or honey, for example). It wasn't until the advent of agriculture that humans began consuming carbohydrates on a regular basis, and from an evolutionary standpoint, that was a very short time ago. So, one could make the argument that the modern American high-carbohydrate diet is less 'natural' than a high-fat/protein diet, even if the carbohydrates being consumed are healthy, natural ones.

Just some food, or should I say 'ketones', for thought.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:56 PM
Add the fact that most of the corn grown in the US is GMO, corn is something obvious to stay away from. GMO and HFCS, what a combination!!!

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:39 PM
I consume very little fructose, for obvious reasons - though I'm glad someone posted an article on a study that shows some of the toxic effects.

Raw cane sugar isn't that bad for you. Mostly just need to be careful by looking on labels of processed foods, when yo do eat them.

Rule #1. Avoid processed foods unless you've been drinking tequila all night and just gotta have that taco cabana burrito.

I guess that's the only rule I have right now.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:59 PM
I don't believe these types of studies when they are first published. For so many years now we always hear from scientists... eat this food its good for you. No, wait we made a mistake it's actually bad for you. Don't over cook your meat it can cause cancers. Actually, we've now found it can prevent cancer. Eat more tomatoes and oranges they prevent prostate cancer, but are found to cause other cancer......

It's a never ending cycle.

I say don't live in fear from these 'scientific studies' and just use common sense. Eat in moderation and avoid highly processed food with lots of additives and preservatives.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:26 AM

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by Romans 10:9
I'm beginning to think that corn is something to be avoided possibly altogether.

This is also what I am now thinking, see this:

They are destroying my lovely foods, I used to love boiling Corn and then spreading tamarind chutney all of over.

Apparently it's time to say bye bye to Corn, because not only what this thead is about but also because most Corns now are genetically engineered.

And then when you're in a hospital bed dieing of nothing, you can thank your pro-active response to this cornspiracy for the fact that you can state "I die .. uhh, Anyway!"

Man, oil spills, viruses, vaccines, haarp, chemtrails, spirals, nukes, lithium, nanobots, the NWO, the Illuminati, thermite, and whatnot...

I'm eating corn damn it.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:37 AM
wow, that's wonderful. not.

that stuff is poison. it's primarily responsible for obesity I would say.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:54 AM
Yes. It is poison. Which reminds me of the article on there being 30x more poisons allowed by the fda in sodas than in tap water... but that's another thread.

Healthy eating is fairly simple. We don't often need scientific studies.
High fructose corn syrup has blubberfied America. It's a prime cause of obesity. All one has to do is eat it and then not eat it and see the difference.

1. Eat as much natural food as you can.
2. Processing means unhealthy. The more processing, the more unhealthy.
3. If there are weird chemicals you can't pronounce in food, they aren't good for you.
4. Pesticides aren't just bad for insects. They are poisons.
5. Vegetables, fruits and lean meats make for an optimal diet.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in