Tumors Have a Taste for Fructose, If It's Transformed by the Liver

From the FDA: https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/high-fruct...

"We are not aware of any evidence ... that there is a difference in safety between foods containing HFCS 42 or HFCS 55 and foods containing similar amounts of other nutritive sweeteners with approximately equal glucose and fructose content, such as sucrose, honey, or other traditional sweeteners."

A better rule of thumb might be "avoid sugar entirely". Like alcohol, the more we learn about it, the more we learn that it's a unambiguous poison at moderate-to-high doses. But fructose being ubiquitous and hidden in food form makes it an even greater danger to public health. In fact, the metabolism of both alcohol and fructose involve similar pathways in the liver. Fructose has been called "Alcohol without the buzz". In 20 years, we'll look at serving a glass of soda or juice to a child like serving them a glass of whiskey.

>> Fructose does not directly fuel tumors. The authors note that the cancer cells themselves were unable to use fructose readily as a nutrient because they did not express ketohexokinase-C (KHK-C). However, the liver converts fructose into usable nutrients for cancer cells. Primary hepatocytes did express KHK-C, they write, “resulting in fructolysis and the excretion of a variety of lipid species, including lysophosphatidylcholines (LPCs).”

>> “The idea that you can tackle cancer with diet is intriguing,” said Patti. “When we think about tumors, we tend to focus on what dietary components they consume directly. You put something in your body, and then you imagine that the tumor takes it up. But humans are complex. What you put in your body can be consumed by healthy tissue and then converted into something else that tumors use.”

You cannot stop cancer with diet alone. I've argued with others on HN about this, then they find "research" that claims such a thing, but most those papers even state in the summary that "there's no hard evidence" of any such feat.

The other notable analysis I refer back to is from Derek Lowe on curcumin:

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/curcumin-will-wast...

Not that fructose in moderate amounts is an issue, typically the issue is the added sugar in items which might be otherwise consumed to excess, regardless of HFCS or regular table sugar sucrose. While media might be banging on about too much sugar in softdrink, they are slow to mention there's some fruit drinks (the <40% actual fruit juice) on the market with have 10% by weight in sugars. Sugars are good for helping preserve foods, but I've no idea if the 10% is there as a necessity or simply to sooth the taste buds.

I look forward to a day when one of the softdrink companies market a product where the bulk of excess sugar is dextrose / glucose. Last couple years I've been buying dextrose by the 25 Kg bag (approx 55 lbs) for all my sugar needs. On the fifth bag I think.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08258-3

I’m flagging this one because nobody has time for this silliness. Please link to a reputable source that isn’t monetised to death.