Seems irresponsible of USA Today to have a story with the heading "Could cutting asparagus from your diet stop the spread of cancer?" [1]. Imagine the financial impact on growers.
Asparagine is found in many foods. The body needs it, but can make what it needs, so we could safely eliminate it from the diet.
"A study of lab mice found lowering levels of asparagine "dramatically" reduced the spread of triple-negative breast cancer."
"Cedars-Sinai Hospital's Simon Knott, an author on the study, said the research adds to mounting evidence a person's diet "can influence the course of the disease." He said should the same finding be made in humans, curbing asparagine intake could assist with cancer treatment, and not just in breast cancer."
The story is based on a study paper published in Nature this week [2].
But the important finding IMO was that:
"... asparagine synthetase expression in a patient's primary tumour was most strongly correlated with later metastatic relapse"
Asparagine synthetase is the enzyme that is needed to synthesize asparagine. We can restrict asparagine intake, but if cancer wants to make it, the enzyme will be upregulated.
From Wiki:
"An epithelial to mesenchymal transition was mimicked in metastatic cells by adapting PC-3 prostate cancer cells from adherent to suspension culture and then examined to investigate changes in gene expression concurrent with this adaption to suspension.[16] It was found that the asparagine synthetase expression was sixfold greater in the suspension cells than in the adherent cells.[16] In xenografts from a human breast cancer cell line in an established metastatic mouse model, asparagine synthetase was elevated in circulating tumor cells isolated from the mouse blood compared with the parental cell line. When these circulating tumor cells were returned to an in vitro culture and exposed to hypoxia, they showed higher basal expression and greater induction of asparagine synthetase than their parental cell line. These circulating tumor cells were also found to have an increased capacity for colony formation in soft agar assays under hypoxic conditions and grew faster when reimplanted as xenografts. The increased prevalence of asparaginase synthetase in the metastatic cells suggests that its activity may be beneficial for circulating tumor cell survival."
...
The chemo drug "Asparaginase is an enzyme that is used as a medication ... to treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. It is given by injection into a vein, muscle, or under the skin. A pegylated version is also available...
Common side effects when used by injection include allergic reactions, pancreatitis, blood clotting problems, high blood sugar, kidney problems, and liver dysfunction. Use in pregnancy may harm the baby... Asparaginase works by breaking down the amino acid known as asparagine ..." [3]
It seems odd to me that cancer cells that do not express asparagine synthetase would respond to dietary asparagine in this way, but that's what the authors claim. So perhaps we should cut out:
The very best diet I found which provides the highest level of alkalinity is the Mediterranean diet, legumes, olives, grapes real ones not that GMO crap. Unleavned breads or real baguette. Reverse osmosis water, and an I WILL ATTITUDE.
USA Today is no longer a “news” neswspaper. After the SOTU speech, Susan Page on the front page wrote an editorial and her personal criticism blabber about the president’s speech without summarizing the speech’s content. It wasn’t news. And in previous publications I see them have attention grabbing headlines, but the content does not address them at all.
Tonight I had Wild Alaska salmon 6 oz, quinoa and spinach salad.
I should have compared the asparagine level, Salmon vs Ribeye steak. If the salmon has more asparagine then the ribeye then I I've been eating the wrong diet (pescetarian) for the last 3 months.
A lot of food doesn't want to be eaten. Plants often contain antinutrients which discourage foraging.
There are those who will not eat cruciferous vegetables, because of the goitrogens.
Almost nothing will eat rapeseed, because of the erucic acid, but Canadians managed to create a variety that produces oil with no more than 2% of the antinutrient - Canola oil, touted as one of the healthiest oils - but a little bit of poison in every gram.
Soybeans are loaded with antinutrients, particularly trypsin inhibitors. It's a complex process to make soy edible.
Grains & legumes contain phytic acid.
Beans & wheat contain lectins.
& so on.
Many men, after diagnosis, turn to "healthy" food. But cancer cells need the same nutrients as healthy cells.
Hippocrates': "Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food." isn't terribly useful for cancer, I feel.
Eat everything you enjoy, in moderation. If someone serves me asparagus, I'll eat it.
Unfortunately, the phytochemicals that are useful against cancer have to be ingested at pharmaceutical rather than physiological levels.
We expect too much from food. IMO
-Patrick
When I am lazy I make myself a "peanut butter McMuffin", toasted of course.
I am starting to get confused about asparagus , last year when I was diagnosed with prostate cancer I was reading how good it was , so I added it to my diet, I read that US National Cancer Institute, that asparagus is the highest tested food containing glutathione, which is considered one of the body’s most potent anticarcinogens and antioxidants. Then recently on my local tv news that asparagus contains asparagine that causes cancer. and it is in a lot of foods that I thought was also good to eat like legumes and nuts. I am thinking how do these research studies conflict one from another.
For one thing, the research was done only in mice, and hasn't been performed in humans. Mice are not people, and scientists know well that animal models don't always mimic the way diseases work in human bodies.
Plus, asparagine wasn't found to cause cancer, even in the mice studied. The compound merely made triple-negative breast cancer spread more quickly around the tiny rodent bodies. The same effect might be true for other cancers in mice, but more research is needed to know for sure.
then it is said "more research is needed" if these researchers were having humans instead of mice, it might have some substance. they should actually say nothing until the research is taking from the mice studies to human studies. I remember reading about how mice studies was back it the 80's , they would give mice high doses of what the study was about. I thought even then when I was young and healthy, if I was to eat massive amounts of something of one food item it can't be good. but it seems with the speed of how news gets to the public now days makes it even worse and confusing for cancer survivors.
I have come to a conclusion and this will be my journey to eat mostly plant food and maybe some beef but with low fat and extra lean like 96% lean, 4% fat and grass fed. but only eating beef as a once in week or longer. to stick to a diet of balanced of different vegetables. I just have to believe that is the right way to eat for me.
Mice studies: I remember decades ago, a sugar substitute that may cause cancer. What they gave the mice in volume ; a human male.,150 lbs., would have to drink 83 12 oz. cans of diet soda a day. Some of these mice studies are misleading.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
