Yes, dietary sugar can "feed" PC? (And heart disease!)

[noahware]

Many have noted here that PC, unlike some other cancers, depends more on fatty acids than on glucose.

Here is another study noting that high intakes of sucrose/fructose (particularly in the form of sugary drinks) impact de novo lipogenesis. That is to say, the sugars help promote the body's increased production of fatty acids from raw materials (amino acids, etc.) on hand in the body.

The authors suggest that high consumption of fructose or sucrose (a fructose-glucose disaccharide) might result in "a persisting reinforced lipogenic gene expression."

Cancers feeding on fats might thus seem not to need fats only, or even primarily, from the diet. Sugars in the diet may trigger an increased production of the fats that cancers need to grow. This does not necessarily suggest a low-carb diet is good, but would suggest that a diet particularly HIGH in simple sugary carbs might be bad... and not just possibly bad for PC progression, but for bad for heart disease and insulin resistance, too.

[It would seem to support the idea floated by John Yudkin over 50 years ago that it is dietary sugar that promotes increased rates of heart disease in the modern West, more so than dietary fats as theorized by Ancel Keys.]

journal-of-hepatology.eu/ar...

"Excessive fructose intake associates with increased de novo lipogenesis, blood triglycerides, and hepatic insulin resistance.

Regular consumption of both fructose and sucrose [= glucose+fructose] sweetened beverages in moderate doses associated with stable caloric intake increases hepatic fatty-acid synthesis even in a basal state, whereas this effect is not observed after consumption of glucose.

This study revealed that beverages sweetened with the sugars fructose and sucrose, but not glucose, increase the ability of the liver to produce lipids.

Increased lipogenic capacity may not only be an acute cellular response in order to process large loads of carbohydrates/lipogenic substrates, but be maintained by the liver for a prolonged period as a general metabolic adaptation to a diet rich in carbs..

We hypothesize that this switch of the liver metabolism by fructose intake towards a higher lipogenic activity may pave the way to further changes affecting metabolic health."

[Tall_Allen]

Cancers feed on whatever is available - fats, sugars or proteins. Prostate cancer prefers fats or proteins to sugars *which is why it can be detected with a choline or fluciclovine PET scan, but not as much with an FDG PET scan. Other cancers prefer sugars. There is no way to "starve" a cancer through diet. It has been known for many years that the liver stores excess carbs as glycogen or fatty acids.

[noahware in reply to Tall_Allen]

The point is that while prostate cancers prefers fats or proteins to sugars, many men interpret this on a dietary level. In other words, they think eating fatty foods is what their PC "prefers." That may not be correct. It could be that your PC "prefers" you to eat sugary foods, because that (and not fatty foods) is what more profoundly increases lipogenesis and stimulates epigenetic changes that MIGHT promote more rapid progression.

It is not about the raw materials, but about the signaling on how they are used

So the idea here is not to "starve" cancer but to avoid over-feeding it or signaling it to progress. The idea is, perhaps feeding it less of what it most prefers may slow it down. (You don't necessarily need to starve things to slow them down. But if you put an alcoholic at an open bar, you might just speed him up.)

[Tall_Allen in reply to noahware]

There is no such thing as starving cancer or even "slowing them down" and there is no such thing as overfeeding either. Cancer is a hog. They are the most rapidly growing cells. They will take all the nutrients they need to divide and grow, robbing all energy stores. PCa does prefer fats to sugars, at least in early stages, but if there isn't enough fat, they will use sugars or proteins.

[noahware in reply to Tall_Allen]

"There is no such thing as starving cancer"

Thanks, but I already said twice it's not about starving cancer.

And the entire point of all later-stage metastatic therapy is "slowing them down" not just by cutting the raw material of T but by reducing the "overfeeding" of the many signalling pathways (hormonal, metabolic, etc.).

You are again missing the point: it is not merely about the raw materials, but about the signaling on how they are used. Changing the inputs or availabilities of raw material can change the signaling.

So limiting certain amino or fatty acids that PC cells need is not necessarily the point of a metabolic or nutritional intervention; rather, the point is the potential for altering the over-expression or under-expression of certain genes, proteins, pathways, cellular signalling, etc. in the entire interconnected and interacting ecosystem of normal cells and cancer cells.

It's akin to addressing the beliefs, ideology and communications behind a terrorist organization rather than merely addressing the actions of individual (or teams of) ideologues and terrorists and their access to the building blocks of weaponry.

The fact that "there is no such thing as starving cancer" is exactly why physical or chemical castration fails virtually all of the time. Cancer is a hog that will ultimately thrive when "starved" of T. Any "cure" will never come from pursuing T starvation exclusively.

ADT is essentially a "starvation" therapy that is a delaying tactic. I see no reason why other delaying tactics should not be pursued, so long as they are not harmful (unlike ADT).

[Tall_Allen in reply to noahware]

But what I wrote was, "There is no such thing as starving cancer or even "slowing them down" and there is no such thing as overfeeding either. "

[tom67inMA in reply to noahware]

I've seen my genetic report, and came to the conclusion that my cancer is way past the point where it will respond to any kind of signaling or gene expression. Those underexpressed suppressor genes? They are literally missing from my cancer. I'm missing both copies of at least 4 suppressor genes. There's no way to increase the expression of a missing gene, so unless you can restore those missing genes my cancer has no brakes.

I think your arguments are more valid for earlier, hormone-sensitive phases of prostate cancer where there still may be some genes that can respond to signals. Once cancer really takes off (doubling in less than a month) it's really about genetic damage more than gene expression.

[noahware in reply to tom67inMA]

I agree, once the train has become a "runaway train" then the potential for slowing it by diet/supplement attempts at changing gene expression all but disappears. Even for milder earlier stages, there is nothing conclusive to suggest any of various dietary adjustments will have much (or any) impact on ALL cancers in ALL men. Rather, the suggestion is that there might be potential benefit for some, based on observed mechanisms of the body's reaction to certain nutrients.

It makes more sense to me to make adjustments based on things that seem more universal in potential harms to us, like the diabetes and heart disease that may be helped to progress by super-sizing our sugary drinks. If cutting those also happens to help slow someone's PC progression without even knowing it, that's just a bonus.

At some point, too, our age can play into our efforts (if we are lucky enough to become "old enough" to not care that much anymore). My diabetic father-in-law in his 80s, after years of "trying to be good," is not going to be bothered with a fanatical attention to diet anymore. His attitude is, if THIS muffin or THIS beer is what kills me, so be it... I feel like having a muffin, and a beer, and I am going to have them!

[GeorgeGlass in reply to noahware]

Good points. The only thing i don’t like is when people in their 80s through caution to the wind. Many of them could live to 100 if they continued on a strict diet who won they have that attitude of if it kills me so be it usually does end up killing them. My dad said the same thing as your father-in-law even a month before he started to have serious heart problems and then we got them Tvar surgery and it was it Sally or on the part of the doctors not to put them on pacemaker even though I thought that he should’ve been on one he passed away three weeks after the T-var procedure. It’s easy to say “if i for sobeit until they have a heart attack or stroke and then they wish they had eaten healthier.

[StayingOptimistic in reply to Tall_Allen]

I have heard the same things you mentioned from dr. Schulz. Thanks for explaining

[StayingOptimistic]

I have been struggling to understand the effect of sugars on psa for a long time. I don’t really understand what to make of this. I eat cookies once a month for a whole day. It’s my day to enjoy. Is it hurting me? I don’t know. I wish I knew the answer to this. Thanks for posting it.

[MarkBC in reply to StayingOptimistic]

Eat a healthy balanced diet ... less meat, more vegetables, less processed food, not too much. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy an occasional unhealthy treat. Life has to be fun. I love home made cookies too! 😀

[MateoBeach in reply to MarkBC]

It is like Michael Pollen’s short prescription: “ Eat food, mostly plants, not too much.”

[noahware in reply to StayingOptimistic]

My thought is, one day out of thirty seems unlikey to do what the daily consumption of large amounts of simple sugars do. For the longest time, I thought avoiding soda and drinking large amounts of "100% fruit" juice was a healthy thing to do. This is just one more article that suggests OJ is not a health food.

Simply from the point of view of calories and insulin response, it is well-established that sugary drinks are not a good idea. The thesis that they could contribute to heart disease as part of the "metabolic syndrome" is fairly new to me, but that idea has been around since the 1950s!

This is only relevant to your approach to PC if you are among those (like myself, Patrick, and some others here) who think that for SOME men, some aspects of PC progression might be influenced by the inflammatory pathways linked to metabolic disorders. But as Patrick has pointed out, many men who are not dropped by PC itself are dropped by heart disease, dementia, diabetes and other ailments that more clearly ARE metabolic in nature.

[Tall_Allen]

I did not say there is no impact on health, cardiac risk, etc. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

[noahware]

Posting idiotic posts IS a hobby. (As is, apparently, reading and replying to idiotic posts.)

[LearnAll]

Prostate cancer cells most preferred fuel is FATTY acids...In it ca't get enough of fatty acids ,it starts using amino acids. Lipogenesis is only triggered if body gets excessive amount of refined, simple sugars. Particularly Fruit juices and sugary drinks are bad as there is sudden spike in blood sugar causing burst of Insulin which drops sugar level and triggers hunger. The phenomenon is called Reactive Hypoglycemia.

The sugars in Veggies and fruits like Apples, Guava, Berries etc is full of a lot of soluble fiber and therefore sugar is released slowly and gradually . No spike occurs.

The fact still remains that one needs to reduce fatty acids as much as possible and cut amino acids to lower level. The safe foods are fiber rich vegetables and fruits which have slow release sugars and are loaded with nutrients and anti cancer substances like resveratrol, lycopene ,sulforaphanes etc. Keeping total food intake low or burning lot of calories by exercise are two very important interventions. A BMI of 22 or less is the goal.

[GeorgeGlass in reply to LearnAll]

From all the research I've done, prostate cancer grows faster on some amino acids, and not so much on others.

[noahware in reply to LearnAll]

"Lipogenesis is only triggered if body gets excessive amount of refined, simple sugars."

Yes, what I found interesting about this paper was the proposed idea that this sugars in excess might result in "a persisting reinforced lipogenic gene expression." The sugar causes not just more lipogenesis in the moment, but perhaps a permanent shift from what nature intended for us.

This suggests to me that even as sweet-tooth kids we may have been initiating the process of an epigenetic metabolic shift, with our (at least MY) massive consumption of juices, soda, sugary cereal and other sweets. Perhaps the downsides of such a shift do not come apparent for decades. And while these negative consequences obviously include type-2 diabetse (and less obviously heart disease), it doesn't seem unreasonable to consider that a persistent high intake of simple sugars may promote, at least in some men, more lethal expressions of PCs that might otherwise have been indolent.

[Hidden]

Naturalpathics cut all sugars for any cancer patients . Processed white sugar is so bad for us that cutting it out is a no brainer while searching for better health .

[Hidden]

These kinds of posts are troll posts IMO. They are only here to generate a reaction. And as they say, "don't feed the troll"

[LearnAll]

Excessive amount of protein intake not only puts unnecessory burden on kidneys..it also promotes early ageing and reduces cancer fighting capacity.A man needs approx. 1 gram protein per kilogram of body weight. This is safe and adequate amount.

Here is a study sponsored by national institute of health, USA.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...

[ctflatlander in reply to LearnAll]

What is your opinion about the use of organic high protein plant based supplement? I consume 20g for body weight of 165lbs. I have not read anything on this forum pro/cons.Thankyou

[LearnAll in reply to ctflatlander]

Plant origin proteins (beans, lentils, mushrooms ) are much less harmful than animal origin proteins. I did not know how to eat mushrooms but my wife solved my problem yesterday. She brought a bag of Shitake Mushroom Crisps (chips) which taste just like potato chips. The bag reads "DJ&A Shitake Mushroom Crisps" . She bought it from Trader Joes" Market. I enjoyed these crisps with Tea.Mushrooms have substances in them which slow cancer cell growth. The top 5 variety are ...Reishi, Shitake, Maitake, Turkey tale and Cordyceps. Here is a study which indicates that Mushrooms slow prostate cancer growth by inhibiting Interleukin 8 , VEGF and NFKbeta pathway.

Note in this study that Mushroom slow growth of Androgen resistance ,PC 3 prostate cancer cells.

dl.begellhouse.com/journals...

[GeorgesCalvez]

I doubt that the consumption of moderate amounts of sugar, red meat, alcohol, etc has much effect on the course of prostate cancer.

The Gleason Grade, type and genetic make up of the cancer are key factors in the progression of the cancer.

Some men live for a long time with advanced prostate cancer because they have drawn the long straw, their cancer is relatively benign insofar as it progresses relatively slowly, does not throw aggressive metastases, etc.

[noahware in reply to GeorgesCalvez]

I agree with everything you wrote. That doesn't mean that for some men, there might not be a possibility of shifting either towards or away from "a persisting reinforced lipogenic gene expression" (should such a thing actually exist), with some corresponding cost or benefit in terms of PC progression. We have no way of knowing who these men are or aren't.

In evolutionary terms, I'm not sure what "moderate amounts of sugar" could actually mean, when we are thinking in terms of the forms discussed in the paper (soda, fruit juices, etc.). Even if humans until the past hundred years or so ever did have access to anything like fiber-free forms of liquid sugar, they certainly didn't consume it daily for years on end in amounts anywhere near what we might define as moderate.

I post these articles because I find the mechanisms being discussed of interest, and I know SOME others do. These posts are by no means "advice" on how any individual should proceed with diet.

[Hidden]

Are my fruit smoothies off the diet list now?

[noahware in reply to Hidden]

Well, only if you think they represent a high consumption of fructose or sucrose AND that this consumption might result in "a persisting reinforced lipogenic gene expression" AND that this lipogenic effect might have adverse effects on your health that outweigh both the nutritional benefits of your smoothies and the satisfaction you derive from them. What is on YOUR diet list is up to YOU, after all, since only you can make the subjective cost/benefit analysis!

[Hidden in reply to noahware]

Sounds complicated. They don’t contain sugar, but do have almond milk or coconut milk, bananas, strawberries, blueberries, pineapples ,etc. with some spinach and a dollop of almond butter and scoop if protein

[noahware in reply to Hidden]

Sounds good, and sounds nothing like the pure liquid sugars discussed in the paper. Some might suggest, to lessen the insulin response, to go lighter on the high-glycemic fruits (banana, pineapple) and heavier on the low-glycemic ones (berries).

[See LearnAll's comments and posts about the importance of fiber in slowing the digestion of sugar-containing fruits, and thus muting the insulin response.]

[Hidden in reply to noahware]

Maybe the spinach i throw in will help that a bit

[keepinon in reply to Hidden]

I have a fruit smoothie just as you described in front of me right now. I have this one day a week for breakfast as a treat. Until I was dx, I was a Pepsi junkie. Drank way too much, and then I went cold turkey. I will admit to one diet soda a week now. I still have a sweet tooth that if I totally denied I would not be a happy camper. One cookie or similar after dinner. The rest of my diet is very healthy (thank you wife!) Everything in Moderation.😇

[Tall_Allen]

Which assertion?

[j-o-h-n]

To err is human.... to forgive is devine......

Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.

j-o-h-n Friday 03/19/2021 1:48 PM DST

[j-o-h-n]

Lost here is redundant.....

Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.

j-o-h-n Friday 03/19/2021 1:58 PM DST

[MateoBeach]

Around and around it goes. Where it stop nobody knows. But I thank you all for the ride.

[MateoBeach]

I like the keto. Very low sugars but great tasting.

[Spyder54]

Here is Dr Shoals on sugars vs fattys. He agrees with Tall Allen. youtu.be/-PyqazlkpCE(Not working as expected?)

[noahware in reply to Spyder54]

Well, they are both right because they are not addressing my point. (And I guess I failed at making it clear.) My point is actually the point Moyad makes at just after the 2:30 mark: a HIGH sugar intake promotes increased insulin, IGF-1, mTOR, etc. And cancer likes this!

I am not saying cancer goes away when you cut sugar, but rather that cancer COULD be initiated, promoted and accelerated by relatively high intakes of simple sugars (especially in liquid form, as in this study). And as Moyad suggest, there is not an arbitrary cutoff of blood sugar, for all men, that is "good" or "bad."

The point is not that a single doughnut definitely makes cancer worse, and that skipping that doughnut cures cancer, but that sustained high intakes of simple sugars MIGHT promote systemic metabolic shifts and those shifts might promote diabetes, heart disease, and/or PC progression.

And what defines a "high" intake? That would obviously vary by individual.

Think about what Moyad said: "It is not sugar that feeds cancer, but high blood sugar." Well, what feeds high blood sugar? Carbs and DIETARY SUGAR!

He also says "weight gain and adipose tissue is very detrimental to those with PC..." Well, what is the leading cause of excessive weight gain in the US? Carbs and DIETARY SUGAR!

(Eliminating/reducing those is one of the fastest and easiest ways to lose fat and weight, AND to lower high blood sugar.)

High simple carb/sugar intake easily leads to, for many, both: 1) higher blood sugars, and 2) more fat tissue. (The fact that Moyad does not make the connection, and say "heart healthy" actually does mean "less dietary sugar" is a big error on his part.)

So I guess in my haste to post this I did not make it clear, but that is exactly what I was trying to say. The elevation of growth factors like insulin and IGF-1, along with an associated hyperlipidemia, are all part of a metabolic shift that can result from high dietary sugar intakes. The average consumption of sugar in the US is about 10x what is recommended, and probably 100x-1000x (or more) what the human physiology evolved to process.

[Hidden]

Sugar in the mornin'

Sugar in the evenin'

Sugar at suppertime

Be my little sugar

And love me all the time.