4 ms·

So, it feels like you have cause and effect mixed up. Cancer cells are essentially just cells that outcompete other cells, which becomes a problem. They do thi

So, it feels like you have cause and effect mixed up. Cancer cells are essentially just cells that outcompete other cells, which becomes a problem. They do this in a few different ways, accelerating their cell growth, and preventing the normal apoptosis process that would stop these cells from growing. Accelerated cell growth means a higher concentration of glucose is required. This means there is a very strong concentration of glucose in cancer cells, because cancer cells gather glucose to fuel their growth. This doesn't mean that if you get some healthy cells and expose them to higher than normal concentrations of glucose they will be more likely to become cancerous. In fact, that sounds like a well defined experiment. I'd be surprised if it hasn't been carried out.

bfieidhbrjr 6y ago
You're sidestepping the broken ketone metabolism that we know about in tumors. But anyway, your point about causation, that's why I said originally that it depends on your definition of causal here. We absolutely know that low carb and fasting leads to better outcomes. I'm not saying glucose magically turns cells cancerous, but it is the fuel - the only fuel - they can use. So in a sense our massive use of sugar is causal. There's even historical accounts of introducing sugar to cancer-free populations and they all get diabetes, cancer and bad teeth. See https://www.amazon.com/Cancer-disease-civilization-anthropological-historical/dp/B0007DXZQG https://www.amazon.com/Cancer-disease-civilization-anthropol... For a great example.
- mijoharas 6y ago
  Ok, that's a fair point. If we change my hypothesised experiment to be add high glucose concentration to cells and look for a cancerous tumor that is greater than $size after $time, I think you'd find an effect (you can read about the effects of hyperglycaemia on cancer, and given that a cancer is present, it will grow more quickly in the presence of more glucose). I guess I wanted to clarify that glucose doesn't cause cancer, but I think I understand your point now, and I think we're in agreement.
  - BoiledCabbage 6y ago
    How often is the body able to shut down small cancerous growths when they are just starting? And by giving them a feed of glucose, do they grow to fast for the body to naturally handle them? Or alternatively, without glucose, world they mostly stop spreading?

bfieidhbrjr 6y ago

You're sidestepping the broken ketone metabolism that we know about in tumors. But anyway, your point about causation, that's why I said originally that it depends on your definition of causal here. We absolutely know that low carb and fasting leads to better outcomes. I'm not saying glucose magically turns cells cancerous, but it is the fuel - the only fuel - they can use. So in a sense our massive use of sugar is causal. There's even historical accounts of introducing sugar to cancer-free populations and they all get diabetes, cancer and bad teeth. See https://www.amazon.com/Cancer-disease-civilization-anthropological-historical/dp/B0007DXZQG https://www.amazon.com/Cancer-disease-civilization-anthropol... For a great example.

mijoharas 6y ago
Ok, that's a fair point. If we change my hypothesised experiment to be add high glucose concentration to cells and look for a cancerous tumor that is greater than $size after $time, I think you'd find an effect (you can read about the effects of hyperglycaemia on cancer, and given that a cancer is present, it will grow more quickly in the presence of more glucose). I guess I wanted to clarify that glucose doesn't cause cancer, but I think I understand your point now, and I think we're in agreement.
- BoiledCabbage 6y ago
  How often is the body able to shut down small cancerous growths when they are just starting? And by giving them a feed of glucose, do they grow to fast for the body to naturally handle them? Or alternatively, without glucose, world they mostly stop spreading?