Vitamin C causes cancer

[volleyball]

Hear is a news article that under certain circumstances, vitamin C goes from a cancer fighter to a promoter.
Discovery Health :: HealthDay :: Vitamin C Plus Fat Might Spur Cancer (http://health.discovery.com/news/healthscout/article.html?article=607889&category=19&year=2007)

How are we ever going to know what is good for us?

[tanyatype1]

That's interesting. I quickly scanned to article, but I guess taking the Vitamin C first thing in the morning on an empty stomach is the way to go. Actually no, not for me 'cause I put fattening cream in my coffees. Hmmmm.

[REDLAN]

It all sounds very exciting, if you ignore several somewhat pertinent facts...

All the study demonstrates is that vitamin c when in the presence of 10% fat accelerates the conversion of nitrites to nitrosamines. Nitrosamines are believed to increase cancer risk.

1) the conditions are rather specific - i.e. 10% fat, why not 11% or 9%? Is there any data indicating that this is a typical environment in a human stomach? I suspect not, seeing as the typical human diet usually contains somewhat more than 10% fat. If the condition doesn't exist then the research doesn't have any relevance.

2) Your body has to deal with cancer causing chemicals all the time. It has a very large and adequate array of cancer fighting chemicals all of it's own. What matters is the dose. A cancer causing chemical can only cause cancer once it's threshold dose is reached - below this dose it has no effect. The study does not indicate whether the doses reached any known thresholds - don't think it was done in that well known stomach mimic - the good old fashioned test-tube by any chance?

3) Find me the clinical study that shows that vitamin C is linked with any kind of stomach/bowel cancer, and I will wire you large sums of money (I was thinking 5 quid) - and I bet there are a load of studies into vitamin C out there. If there was a link it would already be there.

Writing in the September issue of Gut, the team theorized that this interaction explains why vitamin C supplements have not had significant success in reducing cancer risk.

so let me get this right... the researchers are theorising that vitamin C both protects against cancer and promotes cancer at the same time...

hmmm I see we have nipped off to fairy never never land yet again - they're claiming that vit C's cancer fighting benefits are reversed in the presence of fat.... ergo if you administer vit c you increase cancer risk (it's protective benefit is lost)... and so should increase cancer risk, not have NO effect...

...bang head on table... bang head on table...

All the study does is show that vit C does something unexpected under certain special conditions - it's interesting because it gives researchers an insight into other actions of vitamin C, and may mean that vitamin C may work differently in adipose tissue, or have a role in digestion, but it most certainly does not mean that vitamin C causes cancer.

the chances are the effect is not significant.

[wiseguy]

So I guess if you have a glass of OJ with your bacon and eggs you're a goner. What a load of garbage. There is absolutely nothing that a person can eat, drink, inhale, or come in contact with, that some fool won't think it has the potential to cause cancer.

[Olidus]

Crazy - It almost seems that everything causes Cancer these days.
Infact - I bet somehow, someway, me being on DF is giving me Cancer as we speak. :o

[princesslinda]

Crazy - It almost seems that everything causes Cancer these days.
Infact - I bet somehow, someway, me being on DF is giving me Cancer as we speak. :o

Probably from waves radiating from the computer screen.:eek:

[Olidus]

Probably from waves radiating from the computer screen.:eek:

OMG!
I was just joking - now you have me thinking, and GOOGLE'ING :eek: x1000

[BlueSky]

... How are we ever going to know what is good for us?

A good rule of thumb is that stuff you get around the perimeter of the supermarket is generally good for you - fresh produces, meat, fish, nuts, milk, yoghurt, fresh pasta etc. Stuff you get in the aisles is typically loaded with preservatives, colourants and artificial sweeteners. And too much of it is probably bad for you. Generally, natural foods are better for you than processed foods.

As far as cancer causing cancer is concerned, it can be argued that anything that increases oxidative stress does this. Which includes eating, breathing and exercise. :eek:

[dgrilli]

A good rule of thumb is that stuff you get around the perimeter of the supermarket is generally good for you - fresh produces, meat, fish, nuts, milk, yoghurt, fresh pasta etc. Stuff you get in the aisles is typically loaded with preservatives, colourants and artificial sweeteners. And too much of it is probably bad for you. Generally, natural foods are better for you than processed foods.

As far as cancer causing cancer is concerned, it can be argued that anything that increases oxidative stress does this. Which includes eating, breathing and exercise. :eek:

Like about whats left in the perimeter in my grocery stores about 6 1/2 percent Good 93 1/2 MSG,Trans Fat, ect.. **** even the bread I used to get that had great ingredients now has High Fruitcose Corn Syrup in it.

It's like there is this Giant Conspiracy to make me sick and go to the Doctor.

It's Like getting a Lipton Ice Green Tea sweetened with HONEY, I then read the label and guess what HIGH FRUITCOSE CORN SYRUP. Now my question to the Lipton Con Artist Company why would you need anything else to sweeten your Tea if it is sweetened with Honey. ( Hay Don't Label It Honey if it's HIGH FRUITCOSE SYRUP ) This has got to stop. This like labeling something as 13 Carbs and it really contains 210 carbs in my book.

LIPTON Company thinks we are idiots. They put one molecule of Honey and the rest POISON.

LIPTON I HATE YOU

[wiseguy]

Like about whats left in the perimeter in my grocery stores about 6 1/2 percent Good 93 1/2 MSG,Trans Fat, ect.. **** even the bread I used to get that had great ingredients now has High Fruitcose Corn Syrup in it.

It's like there is this Giant Conspiracy to make me sick and go to the Doctor.

It's Like getting a Lipton Ice Green Tea sweetened with HONEY, I then read the label and guess what HIGH FRUITCOSE CORN SYRUP. Now my question to the Lipton Con Artist Company why would you need anything else to sweeten your Tea if it is sweetened with Honey. ( Hay Don't Label It Honey if it's HIGH FRUITCOSE SYRUP ) This has got to stop. This like labeling something as 13 Carbs and it really contains 210 carbs in my book.

LIPTON Company thinks we are idiots. They put one molecule of Honey and the rest POISON.

LIPTON I HATE YOU
I hear ya.. high fructose corn syrup should be outlawed. I know it would be difficult, but everyone needs to refuse to buy anything that has this listed in the ingredients. I already have.

[REDLAN]

They put one molecule of Honey and the rest POISON.

I was rather curious about the sugar content of honey, and so looked it up. Be prepared to be very scared...

...or more likely amused

HFCS - high fructose corn syrup contains 55% fructose and 45% glucose.

Sucrose - ordinary table sugar, contains 50% fructose and 50% glucose.

Honey, that pure natural allegedly really good for you product contains 38% fructose and 31% glucose (the rest is water and other sugars such as maltose).

Amusingly the ratio of fructose to glucose in honey works out to be 55% fructose to 45% glucose.

Doesn't this ratio sound rather familiar?

I can see it now...

Liptons tea with a new wonder ingredient....

High Fructose Honey Syrup

sugar is sugar is sugar...

your body really can't tell the difference between fructose derived in a shiny factory from mashed up sweetcorn, and fructose harvested by hive insects from flower pollen.

honestly, it really can't.

source: Honey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey)

[JediSkipdogg]

A good rule of thumb is that stuff you get around the perimeter of the supermarket is generally good for you - fresh produces, meat, fish, nuts, milk, yoghurt, fresh pasta etc. Stuff you get in the aisles is typically loaded with preservatives, colourants and artificial sweeteners. And too much of it is probably bad for you. Generally, natural foods are better for you than processed foods.

I partially have to disagree with that and say that the rule of thumb should be if YOU grow it it's good for you.

The problem is pesticides are used on the fruits and vegetables. And I'm sure there's cases of cancers linked to even ones we use today. Heck, meat, fish, milk could all be argued that they include products given to the cows to make them fatter and by us eating them it's like we ate them.

Nothing is good for you unless you live off your own land.

[volleyball]

I was rather curious about the sugar content of honey, and so looked it up. Be prepared to be very scared...

...or more likely amused

HFCS - high fructose corn syrup contains 55% fructose and 45% glucose.

Sucrose - ordinary table sugar, contains 50% fructose and 50% glucose.

Honey, that pure natural allegedly really good for you product contains 38% fructose and 31% glucose (the rest is water and other sugars such as maltose).

Amusingly the ratio of fructose to glucose in honey works out to be 55% fructose to 45% glucose.

Doesn't this ratio sound rather familiar?

I can see it now...

Liptons tea with a new wonder ingredient....

High Fructose Honey Syrup

sugar is sugar is sugar...

your body really can't tell the difference between fructose derived in a shiny factory from mashed up sweetcorn, and fructose harvested by hive insects from flower pollen.

honestly, it really can't.

source: Honey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey)


I did not see anything difinitive that said HFCS was the same as honey. Yes the percentages may be the same but there are other variables. HFCS is processed, honey is not. honey has some pollen in it which is good for us, HFCS does not. Rolled oats and steel cut oats are the exact same grain, yet even that will affect us differently. Check you BG after eating one and then next day the other.
HFCS is part of modern life, it is a cheap sweetener. I am glad it is around, that means that sugar or honey or even splenda is in less demand and I can afford it. HFCS is bad for diabetics as is milk for lactose intollerant and wheat for celiacs. Doesn't mean it is bad for everyone. I know HFCS is bad, I've consumed less of it in the years since I found out than in the week before I learned.

[wiseguy]

your body really can't tell the difference between fructose derived in a shiny factory from mashed up sweetcorn, and fructose harvested by hive insects from flower pollen.

honestly, it really can't.

Not true. The body processes the fructose in high fructose corn syrup differently than it does old-fashioned cane or beet sugar, which in turn alters the way metabolic-regulating hormones function. It also forces the liver to kick more fat out into the bloodstream. The end result is that our bodies are essentially tricked into wanting to eat more and at the same time, we are storing more fat.

Honey is sugar, but is natural and unrefined, and contains a host of nutrients and enzymes that have a multitude of beneficial attributes.

High fructose corn syrup has no nutritional value.

[REDLAN]

the issue with fructose as I understand it as follows...

the metabolic pathway for fructose bypasses a metabolic control point. This has been known for the last 20+ years (I was taught this when I did biochem). The significance is not entirely clear, however my understanding is as follows -

fructose can not be metabolised directly for energy - mammalian hexose enzymes have a very high affinity for glucose - so fructose has to be converted to either glucose or fat.

The rate at which fructose is converted to glucose depends on the fructose:glucose concentration gradient - e.g. low glucose/high fructose will enable the body to convert fructose to glucose. Otherwise leftover fructose is converted to fat.

generally speaking though, fructose is converted to fat and is stored in adipose tissue. This isn't very exciting and is what happens to excess glucose anyway.

much is made of the ratio of the fructose to glucose ratio. I personally believe that this is bogus. However the argument runs that a 50:50 fructose:glucose mix is OK, and doesn't cause metabolic problems. Sucrose has a 50:50 mix. Deviating from this 50:50 ratio, it is argued causes metabolic problems.

I did not see anything difinitive that said HFCS was the same as honey.

The argument against HFCS was that it has a fructose:glucose ratio of 55:45. My point was that this ratio is identical to honey.

ergo...

if you argue that HFCS is bad for you because the ratio of fructose:glucose is 55:45 then you have to argue that honey is also bad for you.

Honey is sugar, but is natural and unrefined, and contains a host of nutrients and enzymes that have a multitude of beneficial attributes.

Sorry this argument is bogus and is used time and time again - the notion that natural somehow equals healthy, and artificial equals unhealthy has no scientific basis.

there is nothing to indicate that artificially made chemicals are any different than naturally made ones - if this was the case then a huge amount of scientific endeavour would simply collapse.

If you believe that honey has nutritional value, while HFCS does not, then this must mean that you believe that maltose has significant nutritional value. Eating local honey is supposed to alleviate symptoms of hayfever, however I don't know if there is any solid clinical evidence to back this up.

(actually maltose is composed of 2 glucose molecules bonded together - which if you are smart you will realise that it would alter the fructose:glucose ratio of honey)

For those who don't wish to read the stuff above (it is rather dull), then the point to take away is as follows...

the nutritional value of honey is actually very similar to the nutritional value of HFCS.

or to put it another way...

sugar is sugar, is sugar, is sugar

ps I like these kind of debates volleyball and wiseguy - I'm not trying (or intending) to flame anyone who disagrees, and I don't feel that this is anything other than a friendly difference of opinion in which we get the opportunity to test out different view through debate (",)

[volleyball]

I don't feel offended at all. I know that there are several sensitive types who have issues if you say " No, I don't think so".
I am not an expert and this paragraph is really for everyone that discussion is healthy.
p.s. I'll send the flames by PM j/k

I am not a honey eater myself but I do believe the non filtered out stuff helps with its metabolism. Plus pollen is suppose to be good for you and honey is processed pollen where as corn is on our list of high glycemic foods.
Arsenic is natural and I believe not very healthy for us. So natural is never part of my argument. It's just that when some substance is found desirable, they strip it out of some food item , purify it and then we get it. I think our bodies may need the impurities or by products to balance the desirable ingredient.

[wiseguy]

If you believe that honey has nutritional value, while HFCS does not, then this must mean that you believe that maltose has significant nutritional value. Eating local honey is supposed to alleviate symptoms of hayfever, however I don't know if there is any solid clinical evidence to back this up.
From Wikipedia:
For at least 2700 years, honey has been used to treat a variety of ailments through topical application, but only recently have the antiseptic and antibacterial properties of honey been chemically explained.

A study found that certain anti-oxidants and vitamins are found in honey in concentrations similar to those in some fruits and vegetables.

Topical honey has been used successfully in a comprehensive treatment of diabetic ulcers when the patient cannot use other topical antibiotics.

According to recent findings, honey may have some significant nutraceutical effects (or positive long-term health effects resulting from honey's consumption). In addition to its primary carbohydrate content, honey often contains polyphenols, which can act as antioxidants.[29] Antioxidants in honey have even been implicated in reducing the damage done to the colon in colitis. Furthermore, some studies suggest that honey may be effective in increasing the populations of probiotic bacteria in the gut, which may help strengthen the immune system, improve digestion, lower cholesterol, and prevent colon cancer.

Now list for us some of the health benefits of high fructose corn syrup and why we should believe that it is just as good for us as honey.

[BlueSky]

.... sugar is sugar, is sugar, is sugar ....

I am not so sure about that. Too much sugar is bad, period. But the metabolism of fructose is is more problematic than the metabolism of glucose. And fructose consumption is growing far more rapidly than glucose consumption is growing. Here is an interesiting article on it.

BINGEING ON FRUCTOSE

Until the 1970s most of the sugar we ate came from sucrose derived from sugar beets or sugar cane. Then sugar from corn--corn syrup, fructose, dextrose, dextrine and especially high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)--began to gain popularity as a sweetener because it was much less expensive to produce. High fructose corn syrup can be manipulated to contain equal amounts of fructose and glucose, or up to 80 percent fructose and 20 percent glucose.2 Thus, with almost twice the fructose, HFCS delivers a double danger compared to sugar.

(With regards to fruit, the ratio is usually 50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose, but most commercial fruit juices have HFCS added. Fruit contains fiber which slows down the metabolism of fructose and other sugars, but the fructose in HFCS is absorbed very quickly.)

In 1980 the average person ate 39 pounds of fructose and 84 pounds of sucrose. In 1994 the average person ate 66 pounds of sucrose and 83 pounds of fructose, providing 19 percent of total caloric energy.3 Today approximately 25 percent of our average caloric intake comes from sugars, with the larger fraction as fructose.4

High fructose corn syrup is extremely soluble and mixes well in many foods. It is cheap to produce, sweet and easy to store. It’s used in everything from bread to pasta sauces to bacon to beer as well as in "health products" like protein bars and "natural" sodas.

FRUCTOSE FOR DIABETICS?

In the past, fructose was considered beneficial to diabetics because it is absorbed only 40 percent as quickly as glucose and causes only a modest rise in blood sugar.5 However, research on other hormonal factors suggests that fructose actually promotes disease more readily than glucose. Glucose is metabolized in every cell in the body but all fructose must be metabolized in the liver.6 The livers of test animals fed large amounts of fructose develop fatty deposits and cirrhosis, similar to problems that develop in the livers of alcoholics.

Pure fructose contains no enzymes, vitamins or minerals and robs the body of its micronutrient treasures in order to assimilate itself for physiological use.7 While naturally occurring sugars, as well as sucrose, contain fructose bound to other sugars, high fructose corn syrup contains a good deal of "free" or unbound fructose. Research indicates that this free fructose interferes with the heart’s use of key minerals like magnesium, copper and chromium. Among other consequences, HFCS has been implicated in elevated blood cholesterol levels and the creation of blood clots. It has been found to inhibit the action of white blood cells so that they are unable to defend the body against harmful foreign invaders.8

Studies on the Maillard reaction indicate that fructose may contribute to diabetic complications more readily than glucose. The Maillard reaction is a browning reaction that occurs when compounds are exposed to various sugars. Fructose browns food seven times faster than glucose, resulting in a decrease in protein quality and a toxicity of protein in the body.9 This is due to the loss of amino acid residues and decreased protein digestibility. Maillard products can inhibit the uptake and metabolism of free amino acids and other nutrients such as zinc, and some advanced Maillard products have mutagenic and/or carcinogenic properties. The Maillard reactions between proteins and fructose, glucose, and other sugars may play a role in aging and in some clinical complications of diabetes.10

Fructose reduces the affinity of insulin for its receptor, which is the hallmark of type-2 diabetes. This is the first step for glucose to enter a cell and be metabolized. As a result, the body needs to pump out more insulin to handle the same amount of glucose.21

OTHER EFFECTS

Nancy Appleton, PhD, clinical nutritionist, has compiled a list of the harmful effects of fructose in her books Lick the Sugar Habit, Healthy Bones, Heal Yourself With Natural Foods, The Curse Of Louis Pasteur and Lick the Sugar Habit Sugar Counter. She points out that consumption of fructose causes a significant increase in the concentration of uric acid; after ingestion of glucose, no significant change occurs. An increase in uric acid can be an indicator of heart disease.12 Furthermore, fructose ingestion in humans results in increases in blood lactic acid, especially in patients with preexisting acidotic conditions such as diabetes, postoperative stress or uremia. Extreme elevations cause metabolic acidosis and can result in death.13

Fructose is absorbed primarily in the jejunum before metabolism in the liver. Fructose is converted to fatty acids by the liver at a greater rate than is glucose.14 When consumed in excess of dietary glucose, the liver cannot convert all of the excess fructose in the system and it may be malabsorbed. The portion that escapes conversion may be thrown out in the urine. Diarrhea can be a consequence.19 A study of 25 patients with functional bowel disease showed that pronounced gastrointestinal distress may be provoked by malabsorption of small amounts of fructose.26

Fructose interacts with oral contraceptives and elevates insulin levels in women on "the pill."17

In studies with rats, fructose consistently produces higher kidney calcium concentrations than glucose. Fructose generally induces greater urinary concentrations of phosphorus and magnesium and lowered urinary pH compared with glucose.18

In humans, fructose feeding leads to mineral losses, especially higher fecal excretions of iron and magnesium, than did subjects fed sucrose. Iron, magnesium, calcium, and zinc balances tended to be more negative during the fructose-feeding period as compared to balances during the sucrose-feeding period.19

There is significant evidence that high sucrose diets may alter intracellular metabolism, which in turn facilitates accelerated aging through oxidative damage. Scientists found that the rats given fructose had more undesirable cross-linking changes in the collagen of their skin than in the other groups. These changes are also thought to be markers for aging. The scientists say that it is the fructose molecule in the sucrose, not the glucose, that plays the larger part.20

Because it is metabolized by the liver, fructose does not cause the pancreas to release insulin the way it normally does. Fructose converts to fat more than any other sugar. This may be one of the reasons Americans continue to get fatter. Fructose raises serum triglycerides significantly. As a left-handed sugar, fructose digestion is very low. For complete internal conversion of fructose into glucose and acetates, it must rob ATP energy stores from the liver.21

Not only does fructose have more damaging effects in the presence of copper deficiency, fructose also inhibits copper metabolism--another example of the sweeteners double-whammy effect. A deficiency in copper leads to bone fragility, anemia, defects of the connective tissue, arteries, and bone, infertility, heart arrhythmias, high cholesterol levels, heart attacks, and an inability to control blood sugar levels.22

Although these studies were not designed to test the effects of fructose on weight gain, the observation of increased body weight associated with fructose ingestion is of interest. One explanation for this observation could be that fructose ingestion did not increase the production of two hormones, insulin and leptin, that have key roles in the long-term regulation of food intake and energy expenditure.23

HYPERSENSIVITY

The magnitude of the deleterious effects of fructose varies depending on such factors as age, sex, baseline glucose, insulin, triglyceride concentrations, the presence of insulin resistance, and the amount of dietary fructose consumed.24 Some people are more sensitive to fructose. They include hypertensive, hyperinsulinemic, hypertriglyceridemic, non-insulin dependent diabetic people, people with functional bowel disease and postmenopausal women.25

Everyone should avoid over-exposure to fructose, but especially those listed above. One or two pieces of fruit per day is fine, but commercial fruit juices and any products containing high fructose corn syrup are more dangerous than sugar and should be removed from the diet.

Full article : The Double Danger of High Fructose Corn Syrup (http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/highfructose.html)

[dgrilli]

All I know is that I tolerate Honey and will use it for when I'm going low and it is very predictable for me.

Honey I know what to expect and this is good for me.

HFCS is not good for me very unpredictable and even effects my stomach for some odd reason I don't know. It make my stomach burn and I get flush.

Hay I even put honey on cuts at times. Also if I want something sweet I will have occaisonally have real cane sugar. It also is predictable for me.

Hay I like coconut oil to cook in and do not use the poisen they call CRISCO this stuff is EVIL. I even spray my nice Lightly very crisp vegatables with Extra Virgen Olive Oil and a little Dash of Sea Salt.

I guess Redland is gonna report me to the World Population Control Center and have me flogged and burned at the stake.

Get a grip Redland if you like Artificial, Chemicals great but I don't. It seems like we have a pandemic of Dormant Genes being turned on in the population and some of this stuff you call food is causing it. They know it and have designed it that way. Their Cash Cow. Some it just doesn't effect others it does imediately.

[painthorse]

Hay I like coconut oil to cook in and do not use the poisen they call CRISCO this stuff is EVIL. I even spray my nice Lightly very crisp vegatables with Extra Virgen Olive Oil and a little Dash of Sea Salt.

I guess Redland is gonna report me to the World Population Control Center and have me flogged and burned at the stake.

Get a grip Redland if you like Artificial, Chemicals great but I don't. It seems like we have a pandemic of Dormant Genes being turned on in the population and some of this stuff you call food is causing it. They know it and have designed it that way. Their Cash Cow. Some it just doesn't effect others it does imediately.

WOW!! Sounds like a global conspiracy to me. Way cool!! Can't wait for 60 Minutes. Wait a minute.............who "they"is?

[Dewey]

I partially have to disagree with that and say that the rule of thumb should be if YOU grow it it's good for you.

The problem is pesticides are used on the fruits and vegetables. And I'm sure there's cases of cancers linked to even ones we use today. Heck, meat, fish, milk could all be argued that they include products given to the cows to make them fatter and by us eating them it's like we ate them.

Nothing is good for you unless you live off your own land.
Jedi, you took the words right out of my mouth. This is totally the way I feel. :thumbsup: Thank you for that.

On the thread:

Folks, I'm watching this thread & see some debate. Remember that while debate is fine, let's not get ugly about things or it will wind up getting shut down. It's fine to have differing opinions & even debate those opinions, but leave it at that. Thank you all for your cooperation.