Scientists Find a 'Missing Link' Between Poor Diet and Higher Cancer Risk (sciencealert.com) 57
Science Alert reports that a team of researchers found "that changes in glucose metabolism could help cancer grow by temporarily disabling a gene that protects us from tumors called BRCA2."
The team first examined people who inherited one faulty copy of BRCA2. They found that cells from these people were more sensitive to methylglyoxal (MGO), which is produced when cells break down glucose for energy in the process of glycolysis. Glycolysis generates over 90 percent of the MGO in cells, which a pair of enzymes typically keep to minimal levels. In the event they can't keep up, high MGO levels can lead to the formation of harmful compounds that damage DNA and proteins. In conditions like diabetes, where MGO levels are elevated due to high blood sugar, these harmful compounds contribute to disease complications.
The researchers discovered that MGO can temporarily disable the tumor-suppressing functions of the BRCA2 protein, resulting in mutations linked to cancer development...
As the BRCA2 allele isn't permanently inactivated, functional forms of the protein it produces can later return to normal levels. But cells repeatedly exposed to MGO may continue to accumulate cancer-causing mutations whenever existing BRCA2 protein production fails. Overall, this suggests that changes in glucose metabolism can disrupt BRCA2 function via MGO, contributing to the development and progression of cancer...
This new information may lead to strategies for cancer prevention or early detection. "Methylglyoxal can be easily detected by a blood test for HbA1C, which could potentially be used as a marker," Venkitaraman says. "Furthermore, high methylglyoxal levels can usually be controlled with medicines and a good diet, creating avenues for proactive measures against the initiation of cancer."
Their research has been published in Cell.
The researchers discovered that MGO can temporarily disable the tumor-suppressing functions of the BRCA2 protein, resulting in mutations linked to cancer development...
As the BRCA2 allele isn't permanently inactivated, functional forms of the protein it produces can later return to normal levels. But cells repeatedly exposed to MGO may continue to accumulate cancer-causing mutations whenever existing BRCA2 protein production fails. Overall, this suggests that changes in glucose metabolism can disrupt BRCA2 function via MGO, contributing to the development and progression of cancer...
This new information may lead to strategies for cancer prevention or early detection. "Methylglyoxal can be easily detected by a blood test for HbA1C, which could potentially be used as a marker," Venkitaraman says. "Furthermore, high methylglyoxal levels can usually be controlled with medicines and a good diet, creating avenues for proactive measures against the initiation of cancer."
Their research has been published in Cell.
Missing? (Score:3)
The team first examined people who inherited one faulty copy of BRCA2
Wait a minute. Isn’t that the gene that scientists identified years ago as being directly associated with breast cancer? Isn’t it the gene that when broken (mutated) tends to trigger a mastectomy long before it would normally be justified?
What exactly are they implying by “missing” link here? Sure seems this “link” has been known for years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As i read this the news is that the BRCA2 gene is impacted by high levels of glucose in the body. Those that get most of their calories from sugars will have elevated glucose, as opposed to those that eat a more balanced diet by getting calories from fats, oils, and proteins. People will have glucose in their body even if all they eat is meat because the fat in their food is processed into glucose eventually. The difference is in how much is in the body at a time.
This does remind me of another Slashdot f
Re: (Score:2)
If you really enjoy watching people get pissed off in a serious way, wait until the reports come out that both the Sugar Mafia and the Cancer Industrial Complex knew about this “missing” link decades ago.
Not unlike the shit Big Tobacco pulled.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Your comment of the "Sugar Mafia" reminded me of something I read of the benefits of high fructose corn syrup. I don't know if this is what I was thinking but apparently fructose is healthier than sucrose (the primary constituent of cane sugar) because it doesn't cause the same kind of glucose spike in the blood after eating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I prefer the taste of cane sugar over HFCS in soft drinks, which appears to be a common preference among Americans. Knowing that fructose might be h
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing that fructose might be healthier
it is not. it doesn't produce blood sugar spikes because it is absorbed more slowly but will eventually end up as glucose in your bloodstream just the same. so there's no difference in regards of this study's findings, it doesn't matter when you metabolize that glucose, just how much. and that's the best case scenario, if you never get to burn it it will just sit around mostly as visceral fat around your liver, which can be a cause of death of its own.
isn't likely to change my desire for cane sugar in my soft drinks because I believe I'm not drinking them in excess. That little bit of sucrose isn't likely to hurt me.
a little bit of anything is unlikely to hurt you, but ho
Re: (Score:3)
"...but will eventually end up as glucose in your bloodstream just the same. so there's no difference in regards of this study's findings"
No. Some fructose will "end up as glucose", a lot will not. There are plenty of reasons to believe that the "difference in regards of this study's findings" would be significant if not profound. And that doesn't mean good.
"...it doesn't produce blood sugar spikes because it is absorbed more slowly..."
Also false. It does not produce a blood sugar (glucose) spike becaus
Re: (Score:2)
No. Some fructose will "end up as glucose", a lot will not. There are plenty of reasons to believe that the "difference in regards of this study's findings" would be significant if not profound. And that doesn't mean good.
All fructose will be either converted via gluconeogenesis, or converted directly to glucose for immediate metabolism.
I'm curious what you think fructose becomes if not glucose.
Re: (Score:1)
According to my dietician, fructose gets converted to fat first (at a rate of about 95% if I recall correctly) before being converted to blood sugar glucose.
OTOH, sucrose first needs some metabolic energy (slight, but there), to break the molecule apart into a glucose and a fructose, which is then further used. HFCS does not have that chemical bond between the fructose and glucose molecules in it, so the body gets the sugar hit directly without subtracting that little bit. (The human body apparently only d
Re: (Score:2)
"sucrose first needs some metabolic energy (slight, but there), to break the molecule apart into a glucose and a fructose, which is then further used. "
True, however this occurs instantaneously using enzymes in saliva and is complete before food is even swallowed. It is of no significance at all.
"HFCS does not have that chemical bond between the fructose and glucose molecules in it, so the body gets the sugar hit directly without subtracting that little bit."
Subtracting a little bit of what? There is utte
Re: (Score:2)
True, however this occurs instantaneously using enzymes in saliva and is complete before food is even swallowed. It is of no significance at all.
No.
isomaltase glycoside hydrolases are genetically preserved precisely because that is not the case.
Sucrose is broken down in the duodenum.
Re: (Score:3)
"...apparently fructose is healthier than sucrose (the primary constituent of cane sugar) because it doesn't cause the same kind of glucose spike in the blood after eating."
Fructose does not cause "the same kind of glucose spike", that does not mean it is healthier. Cyanide also doesn't cause "the same kind of glucose spike".
Also, HCFS is not pure fructose. You know what else it contains? Glucose. A substance that causes "the same kind of glucose spike".
"I prefer the taste of cane sugar over HFCS in sof
Re: (Score:2)
It is not. Fructose is poison. HCFS is not fructose.
What?
Fructose is a poison? Show your work, please.
Is it the same as glucose? No. Does the body metabolize it into glucose just fine? Yes.
Are there health considerations to the different metabolic path? In excess- yes.
Does that a poison make? No.
HFCS is 50% fructose.
Put into context, a can of coke has about 11 apples worth of fructose in it.
You say it's not glucose, and it's not fructose, but actually it is. both of those, and you know that.
It is glucose.
It is fructose.
Your weird syntactic struggl
Re: (Score:2)
It is not. Fructose is poison. HCFS is not fructose.
High-fructose corn syrup in beverages is almost HFCS 55, or 55% fructose. A manufacturer can order whatever ratio of fructose they want, such as the 42% that ends up in baked goods (bread, snack cakes, whatever).
For comparison, the sugars in honey is about 65% fructose.
Fructose is processed by your liver and it is very unhealthy in high doses or in with someone that has poor or abnormal liver function, such as diabetics (due to hyperglycemia's effect on the liver), women with PCoS due to prevalence of nona
Re: (Score:1)
Doubtful, as full mapping of human genome that enables all these studies isn't all that old.
Ketosis (Score:2)
Re:Missing? (Score:5, Informative)
This does remind me of another Slashdot featured article where there was a claim that breast cancer treatments were "racist" for being less effective for those with African ancestry.
You have a link handy? I can find no evidence of any stories about cancer treatment being racist.
I have a suggestion to the "meatless Monday" advocates. I suggest instead making a call for "meatless Fridays". How would changing the day of the week make any difference? There's already a religious custom among popular religions that is in agreement with this practice, that means there would be less opposition. Of course those wanting others to eat less meat aren't going to take this suggestion seriously, because they worship a different deity. News that not enough meat in the diet could put people at risk of cancer is going to piss these people off in a serious way. I'm going to enjoy hearing them scream about this.
Oh lord you're one of those loons who thinks some secret world government is going to force everyone to eat insects. Somehow I don't think that skipping meat for one day a week will give anyone cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a link handy? I can find no evidence of any stories about cancer treatment being racist.
This appears to be what I was thinking about...
https://www.webmd.com/breast-c... [webmd.com]
The article points to how these genes are racially linked and then later on try to claim the poor outcomes of treatment is from racism. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the claim but with this evidence of glucose being linked to cancer rates the issue may be that of income and/or local diet preferences. Lower income might mean buying more sugary drinks than milk, or more cheaper chicken than beef, or whatever. Maybe it is a differe
Re: (Score:1)
You meant to write "Catholic" instead of "Christian" I believe. While some non-Catholic denominations do mandate fasts, many Christians do not know such a m
Re: (Score:2)
As a former vegetarian
So clearly nobody cares about your uplifting spiritual practice, not even you.
Re: (Score:2)
Nor should they. But the OP was responding to a comment about how "Christians", that meaning "Catholics", regard lack of eating meat as punishment, even as they define away what "meat" even is. The focus is on making sure that "Christians" are not inconvenienced so they can feel good about themselves while doing nothing. And isn't that what Christianity is all about anyway? Why even the slightest personal sacrifice, it was all done on the cross already! God loves me exactly as I am, so fuck you I do wh
Re: (Score:2)
"This appears to be what I was thinking about...
https://www.webmd.com/breast-c [webmd.com]... [webmd.com]"
OMG did you read this article? It says NOTHING that you claim it does. There is no discussion of genes or genetics AT ALL. The article says "...the differences couldn’t be explained by race. Even when they accounted for the differences in race, they still saw an effect of neighborhoods." The conclusion was that causes are environmental, and that environment is affected by racism. Of course it is!
"I'm no
Re: (Score:2)
You have a link handy? I can find no evidence of any stories about cancer treatment being racist.
I vaguely recall such an article; although I am not certain it ever appeared on Slashdot. I have no idea what his point is with that though. The OP does not appear coherent enough to try and understand. (a problem that I have myself).
Oh lord you're one of those loons who thinks some secret world government is going to force everyone to eat insects.
Hm. That is kind of a summary of what could end up happening; however, it will not be that simple or black and white. Economic factors will force the regular folks to eat bugs for protein while the "elite" will eat cows and such. But it is not so simple as a secret worldwide go
Re:Missing? (Score:4, Insightful)
"News that not enough meat in the diet could put people at risk of cancer is going to piss these people off in a serious way. I'm going to enjoy hearing them scream about this."
Except this is not that news. There is nothing here that suggests that cancer risk correlates with "not enough meat".
It is interesting that you could have simply chosen to answer the question at hand, that the "missing link" here is the glucose involvement. Instead, you thought it important to go on some tirade about alleged racism, advocacies you apparently hate and poorly defined religious sensitivities. Perhaps once you're through expressing your uncontrollable contempt maybe you can consider that decreasing carbs can be accomplished without increasing protein, in fact it is preferred. Excess protein intake is converted to glucose, exactly what you are trying to avoid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They knew that a broken BRCA2 increased the risk of cancer. The missing link was that high glucose leads to high MGO which inactivates BRCA2.
They started with cells where one copy of the gene is bad in order to more easily see any effect. It is quite possible that given a bad enough type II diabetes, the same effect can happen even with 2 good copies of the gene.
Re: (Score:2)
The missing link appears to be causality. They suspected it, now they have a plausible chain to explain it.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly are they implying by âoemissingâ link here? Sure seems this âoelinkâ has been known for years.
What was missing is that such things can be triggered by the type of, or lack of, certain foods. A direct causal link for a mutation.
Re: Just gonna say it. (Score:2)
Cure: stop with the high carbs and BS vegan diets
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah and big oil is still stifling that 100 mile per gallon carburetor.
Re: (Score:2)
I read that they have a car that runs on water now. But big oil won't let you have it. When I get one, I'm going to install those lightbulbs that never go out.
This is all somewhat plausible and scientific when compared to breatharianism.
Re: (Score:2)
The HPV vaccine is 99% effective at preventing cervical cancer; the inventor scoffs at your "prediction".
Re: (Score:1)
The HPV vaccine is 99% effective at preventing cervical cancer
That supports Hanan Polansky's theory that viruses are an under recognized source of cancer. Granted, cancers may be like snowflakes in that they are rarely alike, but Polansky's theory fills in the gaps in understanding as to why cancer overtakes cells many overlapped tumor prevention systems.
So, the "food pyramid" is a lie? (Score:2, Redundant)
The "food pyramid" that I suspect everyone reading this has seen many times since childhood has had criticism recently and the fine article linking glucose consumption to increased risk of cancer is grounds for more criticism since the pyramid calls for sugars and starches from breads, grains, fruits, and vegetables at the base of the pyramid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I recall reading somewhere how a fast food burger offered the best nutrition for the lowest cost to consumers. This would be in oppos
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The pyramid that has 11 servings of carbohydrates a day at its base? It's been a scam since its inception.
Not if you need an excuse to drink beer.
Re:So, the "food pyramid" is a lie? (Score:5, Informative)
This would be in opposition to what the USDA approved diet would indicate since so many calories would be from fats and oils and relatively few from the bread and whatever few vegetables might be in the burger.
It will depend on the size of the patty and the size/type of the bun, of course, but the calories in the patty might be closer to the bread than you think. A brioche bun, for example, can run about 200 calories. A quarter pound of hamburger is around 240 calories. Depending on the toppings, you might be adding more fat and/or sugar calories to the mix - cheese and mayo will mainly be fat calories, bbq sauce will be sugar.
Also, the "food pyramid" went out of favor about two decades ago - nowadays they talk about MyPlate [wikipedia.org]. There's a lot more emphasis on fruits and vegetables now.
Re:So, the "food pyramid" is a lie? (Score:5, Informative)
It will depend on the size of the patty and the size/type of the bun, of course, but the calories in the patty might be closer to the bread than you think.
Yes, indeed, I worded my point poorly. The point is that the portions of meat in a healthy diet would have more meat and less grains than the USDA had recommended in the food pyramid. While MyPlate might be an improvement it is still likely lacking. I'm no dietician so I'm out of my lane here but I can read what other dieticians write. There's clearly still debate on what makes a healthy diet. As I recall the original USDA food pyramid was influenced by politics, there was lobbying done to increase the grain portions even though there was no evidence that this was beneficial to our diet. The people growing the wheat and corn didn't want their market to shrink because of USDA recommendations, so the pyramid was mostly reflective of what people were already eating on the average. Increasing rates of adult onset diabetes was the result. With this discovery on how glucose impacts BRCA2 there's now evidence that too much starch and sugar in the diet likely increases cancer risks.
Re: So, the "food pyramid" is a lie? (Score:2)
One of the issue is the added high fructose corn syrup added to everything, and sodas with super high sugar content in multiple liters servings
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A brioche bun, for example, can run about 200 calories. A quarter pound of hamburger is around 240 calories.
If you carbonize a food item, you can measure how many calories total there are within the item you were measuring; however, your digestive system is not as efficient as fire. You won't get all 240 calories from a 240 calorie food item, at most, you will get some small percentage. Different food items will deliver calories more efficiently than others, depending on your personal internal metabolism.
An example with numbers pulled purely from my nether regions (lol?), a brioche bun presents 240 calories and y
Re: (Score:1)
Lack of vitamin D is mostly caused by lack of sunlight. Too much PlayStation, etc. In Australia they've had to put out warnings that using sunscreen too often can make you sick from lack of vitamin D (seriously).
Vitamin D is not well absorbed by any food or supplement. Sunlight is THE way humans create it.
Re: (Score:2)
The food pyramid from your childhood is dead and gone. The one on the wall in your doctor's office is more likely to look like the Mediterranean diet. Very light on red meat, more plentiful on fish and lean white meats, and vegetable centric.
Most people's health is just fine until it isn't. Eating whatever you feel like on the basis that it hasn't caught up with you yet isn't a great game plan.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame that stupid seems to always be coupled with a need to spread itself. Did enjoy the hopeless illogic motivated by the need for casual sexism though. Nicely done there.
"For me I pretty much eat whatever it is that I crave at the moment, I trust my body to give the right signals."
A real intellectual heavyweight. Can't be wrong when what you do is defined to be right.
Re: (Score:2)
I recall reading somewhere how a fast food burger offered the best nutrition for the lowest cost to consumers.
You need to put down the fast food pamphlets.
Re: (Score:2)
The food pyramid makes sense if you are a child laborer working on a farm from dawn to dusk. Us modern humans don't need quite so many calories to stay alive.
There's stereotypes of certain European peoples eating a lot of potatoes but the potato didn't enter the European diet until fairly recently, as in "recent" in evolutionary time. Before that they might have eaten a lot of carrots and turnips instead.
Peas (as porridge from pea flour) and turnips were popular during medieval times in most of Europe. But the stable was bread. People ate bread as often as one could afford. Made from wheat, barley, rye, and/or oats. But drinking the barley was preferable because it didn't make the best bread.
Meat is good food, and humans evolved to live on a diet high in meat content.
Humans and early hominids seem geared for eating fish rather
Re: (Score:1)
> Meat is good food, and humans evolved to live on a diet high in meat content
That's not true. Even before mass agriculture, meat was roughly 20% of a human diet. Mass agriculture made it more like 7%, and our biology did evolve around that because agriculture was a population multiplier.
Lots of whole grains with a smidgen of random fruits, vegetables, and bits of meat is what human stomachs prefer.
High fructose corn syrup (Score:2)
Look no further than this crap for a partial explanation for the cancer epidemic⦠industrial crap that doesnâ(TM)t qualify as food, and added artificial sugar in everything
increasing the likelihood of cancer (Score:1)