Here, we report that fructose provides an alternative substrate to induce pancreatic cancer cell proliferation. Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different; in comparison with glucose, fructose induces thiamine-dependent transketolase flux and is preferentially metabolized via the nonoxidative pentose phosphate pathway to synthesize nucleic acids and increase uric acid production. These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation. They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth. Cancer Res; 70(15); 6368–76. ©2010 AACR.So, just how did Rick Berman's CCF react to the UCLA study? In Fudging Fructose Findings, the author presents the usual arguments (paraphrased here): HFCS and sugar have nearly the same amount of fructose; it's all pseudoscience; Americans don't even really consume that much HFCS; and rates of pancreatic cancer in men have gone down so what the heck is all this nonesense about, anyway?
So, let's just look at the CCF's defense of HFCS for a few seconds, exploring a couple points further.
1. The claim, and they quote of course Marion Nestle, is that "HFCS is not particularly high in fructose compared to table sugar. Both are about 50% fructose and are about equal in their effects."
Why, seriously, this drives me crazy, WHY is someone like Marion Nestle even regarded as an expert after making claims like this? I've said it before (and so have others), but (happily for CCF and CRA and all the other folks who make money off HFCS) people still seem to be confused:
There are multiple types of HFCS with varying ratios of fructose to glucose; consumers cannot (just by reading labels) know which type of HFCS they are getting. That said, even the most common form of HFCS, the roughly 55% fructose/45%glucose, actually has more fructose than table sugar. Not a lot more, but enough to offset absorption.
The fact that HFCS varieties exist in even higher concentrations, fructose-wise, seems to be ignored by Marion Nestle. CCF and CRA will tell you that they are seldom used. In a previous post, I take issue with just how seldom these other types of HFCS appear (using none other than the words of manufacturers as evidence.)
2. Pancreatic cancer rates have gone down in men. That's terrific. Honestly, that's great news. According to Cancer Facts and Figures 2010: "Incidence rates of pancreatic cancer have been stable in men since 1981, but have been increasing in women by 1.7% per year since 2000."
PER YEAR? That's kind of scary, isn't it?
Why the difference between men and women? Now, i don't think even the authors cited by CCF are brilliant enough to assume that something like pancreatic cancer is caused by just one factor, but even if you look solely at HFCS and consider the information cited above, an interesting disparity emerges.
Not to self-promote, but there's no point being redundant either: In one of my posts from June, HFCS-90, I researched a variety of HFCS that CRA claims is seldom used except in the creation of other varieties of HFCS. I found, by exploring websites from HFCS manufacturers, that HFCS-90 is in fact used in a number of manufactured goods. This is a form of HFCS that is 90.... NINETY....
yes, that's right....
What are the manufactured goods that contain HFCS-90? Oh, let's see.... yogurt, especially low-calorie varieties, frozen desserts, especially low-cal types, and some other diet sweets.
Who, let's just take a stab in the dark, who, in terms of gender, is more prone to purchase and consume: yogurt, low-cal frozen desserts, and other low-cal sweets?
Women? Really? Can it be?
Well, now, let's revisit the percentages above regarding pancreatic cancer, broken down by gender. Interesting, isn't it? Now, I am not trying to say that there's just one cause for this disparity between pancreatic cancer and how it's affecting men and women, but it's certainly interesting that there's an apparent link to fructose and women are the consumers more prone to eat items with HFCS-90.
Oh, and just in case i wasn't clear in my post on HFCS-90....
Labels never say which HFCS you're consuming.... convenient, isn't it?