Sugar gives you cancer.

Update on the job front. Manager has accepted my resignation gracefully although at this stage she still thinks she can persuade me otherwise. Nope. However I have cunningly averted her rage by suggesting that I might resume working there on a new contract after resigning this one. That is a possibility. I could consider working Saturday and Sunday just to get me out of the house. Working alone for long periods can drive you nuts.

The weekend would be the hard part for her to cover since the (mostly) youngsters she is likely to get applying are not going to want to work weekends. I can have Smoky-Drinky on Wednesday, the weekend means nothing to me. However I am going to let the resignation take full effect. I want to see how the company handle my final pay before deciding whether to go back. I have not heard good things on that score.

We are now at the stage where Mopman works mornings to mid afternoon and then I work the rest to closedown. It is far too much for what they are paying. Food grade cleaning is not a trivial job and if the company want the best, they are not going to get them on the wages they offer. Especially not at this workload.

On Panoptica, I have settled on the main character being 10538, with a quote from ELO’s ‘10538 Overture’ as a starting credit. That song was one of the things that set the story in motion, a long time ago. Everyone has a number, not a name. Nobody needs a name when every interaction involves your ID number. That’s all the identification you need. It also reinforces the ‘prison’ aspect of Panoptica.

Watch for that becoming law soon. Every time I say something about Panoptica, the Mail has the story the next day.

Right. Digressions out of the way, here’s the meaning of the title.

Now that we are to give up carbohydrates, especially sugar, the Church of Science has unearthed new scriptures to support their latest fatwa.

And… it’s crap. At least, the report on what is actually likely to be real science is crap. The real science does not look like it’s all that good either.

One. They used mice. Mice are not human. They do not react well to human diets.

Two. They used mutant mice who are genetically predisposed to a hereditary form of colon cancer. If you are part of a family where this cancer is hereditary you will need to take more care of your pipework than someone who is not at such hereditary risk. The findings can only apply to those who have a family history of the botty-lumps and strictly speaking, only if you and your family are genetically mutated mice. I don’t think they have WiFi in those cages but you never know. Perhaps the mice do read this. Perhaps there’ll be a comment one day of ‘Eeek, eek eek’.

If you do have such a history, get the arse camera inserted at the first opportunity. Caught early, this one is easy to snip out. Caught late and you get your arse sewn shut and the unfashionable version of the bum-bag on your side forever – if you’re lucky.

Three. Butyrate causes gut cell proliferation. This is very, very old news. It does not necessarily cause cancer but if you are genetically predisposed, it can make the lumps grow faster. Normally it just causes rapid gut cell shedding and replacement. In an environment permanently coated with digestive enzymes, decayed food, shit and bacteria, this is actually a good thing. Especially since many pathogenic bacteria start out by sticking to the gut surface. If you are rapidly shedding and replacing the surface cells, bye-bye pathogen.

The whole ‘butyrate causes cancer’ bollocks was comprehensively shattered at least twenty years ago. Here it is again, back to see us like the one that won’t flush.

Now it is linked to carbohydrate. It can’t be directly linked to sugar at once because free sugars are not going to make it to the colon. Starch will, especially retrograde starch (heated and cooled, as in frozen oven chips) but mostly that’s a good thing too. Well, unless it’s too much, in which case the gas production could get you banned from elevators and enclosed spaces, in case you burst them.

You need that butyrate from your gut bacteria. It encourages your gut to shed and replace its surface cells, and shed attached pathogens and orther nasties from the surface at the same time. If you have a family history of colon cancer you’d need to be a bit more careful about it but if you don’t, get them chips in the oven now.

In Scotland they send you tests for botty-lumps on your 50th birthday (happy birthday, please shit on the card and send it back) and every two years after that. In England and Wales they don’t start the poo tax until you are 60 (we want 10%, squeeze it out and hand it over). For most of us this is fine. For those who have families with a history of the botty lumps, get to a doctor at the very first sign of a red-spattered pan and demand the arse camera. Do not wait for their crappy birthday card.

It might only be haemorrhoids. Unpleasant but not dangerous. If the lumps are in the family, do not assume.

But butyrate does not cause cancer. It might make it worse if you have the wrong genes but it does not cause it.

When they get around to ‘sugar causes bowel cancer’, as they will, remember that your gut is a very long pipe and it’s grabbing everything it possibly can absorb, all the way down. The sugars are gone long before they get to the colon. Any not absorbed have been used by bacteria (which are present along the entire gut, yes, even in your acidic stomach).

The last paragraph of the article, a direct quote from the research paper, is true. They foiund that a lot of carbohydrate makes bowel cancer worse in mice genetically predisposed to bowel cancer. That is all the experiment could conclude.

Now sit back and watch it spin.

 

Advertisements

43 thoughts on “Sugar gives you cancer.

  1. A weekend gig could be ideal. You could demand a premium pop in pay since weekend work traditionally pays more since you’re consigning your soul to hell by working on the Sabbath, and also since, in looking at a new contract, you’d be entering the pool as “experienced.” You could even throw in a few sweet extras that you provide: knowledge of how to deal with chemical spillages, etc.

    Do it right and you might get 70% or more of your normal full week’s old pay just for working on weekends!

    Bring along a Nisse and you’ll be all set!

    🙂
    MJM

    Like

  2. Sugar makes me feel ill. That is a fact. But I am addicted, so it’s hard work not eating it. But I am not addicted to alcohol, and nor does it make me feel ill.

    Cleaning is always good one if you are prepared to work unsociable hours. I put three children through boarding school cleaning ovens and lavatories.

    Now, I get relatively well paid for dealing with holiday makers which basically involves getting up at 5am to wave bye bye, and cleaning, although I call myself a Property Manager.

    Cancer? What is that? I’m not having it, whatever it is. Said she, clutching a spent matchstick.

    Like

    • The getting up at 5 am part won’t work for me. I’m just going to bed at that time. There are ‘unsociable hours’ which are fine with me, and then there are hours that i don’t believe really exist.

      Like

  3. I attended a lecture the other day given by an eminent paediatrician on ‘faecal therapy’. Apparently having shit from someone ‘healthy’ pumped up your arse, or for those with strong constitutions, administered orally can have real beneficial effects for patients with chronic bowel conditions. Inflammatory bowel disease can have many causes; simply having the wrong ‘gut flora’ can be a contributory factor, in many cases. Good commensal bacteria in the transplant can supplant the badies resulting in a cure or at least an amelioration of the condition. In many instances faecal therapy is superior to antibiotics. In fact antibiotics often exacerbate established bowel problems. Fascinating shit. I’m so impressed I’m going to post a series of articles on the topic at ‘my place’.

    Like

    • I am not sure that I wanted to know this. But then I am never so ill that I don’t know what caused it.
      My stepmother, may she rest in peace, bloody awful old cow, eventually had an Iliostamy, sic, which wasn’t much fun, either before or after the event. But it is clear to me that it was dietary. If only I had known then what I know know.

      Like

    • The faecal therapy has been around a while and it does work.

      The kinder version involves separating the bacteria from the crap they live in so you just get a cloudy drink rather than having to munch a log with a peg on your nose.

      Like

  4. 10538 Overture , I think I’ve still got that somewhere in a cardboard box.

    Sugar, excellent stuff, I like it very much and use it to my advantage. I’d rather trust the chemical lab in my brain than any amount of scaremongering studies.

    I’ve never been on a diet so nothing has been reprogrammed and everything still seems to work as intended.
    If I’m using a lot of energy I replace it, if I’m not I don’t, but as with salt, I want to be the one who chooses how much and on what.

    Like

  5. I have seen the complete transformation of people’s health by removing sugar and gluten from their diets. To me, sugar is a bad thing the way some people consume it. But worse is the artificial crap that is put in our food when they remove the sugar and/or the fat. Fat is fuel that doesn’t need insulin to use it. We should be eating fat. The “healthy” eating that our priests proclaim we should follow is what is causing the diabetes epidemic (and obesity). NOT eating sugar. We entered the dark ages in the 1970’s when fat was erroneously described as “bad”.
    I do not eat sugar. I LOVE it! So when I bust out now and again, I can feel what it does to me. It makes me feel absolutely exhausted. What a bugger.

    Liked by 1 person

    • We entered the dark ages in the 1970′s when fat was erroneously described as “bad”

      Quite so, I had just put it down to companies wanting to sell their processed products in competition with traditional foods.
      Vats of nameless goo are pretty hard to get customers to swallow, healthscares and the casting of doubt about things that have been used for centuries are to be expected from the unscrupulous.

      Still, thanks to the anti-sugar people now we know who was responsible.

      The Questionable Link Between Saturated Fat and Heart Disease
      May 6, 2014

      “Critics have pointed out that Dr. Keys violated several basic scientific norms in his study. For one, he didn’t choose countries randomly but instead selected only those likely to prove his beliefs, including Yugoslavia, Finland and Italy. Excluded were France, land of the famously healthy omelet eater, as well as other countries where people consumed a lot of fat yet didn’t suffer from high rates of heart disease, such as Switzerland, Sweden and West Germany. The study’s star subjects—upon whom much of our current understanding of the Mediterranean diet is based—were peasants from Crete, islanders who tilled their fields well into old age and who appeared to eat very little meat or cheese.

      As it turns out, Dr. Keys visited Crete during an unrepresentative period of extreme hardship after World War II. Furthermore, he made the mistake of measuring the islanders’ diet partly during Lent, when they were forgoing meat and cheese. Dr. Keys therefore undercounted their consumption of saturated fat.”
      http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303678404579533760760481486

      If you sit by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oh thank you Rose for such a brilliant article! This is one of my favourite topics of thought. I have changed my life by going on a high fat primal diet to control my blood sugar which has been verging on diabetes. The nurse cannot understand how I keep my blood sugar normal by eating fat. I try to explain, but I see her eyes glaze over with suspicions that I am deranged.

        I see the same look in the eyes of people I tell that the Second Hand Smoke myth has been used to promote the anti smoking ideology. People have been totally and completely brainwashed!

        Like

      • Amazing stuff Rose! Here’s another section from that article:

        ===

        Butter and lard had long been staples of the American pantry until Crisco, introduced in 1911, became the first vegetable-based fat to win wide acceptance in U.S. kitchens. Then came margarines made from vegetable oil and then just plain vegetable oil in bottles.

        All of these got a boost from the American Heart Association—which Procter & Gamble, the maker of Crisco oil, coincidentally helped launch as a national organization. In 1948, P&G made the AHA the beneficiary of the popular “Walking Man” radio contest, which the company sponsored. The show raised $1.7 million for the group and transformed it (according to the AHA’s official history) from a small, underfunded professional society into the powerhouse that it remains today.

        After the AHA advised the public to eat less saturated fat and switch to vegetable oils for a “healthy heart” in 1961, Americans changed their diets

        ===

        Like

    • Sugar has the same effect on me. And I love it. I just don’t want to feel ill, or as though I have got a hangover when I wake up in the morning. Especially without the joys of alcohol.
      I do splurge now and again, and then suffer. So serves me right.
      But I don’t think that sugar has the same effect on everyone. Unless they haven’t noticed.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Well, I don’t know. All I know is that its poison for me personally. Smoking affects some people worse than others.I am a healthy 50 year smoker turning 70 in September. I have no “smoking related” anything. I think neither sugar nor smoking should be banned. The other thing which many people are finding is that bread (modern flour) affects them badly. Our whole family are on sugarless,low carbohydrate and gluten free eating, which makes having a celebration quite easy because we all eat more or less the same stuff. Believe me, we can pig out!

        Like

        • It’s alcohol for me, no matter how tiny the amount.
          I’m sure at least part of it must be psychosomatic but I can’t imagine why, still, it’s my loss.

          Like

      • I eat whatever it takes my fancy to eat. I always have.

        On occasion, I will consume a huge amount of sugar, in the form of baclava or chocolate, if the mood takes me. Other times, I will consume very little sugar. It seems to make no difference.

        I also consume alcohol on a daily basis – mostly in the form of red wine, of which I will drink perhaps a bottle during the course of an evening. I love fatty meat – the fat is the best bit, as far as I’m concerned – although I don’t eat an awful lot of it these days. But I avoid like the plague anything which is labelled ‘lite / light / diet / lo-fat / skimmed’ etc. I eat chicken more than anything, meat-wise, and loads of salads and olive oil. I buy my olive oil in 5 litre cans, and we get through one of those in a couple of months (two of us).

        Salt? Love it! I eat loads of it!

        And I’ve smoked for more than 50 years.

        Oddly, I’m remarkably fit and healthy. When I tell people that I’m 65, they are incredulous. If they knew my history, they’d be even more incredulous, since I’ve spent much of my life pursuing a decidedly hedonistic lifestyle.

        So I have to conclude that either:

        a.) I’m just a lucky bastard.

        or b.) Those who seem to suffer from sugar / salt / gluten / alcohol / tobacco / fat in their diets are very unlucky.

        or c.) The ‘experts’ are lying through their teeth.

        I’m inclined to go for ‘c’, with perhaps a little bit of ‘b’.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yep, I suspect there is a good deal of ‘luck” when it comes to health. Some folk are protected genetically regardless of lifestyle and live long lives whilst enjoying themselves enormously. Some folk are not so gifted. Either way, you should enjoy your span whatever way you bloody well like and tell those who counsel you otherwise to bugger off.

          Like

    • I find that too much wheat makes me bloat, followed by the turbos going off whenever I bend over. It’s not an allergy to wheat, small amounts are fine, it’s a reaction to an overload. So pizza with garlic bread is only for those days when I know I won’t have to venture far from a toilet the next day…

      Oh I still eat it. I just have to plan ahead.

      Like

  6. Hmm…I do have some reasonable data hereabouts on the adverse brain consequences of a sudden heavy carbohydrate loading on a neurologically dependent alcohol ingester but sugar causing cancer?…never heard of that one…

    Like

    • I have heard that sugar can “feed” cancer. I think there are suggestions to avoid sugar if you have cancer.
      “One example of a paradox from our research was the observation that pyruvate kinase, which is the enzyme in glycolysis that synthesizes ATP, actually tends to get turned down in cancer cells. This is paradoxical because cancer cells are typically utilizing glucose at 50- to 100-fold the rate of the normal tissue surrounding it, so why would they want to turn down one of the steps in that pathway and make less ATP?” http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/12/8

      I know there are cancer “fasts” so people do not use Insulin at all (insulin is used to break down carbohydrates/sugars) and they seem to “reboot” the system. However – another way, is simply to use fat as fuel instead of the sugar/insulin cycle. Fat as fuel does not require insulin.

      Cancer cells “eat” more sugar than other cells.

      So maybe there is a link. I dunno.

      Like

      • Interesting. Maybe the loss of activity of pyruvate kinase means they have to burn more sugar just to get enough ATP?

        If you drop the sugar from your diet you might manage to starve a cancer to death. You can’t lose it all, even if it’s not in your diet, because your liver will make some out of fatty acids – your brain needs it, so you’ll have some blood sugar no matter what you eat!

        Like

        • I’m intrigued, Why should cancer cells have a higher metabolism than normal cells?. Is this general, or a phenomenon confined to fast growing cancer cells. Fast growing cells, regardless of malignancy, should have a relatively high metabolic rate. But what about indolent, slow growing cancer cells, do they have a high metabolism in comparison to normal cells with similar mitotic rates?

          Like

          • I suspect it may well have to do with the rapid mitosis of carcinomas but really not sure whether a higher glucose metabolism applies to the “benign” tumours.

            Aggressive “mitotic lesions” I think also have the property of secreting a hormone by the name of cachexin (hence the “cachexia” that usually accompanies cancers).

            I think.

            On a lighter note here’s Derek and Clive’s considered views on the subject of cancer…………NB, No drinking any liquids near computer while listening…….

            Like

        • In extremis I believe that glucose can be metabolised from protein..

          By that stage though you’ll be losing cardiac muscle mass and the gastro-intestinal tract will also begin to auto-digest….

          I’m still sticking to sugar in my tea………

          Like

        • Unless you go on a water only fast! (And people do.) Brain can function on ketones without sugar/glucose too if you only ate fat. In fact fat instead of glucose would stop muscle wasting. And not use insulin.

          Like

        • Water fasting, or simply eating fat – and there are some other things that have virtually no carbohydrates at all. Water fasting CAN be done – doesn’t appeal to me, though I do fast on liquid only some days. And I follow a high fat diet to control blood glucose. I’m in ketosis most of the time. I have been in ketosis since May 2013 when I told the diabetic nurse i wasn’t going to take her bloody pills! I burn fat. I don’t want to burn my own, so I need to eat my fuel, so I don’t eat myself.

          Like

          • Something that’s always puzzled me in reading about cancer treatments is that they seem to encourage patients to eat and are very concerned about weight loss. It would *seem* (to a layman at least) that starving the hungry cancer cells might be a natural defense response of the body since it doesn’t seem to have other effective mechanisms (e.g. antibodies) to fight the cancer.

            – MJM

            Like

            • Mmm – interesting thought. I’ve known plump people with various cancers – but I know losing weight is a symptom. I don’t know much about cancer – but I’m better on diabetes. But that is an interesting thought!

              Like

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s