Cancer

[James Marusek 5,244]

I came across a study this morning on Cancer that was rather interesting, so I thought I would share it. But first I might discuss the implications as it applies to me and other that undergo weight loss surgery. I had RNY gastric bypass surgery over 5 years ago. Prior to surgery I was diabetic. This condition went into remission right after surgery and I went off all my blood sugar diabetic prescription medicine the day I left the hospital two days after surgery and haven't taken any since. I periodically test my blood sugar levels once per month and they remain fine.

In tandem with my surgery, I changed my eating habits. I strictly avoid processed sugars. I have a sweet tooth and that is one of the major causes that contributed to my weight gain over my lifetime. I limit myself to artificial sweeteners (such as Splenda and sugar alcohols), to natural low calorie sweeteners (such as Stevia) and to the natural sugars found in fruits and milk. I read the labels of all food that I consume. I look at the grams of sugar per serving. If it is above 5 grams, I look at the ingredients. The ingredients are listed in order by highest percentage, and if the first 5 ingredients contain processed sugar (in any of its many forms), then I avoid this food, like a plague.

O.K. now onto the study. Basically the findings of this study indicate that people who rely on artificial sweeteners experience a 20% reduction in cancer rates.

Now, researchers claim that artificial sweeteners prevent cancer. Do they?

It's biologically plausible. Cancer cells undergo what is known as the Warburg effect. Typically, our body cells generate energy through a process known as aerobic respiration, but cancer cells ramp up fermentation, instead. Just like a muscle doing vigorous exercise, cancer gobbles up glucose (a sugar) and spits out lactic acid. Hypothetically, depriving a cancer cell of sugar could remove an important fuel source.

A team of researchers conducted a cohort study that examined the self-reported dietary habits of 1,018 patients during and after chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer. Their main finding was that artificially sweetened beverages lowered the risk of cancer recurrence or death by about 23%.

Do Artificial Sweeteners Prevent Cancer?

[Sosewsue61 3,185]

Thanks for this information.

[Orchids&Dragons 9,047]

That's really interesting. Thank you for sharing!

[Deemar007 244]

I am very leery of these types of articles. I bet if we really research this article, we may find that the artificial sweetener companies were somehow involved and or paid for this so called research. Nope, I'm not buying it. However, just because I do not partake in artificial sweeteners, does not mean I judge anyone who does. We all have to do what is best for our weight loss and what works for us.

[James Marusek 5,244]

If you read the article, it is fairly well balanced.

[Deemar007 244]

Oh, I readthe article.

[James Marusek 5,244]

Deemar007 I was not trying to be accusatory but more like I was passing on my observation. It came out wrong, so I apologize. That was not my intent.

[Deemar007 244]

Hi James,

no offense was taken. However, it was very kind of you to explain your comment.

Kind regards,

Di

[Hop_Scotch 1,634]

Here is a link to the article http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199244

It lists the authors and their competing interests as well as what organisations funded the research.

[sillykitty 10,787]

1 hour ago, 2shea said:

Here is a link to the article http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199244

It lists the authors and their competing interests as well as what organisations funded the research.

On 8/9/2018 at 9:17 AM, Deemar007 said:

I am very leery of these types of articles. I bet if we really research this article, we may find that the artificial sweetener companies were somehow involved and or paid for this so called research. .

This is "real research"

[jess9395 5,450]

08/10/2018 07:26 PM, 2shea said:

Here is a link to the article http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199244

It lists the authors and their competing interests as well as what organisations funded the research.

Thanks for finding and posting that. If anything these researchers receive funding from pharmaceutical companies so it would be AGAINST their interests to find benefit from artificial sweeteners. This is why the have to disclose funding sources and interests in scholarly articles, so these results are really interning!.

[Deemar007 244]

Exactly what I was getting at Jess9395. Follow the money, because it's always about the money.

[sillykitty 10,787]

24 minutes ago, Deemar007 said:

Exactly what I was getting at Jess9395. Follow the money, because it's always about the money.

Actually you were discrediting a study you knew nothing about, wrongly.

[Deemar007 244]

No, I wasn't discrediting the article. ( my actual wording was, "I am leery") That is not a discredit the study. I'm just saying there is a possibility there may be ulterior motives for these types of studies.

[James Marusek 5,244]

But it should cut both ways. If you are leery of any research published by those who receive funding from pharmaceutical companies then one should also be leary of any research published by those who receive money from environmental groups. It cuts both ways. Environmental groups receive large amounts of money based on the fear that they generate about the impact of chemicals and also by their ability to bring those fears into the courtroom to support large jury awards to plaintiffs. It is the research that they pay for that underpins their claims of harm.

Although in this particular case the real companies that have a financial interest are those companies that produce artificial sweeteners not the pharmaceutical company. So do any of the researchers have stocks in artificial sweetener companies?