Re: Sugar feeds cancer (P.E.T scan)

[Guest guest]

Bernadette,

The conclusion that refined sugar correlates with cancer is false.

Usually, cancer cells have a faster metabolism than normal tissue and

they absorb more nutrients. Tumors can be detected by looking at the

contrast in metabolic rate in various tissues of the body. More

details here:

http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec06/ch077/ch077d.html

In Positron Emission Tomography (PET), a substance necessary for brain

function (such as oxygen or sugar) is labeled with a radioactive

molecule (radionuclide) that gives off positively charged signals

(positrons) for a very short time.

Tony

=========

> My neighbor is undergoing chemo for ovarian cancer and yesterday had

a P. E.

> T. scan. Her physician told her that the dye injected into her was

pure sugar

> since " sugar feeds cancer " . She has concluded from this that

refined sugar

> correlates strongly to cancer.

>

> I'm wondering if anyone else has read something credible to support

this

> conclusion, or if she simply misunderstood.

>

> Thanks everyone!

[Guest guest]

Bernadette,

The conclusion that refined sugar correlates with cancer is false.

Usually, cancer cells have a faster metabolism than normal tissue and

they absorb more nutrients. Tumors can be detected by looking at the

contrast in metabolic rate in various tissues of the body. More

details here:

http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec06/ch077/ch077d.html

In Positron Emission Tomography (PET), a substance necessary for brain

function (such as oxygen or sugar) is labeled with a radioactive

molecule (radionuclide) that gives off positively charged signals

(positrons) for a very short time.

Tony

=========

> My neighbor is undergoing chemo for ovarian cancer and yesterday had

a P. E.

> T. scan. Her physician told her that the dye injected into her was

pure sugar

> since " sugar feeds cancer " . She has concluded from this that

refined sugar

> correlates strongly to cancer.

>

> I'm wondering if anyone else has read something credible to support

this

> conclusion, or if she simply misunderstood.

>

> Thanks everyone!