Here is the research: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3871217/ Perhaps someone remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_hypothesis
It's not cherry-picking. It is pointing out that you may be jumping to a conclusion that is not warranted by the paper. What it says, as I interpret it, is that an increase in activation of the cellular glycolysis mechanism is associated with oncogenesis. That is not the same as saying that sugar causes cancer.
oncogenesis= cancer = tumor. lego linguistic tactic is lame. Malignant rapidly growing tumor cells typically have glycolytic rates that are up to 200 times higher than those of their normal tissues of origin. This phenomenon was first described in 1930 by Otto Warburg and is referred to as the Warburg effect. The Warburg hypothesis claims that cancer is primarily caused by dysfunctionality in mitochondrial metabolism, rather than because of uncontrolled growth of cells. A number of theories have been advanced to explain the Warburg effect. One such theory suggests that the increased glycolysis is a normal protective process of the body and that malignant change could be primarily caused by energy metabolism.[16] This high glycolysis rate has important medical applications, as high aerobic glycolysis by malignant tumors is utilized clinically to diagnose and monitor treatment responses of cancers by imaging uptake of 2-18F-2-deoxyglucose (FDG) (a radioactive modified hexokinase substrate) with positron emission tomography (PET).[17][18] There is ongoing research to affect mitochondrial metabolism and treat cancer by reducing glycolysis and thus starving cancerous cells in various new ways, including a ketogenic diet.[19] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycolysis as you maybe notice i linked in op warburg effect. it seems your stance is "im ignorant and proud of it." well as you said, each to his own.
here is more linquistics to you: associate=to connect or bring into relation well, fall of thrown apple to the ground we associate with gravitation. I on purpose wrote title so that common people can understand. When you translate from scientific language and without techobabble everything seems much clearer to common folks. so exchemist stop BS.
"Sugar cause of tumour" I am one of the common folk. To a common person such as myself, that sounds like it means that eating sugar causes cancer. While it wouldn't surprise me at all to read evidence that excessive consumption of refined sugar resulted in a higher incidence of cancer, that was not the subject of this paper.
The high glycolytic rates of tumors is implicit of a higher entropy state of the cell. A higher level of entropy, compared to healthy cells, is a signature of cancer, with the higher entropy leading to mutant diversity instead of carbon copy cells. There is loss of cellular differentiation control which is a reflection of the increased entropy. To understand the role of sugar in the entropy equation, it is easiest to go back to the basics of water and oil. If we mix water and oil with an agitator, this system will form an emulation. If you leave this emulsion set, the high entropy emulsion will lower its entropy back into order to form two layers. This is connected to free energy, which is the sum of enthalpy and entropy, favoring enthalpy. Sugar is different from oil in that it is soluble in water. Once mixed with the water, it does not separate out as well, allowing the solution to remain higher in entropy compared to the oil-water system. With more sugar entering the cell, the background entropy or the entropy floor will become higher. It is loosely analogous to adding a third chemical to water and oil so the emulsion is more stable. This higher entropy floor of the cell leads to a global change that reflects higher entropy throughout the entire system; out of control. To wrangle cancer in, you need to lower the entropy floor so the global change will reflect order. The approach they are trying is to lower the sugar uptake so the "emulsion" analogy can separate back into order; lower global entropy.
Captain Kremmen, the title of the OP is somewhat ambiguous, and therefore open to many interpretations. I must add though that the words "tumor" and "cancer" are not interchangeable. To wit : - the ^^above quoted^^ from, and more at : http://pathology.jhu.edu/pc/BasicTypes1.php C. K., it may well be that Locust is not entirely proficient in the English Language. This is not uncommon, even when the English Language is a persons first and only Language. I somewhat agree with the finishing statement of your Post. The excessive consumption or overuse of many types of foodstuffs or products could very well result in a "higher incidence" of not only "cancers" but other maladies as well.
Nope. It very clearly says "uptake". Since you haven't presented a discussion of the insulin-mediated glucose metabolism cycle, we are left to assume that you missed this unit of Biology. That would certainly comport with some of the other nonsense you have posted which exposes you at best as an anti-science crank who simply lacks the training to understand technical material like this.
