Re: Comparing hot dogs to vegetables and natural fruit sugar to HFCS? - edited to delete duplicate info

 Get of that bandwagon.  I have already addressed HFCS and as you well know from reading my posts I the same view that you do.  That does not discount the study that lumped HFCS with fructose in the experiment where together, they significantly increased the spread of cancer.  Sugar did to, but not as fast.  Please explain why fructose (all of it) fed the cancer.  Stick to the study.

Speaking of the study I found it interesting that they keep emphasizing "refined fructose":

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20647326

Cancer Res. 2010 Aug 1;70(15):6368-76. Epub 2010 Jul 20.

Fructose induces transketolase flux to promote pancreatic cancer growth.

Abstract

Carbohydrate metabolism via glycolysis and the tricarboxylic acid cycle is pivotal for cancer growth, and increased refined carbohydrate consumption adversely affects cancer survival. Traditionally, glucose and fructose have been considered as interchangeable monosaccharide substrates that are similarly metabolized, and little attention has been given to sugars other than glucose. However, fructose intake has increased dramatically in recent decades and cellular uptake of glucose and fructose uses distinct transporters. 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. (c)2010 AACR.

Could this be because feeding refined fructose directly to cancer cells in a petri dish is different that taking fructose orally such as in a fruit?  After all there are other factors to take in to account such as a slower absorption of fructose due to fiber in the fruit, the presence of insulin in the body not found in the petri dish, the presence of anticancer compounds in the fruit such as chlorogenic acid found in apples and other fruits but not in the petri dish..........