Last Sunday on his show on CNN, Dr. Sanjay Gupta interviewed pediatrician, Dr. Robert Lustig, who made the assertion that sugar is toxic and probably carcinogenic. This attention-grabbing statement had earned him a wide following on YouTube. But is it true? Let’s examine the evidence.


How is sugar used in the cell?

Glucose metabolism

Every cell in our body needs energy in order to survive and perform its functions. Our biochemistry has evolved over billions of years to extract energy from simple sugars, like glucose and fructose. I mentioned the evolutionary ancient-ness (is this a word?) for a reason. In the beginning (relax, I am not getting into the creation debate), the atmosphere was poor in oxygen. Yet cells had to extract energy from their nutrients. The solution? Extract energy from glucose without the participation of oxygen. This process is called anaerobic glycolysis, and even today, there are anaerobic bacteria that survive solely through glycolysis. This process nets a measly 2 ATP molecules (these are the molecules that store the energy necessary to drive chemical reactions in the cell), and two 3-carbon molecules of pyruvic acid.

As the ancient atmosphere became enriched with oxygen, it became possible to oxidize pyruvic acid, the end product of glycolysis, and extract another 30-36 ATP molecules. At about the same time, a species of parasitic bacteria invaded the primordial cells. The two finally settled into a cozy partnership: The cell will provide nutrients and a secure environment to the bacteria, and the bacteria will provide their capacity to break down pyruvic acid through a chemical process called oxidative phosphorylation using a series of enzymes that make up the electron transport chain, providing the cell with the additional 30 ATP per glucose molecule. And so were born our mitochondria, the tiny powerhouses that inhabit all our cells (except red blood cells).


What does all that have to do with cancer?

Now that we know why the cell needs glucose, and how it obtains the energy it needs out of glucose molecules, we can rationally examine the scary prospect that too much glucose can facilitate cancer.

Cancer Cells Source: The Telegraph
Cancer Cells
Source: The Telegraph

Cancer cells, like any healthy cells, require glucose as their energy source. But, if you measured the amount of lactic acid in a solid tumor, you would find a high concentration; and if you measured the pH, it would be lower than in normal tissue. The reason is that cancer cells depend to a large extent on anaerobic glycolysis. And we know that the end-product of that is pyruvic acid, which makes the tumor tissue acidic; hence the low pH. What about lactic acid? It is the product of pyruvic acid when oxidation is not possible. Of course, we know it from first-hand experience: When you exercise a muscle to the point that the oxygen supply cannot keep up, you create a lot of lactic acid, which is a pain in the…muscle.

But, you are wondering (I hope), a tumor doesn’t exercise, so why the anaerobic conditions? Enter the evil genius of tumors. When a solitary cell accumulates the proper mutations, it becomes a tumor cell, a process called carcinogenesis. The cell divides into daughter cells, those divide again, and so on—until there is a tiny tumor, made of millions of cells. In a sense, a new tissue is created. Except that normal tissue has its own extensive blood supply, but not this tiny tumor; it is made up solely by the tumor cells. So how does a tumor get its oxygen and nutrients?

The way the tumor cell copes with this dilemma is two-fold. First, it derives its energy from whatever little glucose is available using anaerobic glycloysis and getting 2 ATP molecules per glucose. This state of affairs cannot last forever because the cell would require enormous amounts of glucose to get enough ATP to fuel its metabolic functions. So, the second pillar of the strategy employed by the tumor is to secrete chemicals that stimulate blood vessels in the surrounding normal tissue to sprout new branches that penetrate the tumor and supply it with nutrients and oxygen. This process, called angiogenesis (literally formation of blood vessels), allows the tumor to undergo a new growth spurt and metastasize to distant organs.

As we said, the initial tumor depends heavily on glycolysis, and because of its inefficiency in extracting energy out of glucose, it has a voracious appetite for the sugar. And from that, the “logical” conclusion that sugar is carcinogenic.

Except that it isn’t. Glucose does not cause cancer, or else all living organisms would succumb to cancer and die. Glucose indeed is utilized by cancer cells to a much larger extent than normal tissue cells. But they get this extra glucose by extracting it a lot more efficiently. They have glucose transporter molecules on their surface (dubbed GLUT) that grab the molecules out of the tissue environment before the normal cells can get to them. So what would one accomplish by depriving himself of glucose? One kills his normal cells before the tumor cells feel the pinch.

Of course, this is a bit oversimplified, but the general idea that glucose does not cause cancer, and deprivation of glucose will not kill the cancer, is valid.


What about the other detrimental effects?

I am in complete agreement that glucose can be harmful. It is associated with obesity, metabolic syndrome, and type 2 diabetes. It has been shown to damage blood vessels. It is even bad for your teeth. So why eat it at all? You can get all the glucose you need from complex carbohydrates, a much healthier metabolic form.

So try to limit your glucose intake to no more than 15 grams a day (the amount in one can of soda). Get the rest of your energy requirements from grains, fruits, and vegetables. And don’t worry about the cancer hype.

Dov Michaeli, MD, PhD
Dov Michaeli, MD, PhD loves to write about the brain and human behavior as well as translate complicated basic science concepts into entertainment for the rest of us. He was a professor at the University of California San Francisco before leaving to enter the world of biotech. He served as the Chief Medical Officer of biotech companies, including Aphton Corporation. He also founded and served as the CEO of Madah Medica, an early stage biotech company developing products to improve post-surgical pain control. He is now retired and enjoys working out, following the stock market, travelling the world, and, of course, writing for TDWI.


  1. Carbohydrates directly cause diabetes, cancer, heart disease, liver disease and dementia (aka brain shrinkage/human brain de-evolution).

  2. Tumor cells and diseases caused by them, is a complex issue with many unknowns, and this makes the efforts of doctors and patient expectations are often futile.
    All information held current man on tumor cells are practically insufficient to efficiently solve problems of malignancies. To do this, we must first fully expanded horizon of knowledge, the new information is “key” in this area, and I did this with all my passion and strength – in the research study entitled “All about malignant cells and fighting their “And now, the importance of new discoveries for our defense, can be decisive.

    All about combating malignant cells and their
    After a huge effort we made a broad unprecedented work, to show the world explicitly relies basically on the secret, the power and the “famous invincible force” of malignant cells. I made this effort, because man knowingly to can organize better strategy for defense against malignancies. I wanted the world to know, who actually sits behind the emergence and development of malignancies in humans and their mechanisms are selectively vulnerable you can be attacked. And now, looking for support to publish and disseminate these new fundamental information that can lead practically to solve these problems. News from the field, contained in my works can make a revolutionary change in preventive and defensive combat defense against malignancies. I focused all my attention and force to make this original work of research, contained in four books. For a long time people are still waiting to discover something new in this field, which can effectively protect human health and life threatened by this disease dramatically. Impact of new information knowledge about tumor cells in this paper may help in its fight decisive man defense with tumor diseases. Now we have this original work, and unfortunately, one, I able to edit or make known to the world or at least one of these four books, which is most representative of them and entitled “Life Above of anything. “While many people still hope and still waiting for years, something new appears to effectively protect human health and life of this cruel disease, now all this new information with such importance, still hidden among papers and documents My without them to have a chance to edit, to be known, experienced and above all to be for the benefit of man.
    In this regard seek sponsorship to edit one of these works.
    Thank you for your attention and possibly support.

    With esteem and respect the author of this work
    Nicolae Gheorghe
    Loc. Pitesti

  3. This article is misleading, Lustig does not claim Glucose causes cancer. Sugar is 50% Glucose and 50% Fructose. Fructose is metabolised by the liver the same manner as alcohol with the same end products. Fructose can be taken as an alcohol equivalent. I believe the USA per capita consumption of sugar is approximately 70 Kg per year.

    This is equivalent to each US citizen consuming 3560 glasses (265 ml) of full strength beer (4.7% alcohol) per year.

    The peak world cancer agency the International Agency for Research on Cancer, rates alcohol as a category 1 carcinogen, the same as tobacco.

    Do you want to keep eating sugar?

    • I am reading all these oposing opinions about the effect of anti-oxydents by quite experienced oncologists and nutritionists. I find the articles are making me very nervous and indecisive. I had bilateral estrogen sensitive breast cancer. I had bilateral mastectomy and reconstruction. I have just finished chemotherapy which has been very hard. Even though I am practicing doctor, I find the articles confusing because no body wants to give sure shot treatment options so that patients do not have to worry about any thing.
      I myself took many supplements during chemotherapy, including Life Mel Honey and I did not have any Neutropenia except for couple of days I stopped the honey which made me ill neutropenia got worse, After reintroducing Life Mel Honey my white cells improved. Life Mel Honey comes from Israel where a Russion scientist has produced this remarkable honey by feeding the bees special food. There was a small trial proving its benefit in chemotheraphy.
      I feel sorry for my fellow sufferer of breast cancer who will have to go through the jungle of disputed medicines and supplements to come to their own decision. Majority of sufferer just accept the easy option, accept all that oncologist is offering, like I did but continued my supplements as well with the permission of the Oncologist.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.