• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

The Glucosamine Cancer Prevention Thread

glucosamine cancer longevity

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
35 replies to this topic

#1 Guest

  • Guest
  • 320 posts
  • 212

Posted 23 January 2019 - 09:33 PM


I already posted parts of this as a post in an unrelated thread. However, to give a better write up and more convenient place for discussion I’m opening up a new thread to gather ideas and conclusions. This thread is also related to another discussion, but focuses more specifically on the anti-tumor effects:

https://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/69839-glucosamine-promotes-longevity-by-mimicking-a-low-carb-diet

 

 

To summarize the development I give a short overview of the most important results so far:

note: some studies investigated colorectoral cancer (CRC) only, as it is the most common cause of cancer death, after lung cancer (85% caused by smoking, and “easily” avoidable)

 

2010: https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/20410091

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC2814533/

2011: https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3175750/

2013: https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3671752/

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3557824/

These are results from the VITAL study, that investigates lot’s of different supplements and their effect on pathology and mortality. 77,673 participating middle aged to older folks where studied for 10 years. A huge variety of factors were analysed (exercise, age, diet etc.) As a results, of the numerous substances, only Gluco/Chon had a notable independent effect on life span:

Mortality was lowered by 13% vs non-takers of gluco/chon; That increased to 38%-49% when users of NSAID (Aspirin, Ibu) were excluded from the analysis. 33% reduction for non-lung/non-colorectoral cancers + lower mortality for other diseases.

Another analysis of VITAL-data found that lung-cancer was reduced by 26/28% (specifically for adenocarcinomas 39%/50% reduced) for gluco/chon and colorectoral cancer (CRC) decreased by 28%/35%.

Follow-up studies on VITAL-data that analysed different amounts of Glucosamine intake found a 61% reduction of lung cancers and 45% reduction in CRC for high-intake users of Gluco (measured by frequency of intake)

 

Weakness of the results: supplement patterns were established just once – at the start of the study

 

 

2014: https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3988823/

Glucosamine in human-equivalent dosage extends life of already old mice

 

 

2016: https://www.ncbi.nlm...nihms799160.pdf

Another big observational study, observing 68.466 nurses and 27.934 male professionals for 8 years using regularly repeated questionnaires to investigate life style and CRC.

Result: a 25% cancer reduction for users of Gluco/Chon; this increased to 45% for normal weight users (while obese users benefited less for the same intake).

 

Question: why do obese people benefited less?

 

 

2018: https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC5794904/

A smaller Spanish study enrolling 10183 participants to investigate CRC. They calculated a crude reduction of 53% in cases of CRC in gluco/chon consumers.

 

Weakeness: the number of participants and study design did not allow to statistically disentangle the use of NSAID. Only 99 cases in total used gluco/chon and strongly correlated with NSAID use.

My comment: NSAID use was not independently linked to reduced cancer in the other large scale studies; their results could be adjusted for NSAID use and still confer a strong effect. In addition recent quality big randomized controlled trials (RCT) for aspirin and ibuprofen showed little to no cancer prevention effect (primary prevention).

 

 

2018: https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/29411204

113.067 participants of the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition cohort, got observed for 10 years to investigate CRC – using regular questionnaires for life style and supplement use.

Result: 17% less cancers for users of Glucosamine

 

Weakeness: some curious inconsistencies in study outcome. Those using glucosamine for a shorter time period got a 32% reduction in cancer cases. Those using it for a longer time period only 10%.

 

 

These are (observational) prospective cohort studies. They can give a suggestion for lines of research – i.e. future research on possible causal relationships for interesting correlations. So far for supplement use the strongest correlation is for glucosamine and cancer. Indeed if we look at large cohort studies or reasonably large RCTs there are – to my knowledge – no studies for any other supplement, that indicate a similar strong association for primary cancer prevention in humans.

 

 

There are no RCTs for cancer and glucosamine. But there are different ideas for explanations for the anti-tumor mechanism of glucosamine, that give a potential anti-cancer effect a plausible narrative:

 

A scientist specializing in energy metabolism (co-author of the mice-paper) suggests a connection to mitochondrial metabolism: http://geroscience.c...ristow-part-ii/

It seems that in-vitro and in-vivo results can proof, that glucosamine exposure in commonly consumed human equivalent doses induces mitohormesis, by preventing cells from relying entirely on glucose metabolism.

 

In addition – and maybe related - numerous in-vitro studies find, that glucosamine decreases inflammation (there are a dozend papers on this; a selection of 2) :

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/18295395

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/15922948

 

More in-vitro-studies demonstrate, that Glucosamine can upregulate tumor-supressor genes, causing cell cycle arrest and cell death in cancer cells:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC5450348/

Glucosamine causes cell-cykle arrest in tumor cells (and up-regluated p21 and p53).

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...-2407-14-31.pdfk

Glucosamine activates AMPK and in parallel inhibits mTOR.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/28713921

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/23606170

Glucosamine increases FOXO1/3/AKT activity, by preventing the inactivation of their transcription factors.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20045674

Glucosamine induces autophagy via an mTOR-independent pathway.

 

 

Why are these evolving results for Glucosamine relevant?

 

1. Mortality for cardiovascular disease (CVD) can be almost entirely avoided by life style changes and modern medicine (if not for very unlucky genetics). Even with a perfect life style and perfect genetics the risk for cancer is substantial for current typical life spans (estimates range from 20% to 30% of cancer death in developed countries with no known cause).

 

2. Cancer – unlike (CVD) – is not well treatable. For example the 5-year-survival-rate for CRC is only 60%-65%. Many other cancers – especially Lung – don’t even match that.

 

3. Glucosamine is cheap.

 

4. It’s safe from any (proven) serious side effects - for most there are none at all. For a long time it’s very widely used for (ineffective according to research) joint support. The side effects are established. In placebo studies for Glucosamine use for joint support, side effects are indistinguishable from placebo. Concerns for a possible diabetes promoting effect (caused by a study, that bathed pancreatic cells in a glucosamine doses impossible to achieve by oral ingestion) appear unfounded: https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3042150/

 

5. No other supplement so far demonstrated a remotely similar magnitude of primary cancer prevention in healthy humans:

- RCTs for aspirin show generally no effect for primary prevention – or if so no effect on total mortality (possibly due to it’s side effects). It appears to be useful for secondary prevention once you are treated for cancer.

- Vitamin D in 2 recently released RCTs did not result in primary cancer prevention. But it increased survival rates in existing cancer cases

metformin decreases cancer in diabetics – a group that is at an elevated risk for cancer; the TAME-trial is going to investigate if similar things can be observed in non-diabetics

 

 

Glucosamine is safer to use than aspirin and metformin and it’s got evidence for primary prevention in non-morbid cohorts of humans.

 

So - what are your thoughts? Is it justified to start taking it? At what dose – 500 mg, 1500 mg, 3000 mg a day? The studies – in-vitro and observational – indicate a dose-dependent respone. If anyone uses metformin or aspirin – shouldn't they use glucosamine too, based on the emerging evidence?

 

 

 


  • WellResearched x 6
  • Agree x 2
  • Informative x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • like x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#2 Kimer Med

  • Guest
  • 254 posts
  • 60
  • Location:New Zealand
  • NO

Posted 23 January 2019 - 11:37 PM

Thanks for the detailed info and supporting links.

 

Here's a link to an article that covers some of the same issues:

http://www.anti-agin...-for-longevity/

 

Summarizing: On the longevity side, Glucosamine seems to provide a 6% increase in healthspan (average lifespan) for mice, but no increase in maximum lifespan. Human studies seem to show decreased rates of cancer, and it seems to be safe and free from serious side-effects.

 

Based on that info, it's worth considering adding to my regimen.

 

In terms of dosing, the human studies didn't seem to track it. I'm guessing that means most people were taking "recommended" doses, which are on the order of 1.5g/day. I would probably start at a half or a third of that, and titrate my way up.

 

Should we include Chondroitin as well? The interaction with Aspirin and other NSAIDs is interesting here, too.

 


  • Informative x 1

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 QuestforLife

  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 24 January 2019 - 10:46 AM

If you look into the work of Thomas Seyfried, who has pioneered the metabolic theory of cancer (following on from Linus Pauling), he uses a ketogenic diet to improve the outcome for cancer sufferers, particularly for brain cancer, which has a very poor outcome with little improvement in 100 years of research.

 

His arguments center around the idea that cancer cells arise from damaged mitochondria and hence do not have the metabolic flexibility to run off fats. This probably explains the benefits of glucosamine in preventing cancer. It will not stop cancer completely, as cancer cells can also survive (but not thrive) off glutamine, but in both prevention and even in treatment, will prove very helpful.

 

But this does also mean that a ketogenic diet will be superior to glucosamine, which will only compete with glucose metabolism, rather than replace it completely with fat and ketones.


Edited by QuestforLife, 24 January 2019 - 10:48 AM.

  • Informative x 2
  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#4 Guest

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 320 posts
  • 212

Posted 24 January 2019 - 10:32 PM

I guess it's still too early to derive conclusions about the relative effectiveness of different supplements and diets that show promising results in bio markers and observational studies.

 

For example: https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3082009/

 

that is the only study so far that investigates the effect of late-onset metformin supplementation in non-diabetic mice. Started at 15 month of age the mice lived actually just a little shorter average lifes than controls. Only early onset metformin supplementation did extend average life spans. On the other hand feeding 100 weeks - about 23,5 month - old mice glucosamine did extend their life span. Nonetheless a lot of funds are invested into metformin studies (most of them in diabetics of course, but also MILES and TAME in healthy humans), and none into glucosamine cancer/lifespan RCTs or just even animal studies.

 

The metformin results are curious, as gluco and met are supposed to activate similar pathways - changing the mitochondrial metabolism away from glucose.

 

I would be more interested in synergistics: does the secondary cancer prevention effect of aspirin add or distract from a potential primary prevention effect of glucosamine? Can gluco, met and NAG be combined to yield additional anti-cancer potency? 


  • Good Point x 1

#5 QuestforLife

  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 25 January 2019 - 10:05 AM

 

The metformin results are curious, as gluco and met are supposed to activate similar pathways - changing the mitochondrial metabolism away from glucose.

 

 

 

Metformin inhibits Complex I of the electron transport chain (which is used by fats and glucose); glucosamine does not affect CxI but competes with ALL glucose for metabolism, whether in mitochondria or cytosol.

 

So quite different effects. Metformin has been reported by many to inhibit exercise performance. I would speculate that in the very old with compromised mitochondria, inhibition of Cx I is a bad idea, but in the young/middle aged who eat too much glucose/carbs, it could be beneficial.  


  • Needs references x 1

#6 Guest

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 320 posts
  • 212

Posted 28 January 2019 - 05:34 PM

It seems that's the beauty of Glucosamine: it appears to be well tolerated in older, healthy humans and in older healthy mice - showing considerable positive effects in both animals.

 

I noticed some inconsistencies concerning dosing though:

 

the mice study used a concentration of 10g/kg of glucosamine in the food. No total oral intake of glucosamine is reported, but we can do some calcluation. Mice eat about 3-5 g of standard mouse feed a day. So total intake of gluco was 30 mg to 50 mg a day. The average body mass is around 30 g (see the mouse study). That translates to 1 mg of gluco per gram of body mass. Using direct scaling that is 70 gram of gluco per day for a 70 kg humans. Using allometric scaling

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC4804402/

 

that translates to 5,7 gram per day.

 

 

We know, that there is a dose depended response in humans. "Frequent intake" as opposed to "occasional" lead to a roughly doubling of the cancer prevention effect. The most common daily (i.e. frequent) dose of glucosamine is 1.5 g . That's below the mouse equivalent intake of 5,7 g. Also there certainly is a dose-dependend effect in mice as well, though it's unclear if more would have been better or not.

 

So: is the effect going to be even more pronounced at a daily intake of 4,5 g (3 pills of 1,5 g a day)? Is that a safe dose for humans (I'd assume yes, given the lack of evidence for side effects so far)?

 

 

EDIT:

to correct an oversight of mine - in the initial topic starter post I'm typing 13% reduced total mortality for gluco/chon. That should have read 17% reduced total mortality. 38%-49% reduced total mortality after adjusting for NSAID use is still correct though.


Edited by Guest, 28 January 2019 - 06:31 PM.

  • unsure x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#7 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,224 posts
  • 491
  • Location:USA

Posted 20 February 2019 - 01:37 AM

Back in the 1950s there were a few doctors reporting success in using glucosamine to treat cardiovascular disease.  If it indeed induces autophagy that's not so far fetched.

 

 

 


  • Needs references x 1

#8 Guest

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 320 posts
  • 212

Posted 13 March 2019 - 09:04 PM

Update:

 

As I wrote in January, the most recent study did find a confusing result - short term use of glucosamine was associated with better anti-cancer effects than long-term use. The free version of that paper is available as of now:

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC5870876/

 

After some sensitivity analysis, the authors found, that if correcting for previous or current cancer-screening, the association vanished. This result is statistically non-significant though, as the number of non-screened participants did not allow to create a good-enough confidence interval.



#9 Guest

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 320 posts
  • 212

Posted 21 May 2019 - 04:10 PM

After some additional research on the topic I found something astonishing:

 

there was an active research literature on the use of Glucosamine against cancer in the 1960s and early 1970s. This research appears to be completely forgotten - at least the modern Glucosamine and cancer studies examined in the introduction of this subforum do not reference any of these old studies.

 

Back in the day people were experimenting with mice and rats, administering various dosages of Glucosamine in cancer animals. The unanimous result is, that glucosamine supresses cancer growth in-vivo. The most impressive study I found is this one from 1972 at the University of Chicago:

 

http://cancerres.aac.../4/756.full.pdf

 
a couple of rats (2 controls, 2 18-hour-infusion, 2 40-hour-infusion, 2 40-hour-infusion+5-days) were infused continuously with Glucosamine, just as you would do using chemotherapy, after a tumor was transplanted.
 
After 40 hours of infusing glucosamine and a 5 day reaction time the examined tissue showed interesting changes:
 
- the entire tumor tissue was necrotic - i.e. dead; no more cancer
 
- the liver and kidney tissue showed no relevant changes; i.e. no toxicity of the glucosamine in the organism (unlike your common chemotherapy)
 

 

In addition they noted after administering the glucosamine: "[...]many large, swollen mitochondria and numerous, large, autophagic vacuoles" - in other terms: suddenly autophagy is on overdrive. As I explained here:

 

https://www.longecit...-for-autophagy/

 

there is some evidence, that glucosamine drives autophagy and that this might be connected to the potential anti-tumor effects.

 

 

 

This study has only 5 citations in pubmed and many of the others referenced in this study have none (some of them aren't even available online). For example there's this study from 1980:

https://www.ncbi.nlm...cles/PMC348447/

that tries to explain, why glucosamine is toxic for cancer cells, but non-toxic for all other cell-types in-vivo. But nothing else in terms of follow up.

 

 

What happened? That looks like a better chemotherapy drug than many used today with their horrible side-effects. Those started out as test in rats, too. Why did everyone forget about this literature and did not investigate further?

 

Ironically at the same time (1970s) "alternative medicine" started to promote glusocamine for joint support based on no evidence at all. Without that, there would be no evidence published today, about it's anti-tumor activity (see the studies at the start). And I would not have found this "forgotten" literature.


Edited by Guest, 21 May 2019 - 04:13 PM.

  • Informative x 3
  • Good Point x 1

#10 William Sterog

  • Guest
  • 505 posts
  • 123
  • Location:Dos Hermanas
  • NO

Posted 21 May 2019 - 05:11 PM

This is extremely interesting.

#11 Florin

  • Guest
  • 741 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Cannot be left blank

Posted 24 November 2019 - 03:24 AM

As I mentioned in a supplement stack thread, an analysis of the NHS and HPFS studies claims that glucosamine + chondroitin reduces CRC risk but not glucosamine without chondroitin.

 

Use of glucosamine and chondroitin supplements in relation to risk of colorectal cancer: Results from the Nurses' Health Study and Health Professionals follow-up study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/27357024


  • Informative x 2

#12 Florin

  • Guest
  • 741 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Cannot be left blank

Posted 29 July 2020 - 02:39 AM

This study claims that glucosamine use reduces all-cause mortality by 15% but cancer mortality by only a measly 6%. The study also controlled for chondroitin use and is the first to do so, as far as I recall.
 
Associations of regular glucosamine use with all-cause and cause-specific mortality: a large prospective cohort study
https://ard.bmj.com/content/79/6/829
 

In this large population-based cohort study involving 495 077 individuals, we found that regular glucosamine use was significantly associated with a 15% lower risk of total mortality and 18% for CVD mortality; 6% for cancer mortality; 27% for respiratory mortality and 26% for digestive mortality.


Glucosamine and chondroitin supplements are often taken together in a single daily supplements, and it is therefore possible that our observed associations are driven by either of these supplements. To address this issue, we performed sensitivity analyses examining the associations of glucosamine use alone (excluding participants who took chondroitin) with all-cause and cause-specific mortality. We found that the estimates did not change substantially. Therefore, it is likely that glucosamine use may reduce the risk of mortality, regardless of the co-administration of chondroitin.


Edited by Florin, 29 July 2020 - 03:23 AM.


#13 Phoebus

  • Guest
  • 850 posts
  • 234
  • Location:Upper Midwest, US

Posted 10 May 2021 - 01:18 AM

 

 

His arguments center around the idea that cancer cells arise from damaged mitochondria and hence do not have the metabolic flexibility to run off fats. This probably explains the benefits of glucosamine in preventing cancer. It will not stop cancer completely, as cancer cells can also survive (but not thrive) off glutamine, but in both prevention and even in treatment, will prove very helpful.

 

 

 

Latest research shows this is not the case unfortunately (the keto crowd)

 

https://www.technolo...the-body-321879

 

Cancer Cells Switch Sugar for Fatty Acids to Spread Around the Body

 

 

Scientists have uncovered a crucial change in cancer cells that allows them to spread around the body – by switching from sugar to fatty acids to fuel their growth.

Changing their ‘diet’ in this way allows tumour cells to set up shop at new sites where resources such as glucose – their preferred food source – are limited.

Researchers at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, found that a protein called AKR1B10 helps cells adapt the ways in which they get their energy.

When cancer cells have high levels of AKR1B10, it reduces their dependency on sugar and increases their ability to use fatty acids as a fuel source instead.

  • Informative x 1

#14 QuestforLife

  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 10 May 2021 - 10:14 AM

 

Latest research shows this is not the case unfortunately (the keto crowd)

 

https://www.technolo...the-body-321879

 

Cancer Cells Switch Sugar for Fatty Acids to Spread Around the Body

 

 

I guess it is not suprising that cancer cells can adapt to almost anything, even burning fatty acids. Interesting that the protein used reduces ROS to achieve this. 

 

I think if I got cancer I probably would still go low carb, as not all cancer cells are going to be adapted in this way, and the original cancer would need to reach a certain size before it spreads and therefore would still need glucose. 


  • Informative x 1

#15 elc202

  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 10
  • Location:.

Posted 05 October 2021 - 12:38 AM

What do you think about Glucosamine raising  intraocular pressure (eye pressure), increasing the risk of Glaucoma?

 

https://iovs.arvojou...ticleid=2368208


  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1

#16 Harkijn

  • Guest
  • 798 posts
  • 239
  • Location:Amsterdam
  • NO

Posted 05 October 2021 - 03:01 PM

This report dates from 2009. If you have found no follow up research we can safely assume that  there is no particular reason for concern.


  • Good Point x 2
  • Ill informed x 1

#17 adamh

  • Guest
  • 851 posts
  • 95

Posted 29 October 2021 - 09:39 PM

I've been using glucosamine along with chondroitin for decades. I am very glad to see the reports on health and life extending properties as well as the anti tumor effects. I have had cancer even in spite of that plus a diet low in carcinogenic substances along with herbs, vitamins, etc that were supposed to help

 

One thing I object to is that everyone seems to believe its useless for joint pain. This is based on some studies but I believe they were flawed. I haven't read them all but in one or two I did get ahold of, I could see what the problem was. They used a very low dose of the gl, I saw one that used around 500mg per day. A low dose like that will do nothing, I believe. I experimented and found that 4 tabs per day worked best for me

 

I am taking 4 large tabs which each contain 750mg gl and 500mg ch so that is a total of 3 gm of glucosamine per day every day of the year. I use it because it seems to help with the discomfort of arthritis. Now that I see these studies, I may start taking an additional 2 to 3gm of gl per day to get the added anti-cancer benefits

 

Think about the fact that millions of people in this country alone buy it every year. They keep buying it and sales have gone up each year. Now are you going to tell me they are all fools who believed some hype or that they merely have a placebo effect? Sorry, but for serious discomfort or pain, placebo effect is of no use. You might feel better for a day or two if you have a strong belief but pain has a way of breaking through any placebo in short order. So was it a flawed study that "debunked" gl? I believe the studies were done by drug companies which have a motive to discredit anything they can't make a fortune on. Can it be that the consumer knows better than the "experts"?

 

I've known a few people who tried it and failed but they stayed with low doses, I've known others who had good results. It seems to work for me, possibly the chondroitin helped more than the gl. At a minimum, I was getting help for cancer and other diseases without realizing it.


  • Good Point x 3
  • Needs references x 1
  • unsure x 1
  • Agree x 1

#18 Guest

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 320 posts
  • 212

Posted 15 December 2021 - 09:20 PM

After some additional research on the topic I found something astonishing:

 

there was an active research literature on the use of Glucosamine against cancer in the 1960s and early 1970s. This research appears to be completely forgotten - at least the modern Glucosamine and cancer studies examined in the introduction of this subforum do not reference any of these old studies.

 

Back in the day people were experimenting with mice and rats, administering various dosages of Glucosamine in cancer animals. The unanimous result is, that glucosamine supresses cancer growth in-vivo. The most impressive study I found is this one from 1972 at the University of Chicago:

 

http://cancerres.aac.../4/756.full.pdf

 
a couple of rats (2 controls, 2 18-hour-infusion, 2 40-hour-infusion, 2 40-hour-infusion+5-days) were infused continuously with Glucosamine, just as you would do using chemotherapy, after a tumor was transplanted.
 
After 40 hours of infusing glucosamine and a 5 day reaction time the examined tissue showed interesting changes:
 
- the entire tumor tissue was necrotic - i.e. dead; no more cancer
 
- the liver and kidney tissue showed no relevant changes; i.e. no toxicity of the glucosamine in the organism (unlike your common chemotherapy)
 

 

In addition they noted after administering the glucosamine: "[...]many large, swollen mitochondria and numerous, large, autophagic vacuoles" - in other terms: suddenly autophagy is on overdrive. As I explained here:

 

https://www.longecit...-for-autophagy/

 

there is some evidence, that glucosamine drives autophagy and that this might be connected to the potential anti-tumor effects.

 

 

 

This study has only 5 citations in pubmed and many of the others referenced in this study have none (some of them aren't even available online). For example there's this study from 1980:

https://www.ncbi.nlm...cles/PMC348447/

that tries to explain, why glucosamine is toxic for cancer cells, but non-toxic for all other cell-types in-vivo. But nothing else in terms of follow up.

 

 

What happened? That looks like a better chemotherapy drug than many used today with their horrible side-effects. Those started out as test in rats, too. Why did everyone forget about this literature and did not investigate further?

 

Ironically at the same time (1970s) "alternative medicine" started to promote glusocamine for joint support based on no evidence at all. Without that, there would be no evidence published today, about it's anti-tumor activity (see the studies at the start). And I would not have found this "forgotten" literature.

 

I stumbled upon another "ancient" study of glucosamine, back from the forgotten days of the 60s/70s when there was an active research field about it's use in animal cancers:

 

https://cancerres.aa...5.full-text.pdf

 

 

I recommend reading the abstract and the outline of "recent" research on the first page.

 

While the abstract sounds rather positive, it's in reality more of a mixed picture. In their experiments and those of other groups, some types of rodent-cancer models did not respond to treatment, while others did. More notably glucosamine (as applied in these studies) appears to retard cancer growth by inhibiting DNA multiplication in cancers - though this did not happen in "normal" cells of the mice and rats used.

 

The studies commented on in that paper are maybe more relevant for humans and their "intermittent" intake; the study outlined previously in this thread is literally a chemo-therapy using continuos high dose infusion over the duration of almost 2 days. But those 2 papers (the previous and this one) also hint at, that there are different mechanism by which glucosamine is affecting cancer cells (that is: cancers cells extracted from rodents treated with glucosamine):

 

 

1. inhibition of DNA multiplication specifically in cancer cells

 

 

2. downregulation of glycolisis (not just in cancer cells, but more generally); many cancer types utilize glycolisis as primary source of ATP-generation; as opposed to employing mitochondria to generate ATP

 

 

3. endoplasmic reticulum stress (ER stress); this can be caused by various (often harmful) effects - in the study previously discussed this was the prime cause of cancer cell death; the cancer cells were not able to resolve the high amount of ER stress, while "normal" tissue was able to recover

 

 

Now, as unsuccessful experiments with glucosamine did happen, there are apparently types of cancer, that can deal with those effects better than others or able to out-mutate them. Glucosamine might therefore be useful as an additional therapeutic supplemental to standard-therapy - essentially putting additional stress on the cancers and making it easier for the primary therapy to do it's job.


  • like x 1

#19 Florin

  • Guest
  • 741 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Cannot be left blank

Posted 15 December 2021 - 10:48 PM

Chondroitin, which is often taken with glucosamine, might be a double-edged sword. As I mentioned before, it may reduce CRC, but it may also promote skin cancer.

 

The Dietary Supplement Chondroitin-4-Sulfate Exhibits Oncogene-Specific Pro-tumor Effects on BRAF V600E Melanoma Cells
https://doi.org/10.1...cel.2018.02.010


Edited by Florin, 15 December 2021 - 10:49 PM.

  • Informative x 1

#20 elc202

  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 10
  • Location:.

Posted 01 January 2022 - 05:03 AM

Do you think N-Acetyl D-Glucosamine (NAG) could be anti cancer too?

Also if it is true that Glucosamine raises intraocular pressure, does that mean NAG also raises it too?

 

 

#21 Zarathrustra

  • Member
  • 64 posts
  • 20
  • Location:Brighton and Hove, UK

Posted 22 January 2022 - 06:52 PM

Glucosamine does not correlate well with my cancer markers.

 

Since being diagnosed with metastatic bladder cancer in 2007, I have extended my 45+ years of daily lifestyle tracking with 12 cancer metrics. Glucosamine ingestion increase correlates (5% significance) with cancerousness increase for 3 of my cancer metrics (CxBladder, NMP22, and Eosinophils; n = 56 - 67) and decrease with one (the AST/ALT ratio, n = 16)..I no longer take it. 

 

As in all research results, which are based on averages, individuals may have a different reaction - the main reason I embarked on my research in 1975.

 

For me, in decreasing strength of correlation, the following supplements go with decreasing cancerousness:

Arginine

CLA

SOD

Chitosan

DHEA

Indole-3-Carbinol

C60

Vit. K

Serrapeptase.

 

Supplements that correlate positively (that is, may increase csncerousness) in less strong effect, are

Aspirin

Calcium

Grapeseed extract

Betaine

Manganese

Creatine

Zinc

Selenium


Edited by Zarathrustra, 22 January 2022 - 06:59 PM.

  • Informative x 2

#22 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,675 posts
  • 652
  • Location:Austria

Posted 22 January 2022 - 08:13 PM

Thanks for your report. Would you mind sharing all the 12 cancer metrics? And their optimal ranges?

Glucosamine ingestion increase correlates (5% significance) with cancerousness increase for 3 of my cancer metrics (CxBladder, NMP22, and Eosinophils; n = 56 - 67) and decrease with one (the AST/ALT ratio, n = 16)..I no longer take it.



#23 Advocatus Diaboli

  • Guest
  • 429 posts
  • 504
  • Location:Chronosynclastic Infundibulum ( floor Z/p^nZ )
  • NO

Posted 22 January 2022 - 09:08 PM

Re post #21

 

Zarathrustra,

 

What is it that you mean by "cancerousness" both "increasing" and "decreasing"? What are the bounds and thresholds for your definitions?

 

"(5% significance)" did you mean 95%? How was that calculated?

 

How is it that you are able to isolate the effects of the various compounds, in light of the large number of confounds--from your lists, not to mention confounds not on your lists, to the extent that you're able to make rankings?



#24 Zarathrustra

  • Member
  • 64 posts
  • 20
  • Location:Brighton and Hove, UK

Posted 22 January 2022 - 10:14 PM

My cancer metrics are:

Three that are specific to bladder cancer: CxBladder, NMP-22, and haematuria; two more general cancer markers - CA19-9 and CEA; and eight that indicate a predisposition to canceroousness:

CRP

AST:ALT ratio

Neutrophils:Lymphocytes ratio

Hb:PLT ratio

Basophils and Eosinophils - higher is better

CRP:Albumin

 

You can find all the optimum ranges via Google

 

Cancerousness means the averaging of a collation of the ten metrics - I normalise them so that they are comparable.

 

Increasing means my cancerousness is found to be increasing when the lifestyle item is increasing (bad); and visa versa for decreasing. I use the precautionary principle that if taking a substance correlates with my cancerousness increasing, then I stop taking it; and visa versa. Such 'advice' is modified as time goes on - and iterative process.

 

5% means there's one chance in twenty that the correlation happened by chance so a figure less than this implies even less chance it is chance, the usual level used for significance in correlations.

 

I do simple correlations for each substance/supplement - nothing fancy. Except for the haematuria; that i do by a multiple regression analysis as I have enough records to do that.

 

As mentioned above, I use an iterative process over time, hoping that as time goes on that if a correlation is accidental it will show up later.

 


  • Informative x 1
  • like x 1

#25 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,675 posts
  • 652
  • Location:Austria

Posted 22 January 2022 - 11:00 PM

One interesting correlation I found the last 8 years, when always having 6 weeks vacation on an Indian beach each day for 4 hours laying in the sun (and other related confounders): inflammation always increased, liver enzyms always improved (a little counter-induitive, with all the toxins there). In fact now that I couldn't have that vaccation in 2 years my liver-enzyms are worst, and inflammation best all those years.

.. and eight that indicate a predisposition to canceroousness:
CRP
AST:ALT ratio
Neutrophils:Lymphocytes ratio
Hb:PLT ratio
Basophils and Eosinophils - higher is better
CRP:Albumin

You can find all the optimum ranges via Google


I use optimal ranges published by various functional medicine practitioners, which even then differ sometimes. And exactly that kind of information is censored on google these days.

For example CRP below below 1mg/L (3.2 in avg. the last 13 years in my case), ALT and AST below 30 U/l (my ratio would be 1), NLR 3.5 (3.9 for me), Hb below 15, PLT below below 38g/dl (my ratio would be 0.7; my avg. Alb has been 3.9g/dl).

Hope you appreciate I don't want random answers from google, but your very informed one's.
  • Good Point x 1

#26 Zarathrustra

  • Member
  • 64 posts
  • 20
  • Location:Brighton and Hove, UK

Posted 23 January 2022 - 08:41 AM

I'm not sure if you were requesting me to comment on your data?

 

I should have noted that the Hb:Plt ratio is best higher - 1.15-1.8 is the reference level I have.

 

CRP best under 5; mine has averaged about 1.5 for a while now

 

AST:ALT about 1.3 is thought to be good; mine is 1.43

 

Neutrophil:Lymphocyte best below 2.1; mine is about 1.9

 

Albumin is thought to be best above 4 g/dL  - mine is presently 4.4

 

 


  • Informative x 1

#27 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,675 posts
  • 652
  • Location:Austria

Posted 25 January 2022 - 02:03 PM

I'm not sure if you were requesting me to comment on your data?

 

Absolutely. Thanks for your detailed response.

 

I should have noted that the Hb:Plt ratio is best higher - 1.15-1.8 is the reference level I have.

 

Hb potentially increasing: Iron, Zinc, Copper, Selenium (all 4 only if deficient); Vitamin C, Bs, A, D, E.

Plt potentially decreasing: Iron and Vitamin C.

 

After 13 years of monitoring for the first time I'm very low in iron. Probably all those years the higher inflammation kept ferritin up (in avg. 90) and thereby fooling me.

 

CRP best under 5; mine has averaged about 1.5 for a while now

 

You seem to be using mg/dl, mine was mg/L. Potentially reducing: Vitamin E, Bs, C, D, Astaxanthin, Selenium and CoQ10, Mg, Ch, Ca, Omega-3, Probiotics, Resveratrol, Quercetin, Curcumin, Cocoa, Milk thistle, Pomegranate, Garlic, Amla, Gingko Biloba.

 

AST:ALT about 1.3 is thought to be good; mine is 1.43

 

AST potentially increasing: B6 (Green tea and Milk thistle may increase).

ALT potentially decreasing: ALA, Green tea, Milk thistle, Probiotics, NAC, Tudca, Curcumin, Capsaicin.

 

Neutrophil:Lymphocyte best below 2.1; mine is about 1.9

 

Neutrophils potentially decreasing: B9, B12, Garlic.

Lymphocytes potentially increasing: Reishi, Holy basil, Vitamin A, D, Bitter melon, Garlic, Red Ginseng.

 

Albumin is thought to be best above 4 g/dL  - mine is presently 4.4

 

Potentially increasing: Whey protein, BCAA, NAC, Vitamin C, E, D, B1, B9, Se. Glutathion, Omega-3, Probiotic, Soluble fiber, Curcumin, Ginseng.

Wich was the information collaborated by labtestanayzer.com. Any further suggestions out of your experience?

 


 

 


 



#28 Zarathrustra

  • Member
  • 64 posts
  • 20
  • Location:Brighton and Hove, UK

Posted 25 January 2022 - 02:36 PM

Interesting.

 

You are incorrect about my CRP being in mg/dL; it is in mg/L

 

I do not use established means of changing my various levels; I relay on my own correlations to determine whether and how to address any perceived change requirements.- 400+ item lifestyle variables.

 

I keep my iron levels on the low side, being convinced by the "The Mindspan Diet" book by Preston Ester that higher iron levels are probably an Alzheimer stimulant.



#29 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,675 posts
  • 652
  • Location:Austria

Posted 26 January 2022 - 08:02 PM

Wich was the information collaborated by labtestanayzer.com. Any further suggestions out of your experience?

 

I do not use established means of changing my various levels; I relay on my own correlations to determine whether and how to address any perceived change requirements.- 400+ item lifestyle variables.

 

Did you oversee my question? I already knew that you rely on your own correlations, and therefore asked what do you use?

How you bring Hb up and Plt down?

 

Decrease CRP?

 

Bring AST up and ALP down?

 

How do you increase Lymphocytes? - and/or decrease Neutrophis?

 

 

 


  • Good Point x 1

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#30 Zarathrustra

  • Member
  • 64 posts
  • 20
  • Location:Brighton and Hove, UK

Posted 26 January 2022 - 10:17 PM

I have misunderstood your earlier post, where you listed things that altered the various metrics, so assumed you relied on them. You are correct; I don't. I do not target Hb or Plt individually, but their ratio; similarly the AST:ALT, and CRP - I don't even target these directly. I aggregate all my metrics together for each illness. So I have 13 metrics for cardiovascular illness (of which CRP is one); 6 for CKD; and 12 for cancer (including CRP again, Hb:PLT, and AST:ALT). Even then, there are some things that are good for one (such as walking for CV) and bad for another (such as walking for CKD). This is an inherent problem for all illnesses and also for longevity planning. As my main problem is CKD, I tend to favour results helping that over cancer (which is in abeyance for 5+ years) and somewhat CV. Tho' the latter is giving some agonising as my BP Systolic is getting a bit high lately. , Having said all that, CRP reduction correlates well with arginine, carnitine, chitosan, curcumin, DMAE, and Vit.D3. Green tea and hazelnut milk look good. As does fruit and nuts. Exercise correlates with worsening Hb:Plt; arginine, bromelain, copper, mixed grasses, graviola, swedish defined pollen, and Vit.C with improvement. As does camomile tea.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: glucosamine, cancer, longevity

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users