Yeah, the whole starving by withholding sugar is a distraction. Sure tumor growth depends of the very ineffective use of sugar, but that realization fails to consider why is the sugar there outside the mitochondria to begin with?
It's because the cancer cell, not the tumor cell, is locked into beta oxidation of fat. So going keto is like pouring gasoline on a fire. The tumor cell is trying to save your life by containing the toxic byproducts cells produce when they can't oxidize glucose.
I don't know of a theory, per se, nor of a single source that covers my claims. No doubt there is one, I just haven't stumbled over it yet. I suppose it can be summed up as a bioenergetic view of cancer, as opposed to genetic.
I would start with Otto Warburg's observation and writings from the 1920s. The Warburg Effect has to do with cancer cells' over reliance on aerobic glycolysis. In fact, scanning for the lactic acid output of this fermentation is the primary means of detecting cancer.
Glycolysis is always occurring: glucose is converted into pyruvate, which normally enters the mitochondria to be oxidized. But in cancer it doesn't. Instead, it piles up outside the mitochondria. Eventually the body converts it to lactic acid, which is either less harmful, or easier to get rid of. I don't know which, but even it piles up. I haven't read this, but I conjecture that tumor growth is the body's way of trying to encapsulate this harmful byproduct. The tumor is trying to save you! Puncturing it is a sure way of spreading cancer throughout the body.
Over simplification of the phenomenon has inverted its meaning such that the fermentation of sugar and its outcome is seen as the cause of cancer, when it is really a sign that the normal pathway is blocked for some reason. Instead of seeking that reason, the experts gaslight us with lucrative stories of genes, mutations, and even viruses while burying news of any actual toxic triggers for cancer.
The Warburg group concluded that if was the deprivation of glucose and oxygen that led to a lack of energy, resulting in cell death. Warburg hypothesized dysfunctional mitochondria as the cause of the higher rate of glycolysis seen in tumor cells, and the predominant cause of cancer development.
It wasn't until 1963 that biochemist Philip Randle described the glucose fatty-acid cycle, or Randle Cycle that the higher rate of glycolysis was explained: excessive fatty acid oxidation locks glucose out of the mitochondria. Sugar is not causing this, it is Warburg's dysfunctional mitochondria that is at the root. Avoiding sugar may slow or shrink tumors, but it does nothing to heal the underlying improperly functioning cells. Glucose is needed to build and repair DNA. If not found in the diet, the body will convert proteins into glucose.
Some highly visible proponents of this view are Georgi Dinkov and Jay Feldman who both follow the work of Ray Peat. Georgi particularly, is a fire hose of information. This video that touches on the topic: Sugar Doesn’t Cause Cancer | Georgi Dinkov. I've included some of the relevant notes I made a while back.
5:00 - Spontaneous regression with no treatment. No cancer cells, only extremely stressed cells with deranged metabolism. Incites structural changes and can't repair DNA = mutations.
6:00 - Restore OxPhos to get sufficient cell energy and cancer disappears.
28:40 - Energy deficiency drives the cancer.
37:40 - Proper cell function is proper glucose metabolization. Sugar does not feed cancer cells! Glucose is needed to build & repair DNA.
40:00 - Structural defects observed in cancer are not caused by the cancer. It is caused by lack of energy -- things not working are disassembled & recycled.
44:10 - Due to the Randle cycle, at any point in time, a cell can only oxidize either glucose or fatty acids (proteins are converted to glucose).
44:35 - Cellular stress releases cortisol and adrenaline. Cortisol shreds lean muscle, bone & skin (anything of amino acids). Adrenaline shreds fatty tissue releasing fat into the bloodstream.
45:50 - Leads to an excess of fat over glucose in bloodstream. Especially if restricting sugar! If not supplied, the body will get it from somewhere -- anything not composed of fat, i.e., cachexia.
48:25 - If the bloodstream is supplying mostly fat, the cell will oxidize mostly fat, blocking oxidization of glucose at PDH. Co-factors may not be enough to switch out of fat oxidization. Depletes NAD+, lowering NAD+/NADH ratio.
57:05 - Cancer cell is a metabolically deranged cell, over oxidizing fat at the expense of glucose, and creates excessive lactate.
It is a rather hopeful take on cancer, isn't it? Of course, at the point of decision how many are willing to ignore the fear pedaled by the mainstream and go with what makes sense? I hope I am, but can't really know.
The more people that dig into this stuff, and more we share in a fair and honest way, the stronger we will all become.
Yeah, the whole starving by withholding sugar is a distraction. Sure tumor growth depends of the very ineffective use of sugar, but that realization fails to consider why is the sugar there outside the mitochondria to begin with?
It's because the cancer cell, not the tumor cell, is locked into beta oxidation of fat. So going keto is like pouring gasoline on a fire. The tumor cell is trying to save your life by containing the toxic byproducts cells produce when they can't oxidize glucose.
I've not heard anything about this theory- can you give some cites of research demonstrating this?
I don't know of a theory, per se, nor of a single source that covers my claims. No doubt there is one, I just haven't stumbled over it yet. I suppose it can be summed up as a bioenergetic view of cancer, as opposed to genetic.
I would start with Otto Warburg's observation and writings from the 1920s. The Warburg Effect has to do with cancer cells' over reliance on aerobic glycolysis. In fact, scanning for the lactic acid output of this fermentation is the primary means of detecting cancer.
Glycolysis is always occurring: glucose is converted into pyruvate, which normally enters the mitochondria to be oxidized. But in cancer it doesn't. Instead, it piles up outside the mitochondria. Eventually the body converts it to lactic acid, which is either less harmful, or easier to get rid of. I don't know which, but even it piles up. I haven't read this, but I conjecture that tumor growth is the body's way of trying to encapsulate this harmful byproduct. The tumor is trying to save you! Puncturing it is a sure way of spreading cancer throughout the body.
Over simplification of the phenomenon has inverted its meaning such that the fermentation of sugar and its outcome is seen as the cause of cancer, when it is really a sign that the normal pathway is blocked for some reason. Instead of seeking that reason, the experts gaslight us with lucrative stories of genes, mutations, and even viruses while burying news of any actual toxic triggers for cancer.
The Warburg group concluded that if was the deprivation of glucose and oxygen that led to a lack of energy, resulting in cell death. Warburg hypothesized dysfunctional mitochondria as the cause of the higher rate of glycolysis seen in tumor cells, and the predominant cause of cancer development.
It wasn't until 1963 that biochemist Philip Randle described the glucose fatty-acid cycle, or Randle Cycle that the higher rate of glycolysis was explained: excessive fatty acid oxidation locks glucose out of the mitochondria. Sugar is not causing this, it is Warburg's dysfunctional mitochondria that is at the root. Avoiding sugar may slow or shrink tumors, but it does nothing to heal the underlying improperly functioning cells. Glucose is needed to build and repair DNA. If not found in the diet, the body will convert proteins into glucose.
Some highly visible proponents of this view are Georgi Dinkov and Jay Feldman who both follow the work of Ray Peat. Georgi particularly, is a fire hose of information. This video that touches on the topic: Sugar Doesn’t Cause Cancer | Georgi Dinkov. I've included some of the relevant notes I made a while back.
5:00 - Spontaneous regression with no treatment. No cancer cells, only extremely stressed cells with deranged metabolism. Incites structural changes and can't repair DNA = mutations.
6:00 - Restore OxPhos to get sufficient cell energy and cancer disappears.
28:40 - Energy deficiency drives the cancer.
37:40 - Proper cell function is proper glucose metabolization. Sugar does not feed cancer cells! Glucose is needed to build & repair DNA.
40:00 - Structural defects observed in cancer are not caused by the cancer. It is caused by lack of energy -- things not working are disassembled & recycled.
44:10 - Due to the Randle cycle, at any point in time, a cell can only oxidize either glucose or fatty acids (proteins are converted to glucose).
44:35 - Cellular stress releases cortisol and adrenaline. Cortisol shreds lean muscle, bone & skin (anything of amino acids). Adrenaline shreds fatty tissue releasing fat into the bloodstream.
45:50 - Leads to an excess of fat over glucose in bloodstream. Especially if restricting sugar! If not supplied, the body will get it from somewhere -- anything not composed of fat, i.e., cachexia.
48:25 - If the bloodstream is supplying mostly fat, the cell will oxidize mostly fat, blocking oxidization of glucose at PDH. Co-factors may not be enough to switch out of fat oxidization. Depletes NAD+, lowering NAD+/NADH ratio.
57:05 - Cancer cell is a metabolically deranged cell, over oxidizing fat at the expense of glucose, and creates excessive lactate.
Amazing information, ty for sharing. You had me at “the tumor is trying to save you!”
Edit: YT link since I couldn’t open Spotify link.
https://youtu.be/xXq4S2Dx_b8?
It is a rather hopeful take on cancer, isn't it? Of course, at the point of decision how many are willing to ignore the fear pedaled by the mainstream and go with what makes sense? I hope I am, but can't really know.
The more people that dig into this stuff, and more we share in a fair and honest way, the stronger we will all become.