4 ms·

This method is attacking the Warburg effect - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect_(oncology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect_(oncology) an

by canucker2016 4y ago

This method is attacking the Warburg effect - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect_(oncology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect_(oncology) and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26778478/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26778478/ Some cancers are glucose-sensitive which use glucose to grow. Some cancer patients go on a keto diet instead of/as well as aerobic activity (a keto diet is probably better tolerated than lots of aerobic activity for many cancer patients). from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180126095312.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180126095312.h... This dependency on sugar distinguishes cancer cells from normal cells and is often used as a treatment option to kill cancer cells. In reality, the results have not been encouraging. Not all cancer cell types are sensitive to the removal of sugar, and even for the cancers that are sensitive, sugar depletion only slows down the rate of cancer progression. The pathways that sensitise cancer cells to sugar deprivation remains poorly understood.

nradov 4y ago
Low carbohydrate diets may be a good option to improve general health for many people, however they haven't generally proven effective as cancer treatments. The clinical trials have been disappointing.
- canucker2016 4y ago
  That's probably why the article says the reduction of metastatic cancer is only 72% versus 100%.
- jcims 4y ago
  >proven effective as cancer treatments When you're in the midst of trying to find your way through a cancer diagnosis, this statement can be incredibly frustrating. It basically turns into a cop out that medical providers use to wave off any discussion or exploration of a topic. And even if it's been proven to be effective, there's some way to slice your specific case such that it wasn't tested in the trial. Oh, you're BRCA positive? Somatic? Platinum resistant? Recurrent? Have or have not undergone this very specific therapy? Well, the trial didn't cover you so its not proven. I totally understand why, few doctors would likely want to talk about phase of the moon or rubbing crystals...but in the context of cancer treatment, the lack of any clear guidance or recommendation about diet beyond basic USDA recommendations is maddening.
adamredwoods 4y ago
Cancer needs fuel, it is after all a patient's cell gone rogue. A patient could starve themselves and the cancer would stop growing-- but so would all the other cells. My personal discussions with trained professionals is that patients should eat what they need to stay healthy and content. BTW-- Derek Lowe discusses some of this and how cold temperature / brown-fat could be researched to find usefulness to slow cancer: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/cancer-cold https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/cancer-cold >> And like any notable differences between tumor cells and regular ones, there have been attempts to exploit this metabolic change for cancer therapy, but that's been difficult to realize. It can be tricky to throw a wrench into glycolysis without messing up energy homeostasis in general, for one thing, and some of the more indirect attempts have not had clinical success. As that last linked paper outlines, even the reasons behind the Warburg effect are not completely clear - the low-oxygen story makes sense, sure, but there are tumors that don't seem to be oxygen-deprived that also show it.

nradov 4y ago

Low carbohydrate diets may be a good option to improve general health for many people, however they haven't generally proven effective as cancer treatments. The clinical trials have been disappointing.

canucker2016 4y ago
That's probably why the article says the reduction of metastatic cancer is only 72% versus 100%.
jcims 4y ago
>proven effective as cancer treatments When you're in the midst of trying to find your way through a cancer diagnosis, this statement can be incredibly frustrating. It basically turns into a cop out that medical providers use to wave off any discussion or exploration of a topic. And even if it's been proven to be effective, there's some way to slice your specific case such that it wasn't tested in the trial. Oh, you're BRCA positive? Somatic? Platinum resistant? Recurrent? Have or have not undergone this very specific therapy? Well, the trial didn't cover you so its not proven. I totally understand why, few doctors would likely want to talk about phase of the moon or rubbing crystals...but in the context of cancer treatment, the lack of any clear guidance or recommendation about diet beyond basic USDA recommendations is maddening.

adamredwoods 4y ago

Cancer needs fuel, it is after all a patient's cell gone rogue. A patient could starve themselves and the cancer would stop growing-- but so would all the other cells. My personal discussions with trained professionals is that patients should eat what they need to stay healthy and content. BTW-- Derek Lowe discusses some of this and how cold temperature / brown-fat could be researched to find usefulness to slow cancer: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/cancer-cold https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/cancer-cold >> And like any notable differences between tumor cells and regular ones, there have been attempts to exploit this metabolic change for cancer therapy, but that's been difficult to realize. It can be tricky to throw a wrench into glycolysis without messing up energy homeostasis in general, for one thing, and some of the more indirect attempts have not had clinical success. As that last linked paper outlines, even the reasons behind the Warburg effect are not completely clear - the low-oxygen story makes sense, sure, but there are tumors that don't seem to be oxygen-deprived that also show it.