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

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.