4 ms·

According to Thomas Seyfried, cancer is indeed one disease, fundamentally a metabolic disease [0]. Seyfried's theory suggests that cancer stems from mitochondri

According to Thomas Seyfried, cancer is indeed one disease, fundamentally a metabolic disease [0]. Seyfried's theory suggests that cancer stems from mitochondrial dysfunction, which disrupts cellular metabolism and leads to abnormal cell growth. He argues that the root cause of cancer is not genetic mutations, as commonly believed, but rather metabolic disturbances that alter how cells process energy. Basically returning the damaged cells to "old pathways" of energy generation, without oxygen: fermentation. This process, known as the Warburg Effect (named after Otto Warburg who first described it in the 1920s), shows that cancer cells primarily rely on fermentation for energy production even in the presence of oxygen - a phenomenon called "aerobic glycolysis." However, glucose fermentation is only part of the story. Cancer cells also heavily depend on glutamine, an amino acid that serves as another crucial fuel source. Through a process called glutaminolysis, cancer cells convert glutamine into both energy and building blocks for rapid cell division. This dual dependency on glucose and glutamine makes cancer cells metabolically distinct from normal cells. This metabolic theory challenges the traditional somatic mutation theory, which views cancer as a result of DNA mutations accumulating in cells. Seyfried proposes that targeting the metabolism of cancer cells—primarily through dietary interventions like ketogenic diets or therapies that restrict glucose—could effectively "starve" cancer cells while leaving healthy cells less affected. His approach implies that a general strategy for treating cancer could involve targeting this metabolic vulnerability shared across many cancer types. Furthermore, this theory suggests that combination approaches targeting both glucose and glutamine metabolism might be particularly effective, as they would address both major fuel sources that cancer cells rely on. This could include strategies such as ketogenic diets (to restrict glucose), glutamine inhibitors, and other metabolic therapies that work together to compromise cancer cell energy production while preserving normal cell function. 0: https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-7075-7-7 https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10...

sausagefeet 2y ago
Thomas Seyfried is a bit of a quack. He believes a keto diet beats chemo for almost all cancers. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-hype-versus-science/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-... > Seyfried, in my readings, appears all too often to speak of “cancer” as if it were a monolithic single disease. As I’ve pointed out many times before, it’s not. Indeed, only approximately 60-90% of cancers demonstrate the Warburg effect. > Dr. Seyfried presents mouse studies that are interesting and suggestive that there might be something to this whole ketogenic diet thing, at least in brain tumors, such as this one. However, this is what we in the oncology biz would call pretty preliminary data, worthy of further investigation but not supporting the grandiose claims that Dr. Seyfried makes. > Irritatingly, during the same talk, Dr. Seyfried refers to having done a “biopsy” on the GBM when the case report clearly says that the patient underwent a partial excision of the temporal pole with incomplete debulking of the tumor, which is a different thing. > ... > He also heaps scorn on the hospital for insisting that the patient undergo standard of care therapy, clearly demonstrating that he has no understanding of clinical trial ethics. > This brings me back to the question of whether cancer is a metabolic disease or a genetic disease, the answer to which I promised early on. The likely answer? It’s both! Indeed, a “chicken or the egg” argument continues about whether it is the metabolic abnormalities that cause the mutations observed in cancer cells or whether it is the mutations that produce the metabolic abnormalities. Most likely, it’s a little of both, the exact proportion of which depending upon the tumor cell, that combine in an unholy synergistic circle to drive cancer cells to be more and more abnormal and aggressive. Moreover, cancer is about far more than just the genomics or the metabolism of cancer cells. It’s also the immune system and the tumor microenvironment (the cells and connective tissue in which tumors arise and grow). As I’ve said time and time and time again, cancer is complicated, real complicated. The relative contributions of genetic mutations, metabolic derangements, immune cell dysfunction, and influences of the microenvironment are likely to vary depending upon the type of tumor and, as a consequence, require different treatments. In the end, as with many hyped cancer cures, the ketogenic diet might be helpful for some tumors and almost certainly won’t be helpful for others. Dr. Seyfried might be on to something, but he’s gone a bit off the deep end in apparently thinking that he’s found out something about cancer that no one else takes seriously—or has even thought of before.
- mromanuk 2y ago
  BTW, saying that someone "is a bit of a quack" is an ad hominem fallacy. The article linked talks about the "keto" part of the protocol, it does not discuss the glutamine portion of the treatment. I'm not sure who is right, but I would love to see, someone debunking it with data. Protocol: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-019-0455-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-019-0455-x
  - sausagefeet 2y ago
    No it is not. If you want to consider informal logical fallacies, it is closest to "poisoning the well", as I am tarnishing his name in an effort to make you not believe is claims. I am not saying he is wrong because he is a quack, I am saying he is a quack, and here is an article going into why he is wrong. > but I would love to see, someone debunking it with data The problem is Seyfried doesn't have data. His science is bad and extrapolating from marginal results. Some parts of these ideas might pan out, but all I've seen indicates he's made this his hobby horse is riding it.
  - Calavar 2y ago
    Speaking of fallacies, dismissing an argument because you found a single fallacy within it without addressing the main substance of the argument is known as the fallacy fallacy. There is a lot chew on in that comment and that article beyond "a bit of a quack"
    - nwienert 2y ago
      Speaking of the fallacy fallacy, calling out someone for calling out someone for a fallacy using the fallacy fallacy is the fallacy fallacy fallacy — as an initial fallacious fumble may indeed foretell further fallacious findings in a given figure.
      - TZubiri 2y ago
        I know it's a joke. But he just named the phenomenon, not discredited the whole argument. Edit: so you commited a faux meta fallacy
robertlagrant 2y ago
It's true that that theory would combine things, but it's just a theory, and I don't know how evidence based it is.
atombender 2y ago
One heuristic I like is a kind of reverse Occam's Razor: When no clear solution doesn't emerge even after a huge amount of searching, it's probably because the problem actually is complex, not because it's simple. For example, maybe cancer does have a single unifying cause that can be fixed very easily. But the millions of hours put into studying it suggests otherwise. This seems to be generally true about most things. Only very rarely do we get something super simple like goiter being caused by the lack of iodine, or stomach ulcers being caused by H. pylori.
- mromanuk 2y ago
  Interesting point, though I think we should also consider that our ability to understand diseases like cancer has historically been limited by the observational and analytical technology available. For example, it was recently suggested that Alzheimer’s might be linked to Candida albicans, a fungus that naturally inhabits our bodies but could play a role in the disease. Just as it took time to discover that iodine deficiency causes goiter or that H. pylori produces ulcers, the complexity of cancer might partly stem from the fact that we don’t yet have the necessary technology to closely observe the cells and underlying mechanisms. It’s not necessarily the inherent complexity of the problem but our technological limitations that delay understanding—and possibly a cure.
  - atombender 2y ago
    The Candida link is interesting but not proven — so in that sense it's equivalent to your cancer guy. The other discoveries predate a lot of advanced medical technology, though. They were the low-hanging fruit in that sense. The only semi-recent discovery I can think of is that the Epstein-Barr virus causes cancer, though that does not necessarily qualify as "simple". EBV is also implicated in MS. EBV could ultimately be one of those "unifiers" that could explain multiple diseases.

sausagefeet 2y ago

Thomas Seyfried is a bit of a quack. He believes a keto diet beats chemo for almost all cancers. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-hype-versus-science/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-... > Seyfried, in my readings, appears all too often to speak of “cancer” as if it were a monolithic single disease. As I’ve pointed out many times before, it’s not. Indeed, only approximately 60-90% of cancers demonstrate the Warburg effect. > Dr. Seyfried presents mouse studies that are interesting and suggestive that there might be something to this whole ketogenic diet thing, at least in brain tumors, such as this one. However, this is what we in the oncology biz would call pretty preliminary data, worthy of further investigation but not supporting the grandiose claims that Dr. Seyfried makes. > Irritatingly, during the same talk, Dr. Seyfried refers to having done a “biopsy” on the GBM when the case report clearly says that the patient underwent a partial excision of the temporal pole with incomplete debulking of the tumor, which is a different thing. > ... > He also heaps scorn on the hospital for insisting that the patient undergo standard of care therapy, clearly demonstrating that he has no understanding of clinical trial ethics. > This brings me back to the question of whether cancer is a metabolic disease or a genetic disease, the answer to which I promised early on. The likely answer? It’s both! Indeed, a “chicken or the egg” argument continues about whether it is the metabolic abnormalities that cause the mutations observed in cancer cells or whether it is the mutations that produce the metabolic abnormalities. Most likely, it’s a little of both, the exact proportion of which depending upon the tumor cell, that combine in an unholy synergistic circle to drive cancer cells to be more and more abnormal and aggressive. Moreover, cancer is about far more than just the genomics or the metabolism of cancer cells. It’s also the immune system and the tumor microenvironment (the cells and connective tissue in which tumors arise and grow). As I’ve said time and time and time again, cancer is complicated, real complicated. The relative contributions of genetic mutations, metabolic derangements, immune cell dysfunction, and influences of the microenvironment are likely to vary depending upon the type of tumor and, as a consequence, require different treatments. In the end, as with many hyped cancer cures, the ketogenic diet might be helpful for some tumors and almost certainly won’t be helpful for others. Dr. Seyfried might be on to something, but he’s gone a bit off the deep end in apparently thinking that he’s found out something about cancer that no one else takes seriously—or has even thought of before.

mromanuk 2y ago
BTW, saying that someone "is a bit of a quack" is an ad hominem fallacy. The article linked talks about the "keto" part of the protocol, it does not discuss the glutamine portion of the treatment. I'm not sure who is right, but I would love to see, someone debunking it with data. Protocol: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-019-0455-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-019-0455-x
- sausagefeet 2y ago
  No it is not. If you want to consider informal logical fallacies, it is closest to "poisoning the well", as I am tarnishing his name in an effort to make you not believe is claims. I am not saying he is wrong because he is a quack, I am saying he is a quack, and here is an article going into why he is wrong. > but I would love to see, someone debunking it with data The problem is Seyfried doesn't have data. His science is bad and extrapolating from marginal results. Some parts of these ideas might pan out, but all I've seen indicates he's made this his hobby horse is riding it.
- Calavar 2y ago
  Speaking of fallacies, dismissing an argument because you found a single fallacy within it without addressing the main substance of the argument is known as the fallacy fallacy. There is a lot chew on in that comment and that article beyond "a bit of a quack"
  - nwienert 2y ago
    Speaking of the fallacy fallacy, calling out someone for calling out someone for a fallacy using the fallacy fallacy is the fallacy fallacy fallacy — as an initial fallacious fumble may indeed foretell further fallacious findings in a given figure.
    - TZubiri 2y ago
      I know it's a joke. But he just named the phenomenon, not discredited the whole argument. Edit: so you commited a faux meta fallacy

robertlagrant 2y ago

It's true that that theory would combine things, but it's just a theory, and I don't know how evidence based it is.

atombender 2y ago

One heuristic I like is a kind of reverse Occam's Razor: When no clear solution doesn't emerge even after a huge amount of searching, it's probably because the problem actually is complex, not because it's simple. For example, maybe cancer does have a single unifying cause that can be fixed very easily. But the millions of hours put into studying it suggests otherwise. This seems to be generally true about most things. Only very rarely do we get something super simple like goiter being caused by the lack of iodine, or stomach ulcers being caused by H. pylori.

mromanuk 2y ago
Interesting point, though I think we should also consider that our ability to understand diseases like cancer has historically been limited by the observational and analytical technology available. For example, it was recently suggested that Alzheimer’s might be linked to Candida albicans, a fungus that naturally inhabits our bodies but could play a role in the disease. Just as it took time to discover that iodine deficiency causes goiter or that H. pylori produces ulcers, the complexity of cancer might partly stem from the fact that we don’t yet have the necessary technology to closely observe the cells and underlying mechanisms. It’s not necessarily the inherent complexity of the problem but our technological limitations that delay understanding—and possibly a cure.
- atombender 2y ago
  The Candida link is interesting but not proven — so in that sense it's equivalent to your cancer guy. The other discoveries predate a lot of advanced medical technology, though. They were the low-hanging fruit in that sense. The only semi-recent discovery I can think of is that the Epstein-Barr virus causes cancer, though that does not necessarily qualify as "simple". EBV is also implicated in MS. EBV could ultimately be one of those "unifiers" that could explain multiple diseases.