Cancer as a Metabolic Disease - Journal Article

Those are the opening two paragraphs to our journal article.

As we’ve discussed, we’ve spent a LOT of money trying to figure cancer out. Since Nixon declared “war on cancer” two days before Christmas in 1971, we’ve spent $100 billion researching cancer and we currently spend over $100 billion every year on cancer medications. And, yet, we haven’t made a whole lot of progress since the war on cancer began.

I ask again: How is that possible?

Well, that leads us back to a discussion regarding the ORIGINS of cancer.

Is it genetic? This is what everyone in the traditional paradigm thinks (and have been thinking for the last 45+ years).

Or… Is the cause metabolic? That, of course, is the alternative view presented by Seyfried and Shelton.

And… Why should we care? Well, quite simply, if you (or your loved ones) are dealing with cancer, your lives depend on it. The theory of the origins of cancer determine the therapeutic approach. If you’re starting with the wrong theory regarding the origins of cancer, your approach won’t be too well-informed and therefore too effective, eh?

Hence, $100 billion + $100 billion = 0 improvement.

Which leads us to the goal of the paper.

The central theme of the paper is to establish the METABOLIC origin of cancer—establishing the fact this THIS is the primary *cause* of cancer, and that all the genetic mutations (and other hallmarks of cancer) are the downstream *effects* of metabolic dysfunction.

This is how you solve the riddle of the oncogenic paradox.

Cancer can be initiated by such a wide range of triggers (from viruses and radiation to inflammation and chemicals) because those things all damage cellular respiration. Once the metabolism is disrupted, things get weird.

(This is also why Nasha Winters says: “The genetic mutations considered by conventional medicine as the root causes of cancer are, in fact, modifiable by epigenetic factors. Indeed, it is well established that genetics is the cause of only 5-10 percent of cancers and most of these genes encode proteins that impact mitochondrial respiration. It is mitochondrial damage that causes cancer, not the genes. If the inherited cancer gene does not damage mitochondria, cancer will not occur.”)

Check out the journal article for a compelling overview of the linkages between energy metabolism and all the hallmarks of cancer (like uncontrolled growth, evasion of programmed cell death, and tissue invasion and metastasis).

Again, why does this matter? (I’m well aware of the fact that I’m repeating myself.)

Because, when we identify the origins of cancer as METABOLIC in nature (rather than genetic), we focus our therapeutic protocols on getting our energy metabolism back in order.

Might not sound like a big deal, but it is.

Here’s how they put it: “Is it genomic instability or is it impaired energy metabolism that is primarily responsible for the origin of cancer? This is more than an academic question, as the answer will impact approaches to cancer management and prevention. Metabolic studies in a variety of human cancers previously showed that loss of mitochondrial function preceded the appearance of malignancy and aerobic glycolysis [90]. However, the general view over the last 50 years has been that gene mutations and chromosomal abnormalities underlie most aspects of tumor initiation and progression including the Warburg effect and impaired respiratory function. The gene theory of cancer would argue that mitochondrial dysfunction is an effect rather than a cause of cancer, whereas the metabolic impairment theory would argue the reverse. If gene mutations are the primary cause of cancer then the disease can be considered etiologically complicated requiring multiple solutions for management and prevention. This comes from findings that the numbers and types of mutations differ markedly among and within different types of tumors. If, on the other hand, impaired energy metabolism is primarily responsible for cancer, then most cancers can be considered a type of metabolic disease requiring fewer and less complicated solutions.”

P.S. Seyfried provides the scientific framework for understanding the metabolic ORIGINS of cancer. Nasha Winters provides a comprehensive handbook (The Metabolic Approach to Cancer) on how to approach your therapy given the metabolic origins.

That’s some fascinating stuff. We talked about similar studies in Travis Christofferson’s Tripping over the Truth where Travis describes studies done on “recon” cells. See those Notes for more.

Short story: Take a cancerous nucleus. Drop it into an otherwise healthy cell—replacing the healthy nucleus with the cancerous nucleus. What happens? If you believe in the gene theory, you’d expect the cell to become cancerous. But it doesn’t.

Now, take a cancerous cytoplasm. Drop it into an otherwise healthy cell—keeping the nucleus healthy. What happens? If you believe in the gene theory, nothing should happen. Yet… That’s not what happens. With cancerous cytoplasm, the cell tends to become cancerous.

Whether we’re talking about “recons” or “cybrids,” that’s a win for the metabolic theory.

Let’s shine a spotlight on this: “The accumulation of mitochondrial damage over time is what ultimately leads to malignant tumor formation.”

Recognizing the origin of cancer as the repeated damage to mitochondria, we step back and treat, as Nasha Winters says, the TERRAIN rather than just focus on the tumor.

She says: “Comprehending the complexities of the individuals’ biological terrain is akin to a gardener understanding the ideal conditions for growing vegetables. A successful gardener knows that it takes more than a piece of land and a packet of seeds to grow a bountiful harvest. It requires knowledge of soil biochemistry, the planting requirements of all the various types of seeds, proper balance of nutrients, fertilizing agents, and the right amount of water and sunlight. It also requires insight into how pests, insects, weeds, molds, and fungi impact the soil or plants. The ten terrain elements we’ve identified are like systems within that garden. Regulating a healthy human biological terrain is similar to raising a healthy, thriving garden. When the body is fed a diet that provides adequate amounts of macro- and micronutrients, vitamins, and minerals; is exposed to a variety of microbes; and has adequate amounts of exercise, sleep, fresh water, sunlight, love, and attention; then the body, like a healthy garden, will flourish. Conversely, if it is fed antinutrients and chemicals, receives insufficient sunshine, and endures too much stress, it will wither.

So the key is this: Since cancer consists of cells gone awry in response to toxic diets and environments, we must optimize the body’s healing mechanisms instead of waging war on them. We need to treat the terrain, not the tumor. We must build the body up instead of attacking it. Our strategy works: The only side effect of the metabolic approach is feeling better. Much better. In fact, for over a decade, Dr. Nasha has seen hundreds of Stage IV cancer patients who have lived far beyond their ‘expiration date’ because they have followed this model. As we will explain, each terrain element is optimized using the oldest form of medicine: food. It sounds simple, yet in the modern world of medicine, it’s about as radical and ‘unfounded’ as it can be.”

Now for the core part of Seyfried and Shelton’s therapeutic intervention:

As we’ve discussed, and as Seyfried and Shelton painstakingly document, cancer cells preferentially create energy via the fermentation of sugar. (That’s the essential aspect of their damaged metabolism.)

This is known as the Warburg Effect. And, it’s why PET scans—which show hot spots of glucose metabolism—are used to detect metastasis. (It’s also the essence of our UPS driver’s wisdom: “Cancer loves sugar!”)

Seyfried and Shelton tell us (in precise science-speak) that we need to switch from using glucose as our primary fuel to ketones. We’ll talk about it more in our Notes on Miriam Kalamian’s Keto for Cancer but this is EXACTLY what we’re doing with my brother: lowering glucose while raising ketones.

(In fact, Miriam is my brother’s day-to-day nutritional consultant. Seyfried wrote the foreword to her book. She has us regularly (as in throughout the day) measuring glucose and ketone levels is a core part of our metabolic approach.)

Here’s the good news: Cancer has an Achilles heel. It burns through sugar at an alarming rate but, when you cut off that supply line, you are able to exploit its metabolic inflexibility. The cancer cells are so damaged that, basically, they can ONLY use glucose for fuel whereas healthy cells are metabolically flexible and can use either glucose or ketones. More on that soon.

Note: My brother got a PET scan yesterday. We’ll learn more about the results this week. Again, PET scans show hot spots of glucose metabolism. One of the metaphors we’ve used to describe our approach is to “flip the switches OFF!” Make it all go dark by lowering glucose and raising ketones. Longer chat but on that note, I’m THRILLED that Rick’s glucose went from 145+ (diabetic) the day he was admitted to the hospital to 93 (normal) in a little over 5 weeks with no medications, etc. (And, it’s even lower now.)

Those are the last words of the journal article. More than anything, I hope I inspired you to go get the article, print it out, find a quiet place to work out your brain, and gain a deeper understanding about the metabolic origins and therapies of cancer.

Let’s live on the long tail and change the conversation on cancer. Love to you and your family!