- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
I was unaware of the metabolic approach to treating/curing cancer until now.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 12:50 pm
Posted on 3/17/23 at 12:50 pm
This interview with Dr. Thomas Seyfried describes the approach to fighting cancer via the metabolic approach.
LINK
The doctor's (not MD, PhD) background:
His book describing the metabolic approach:
Bottom line:
Cancer cells need two molecules for fuel: glucose and/or glutamine.
Normal cells get there fuel from two molecules also: glucose and ketones.
Both cells use glucose first when available. After glucose is gone cancer cells resort to glutamine and normal cells resort to ketones.
The metabolic approach starves cancer cells of glucose and glutamine by placing the patient on a ketogenic diet and medicating the patient with 6-Diazo-5-oxo-L-norleucine (aka, DON). DON blocks cancer cell uptake of glutamine.
So with glucose and glutamine gone the cancer cells starve. The patient normal cells live off of ketones.
It sounds like an incredibly difficult road to take in terms of staying strong on the keto diet but when facing death from cancer the alterative is a big incentive to stay strong.
FWIW, my mom died of breast cancer in 2014. If she knew about this approach I know she would have had great success (b/c other than breast cancer she was incredibly healthy and disciplined) and would probably still be here today. She just did not have the knowledge.
LINK
The doctor's (not MD, PhD) background:
quote:
Thomas N. Seyfried is Professor of Biology at Boston College, and received his Ph.D. in Genetics and Biochemistry.
He has over 200 peer-reviewed publications and is author of the book, Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer.
His book describing the metabolic approach:
Bottom line:
Cancer cells need two molecules for fuel: glucose and/or glutamine.
Normal cells get there fuel from two molecules also: glucose and ketones.
Both cells use glucose first when available. After glucose is gone cancer cells resort to glutamine and normal cells resort to ketones.
The metabolic approach starves cancer cells of glucose and glutamine by placing the patient on a ketogenic diet and medicating the patient with 6-Diazo-5-oxo-L-norleucine (aka, DON). DON blocks cancer cell uptake of glutamine.
So with glucose and glutamine gone the cancer cells starve. The patient normal cells live off of ketones.
It sounds like an incredibly difficult road to take in terms of staying strong on the keto diet but when facing death from cancer the alterative is a big incentive to stay strong.
FWIW, my mom died of breast cancer in 2014. If she knew about this approach I know she would have had great success (b/c other than breast cancer she was incredibly healthy and disciplined) and would probably still be here today. She just did not have the knowledge.
This post was edited on 3/17/23 at 12:53 pm
23
Posted on 3/17/23 at 12:53 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Cancer cells need two molecules for fuel: glucose and/or glutamine.
You cannot generalize cancer into 1 disease. That is why there will never be a single cure for cancer.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 12:55 pm to guedeaux
quote:
You cannot generalize cancer into 1 disease. That is why there will never be a single cure for cancer.
That is the genetic approach, not the metabolic approach.
Phenotypically cancers are different. Metabolically they fuel themself off of two molecules, glucose and glutamine.
Remove those two molecules and they starve.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 12:56 pm to guedeaux
quote:
You cannot generalize cancer into 1 disease. That is why there will never be a single cure for cancer.
Correct. My Mom utilized a similar diet while going through chemo. It was the chemo and radiation that her body couldn’t handle.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 12:57 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
My Mom utilized a similar diet while going through chemo. It was the chemo and radiation that her body couldn’t handle.
Was she taking DON?
ETA: I ask because if the glutamine was not getting blocked the cancer would continue thrive despite being in ketosis.
This post was edited on 3/17/23 at 1:00 pm
Posted on 3/17/23 at 1:01 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Was she taking DON?
No. But was on several medications including oral chemo. Then had radiation for METs on her brain. When her cancer was discovered, it was already in her spleen, stomach, bone in her lower legs and hips.
It was everywhere. There was no “starving” it.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 1:04 pm to GumboPot
Metabolism is just one avenue in investigating cancer and other diseases.
The big push nowadays is in immunotherapy, which is >>>>>>>>>> metabolism
The big push nowadays is in immunotherapy, which is >>>>>>>>>> metabolism
Posted on 3/17/23 at 1:08 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
No. But was on several medications including oral chemo. Then had radiation for METs on her brain. When her cancer was discovered, it was already in her spleen, stomach, bone in her lower legs and hips.
It was everywhere. There was no “starving” it.
In no way am I questioning what should or should not have been done in your mom's case. I struggle with regents ALL the time with my mom's death from breast cancer.
In the YouTube video interview the professor does make the point that using the standard of care (radiation and chemo) does lower or slow the success of the metabolic approach. Why? The standard of care damages and kills normal cells making it easier for the cancer cells to compete with the normal cells and weakens the patient.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 1:10 pm to Northwestern tiger
quote:
immunotherapy
Didn't do shite for my neighbor.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 1:12 pm to deeprig9
quote:
Didn't do shite for my neighbor.
My chemo is targeted, more of an immunotherapy.
Its working very well. Just depends on the type of cancer.
This post was edited on 3/17/23 at 1:13 pm
Posted on 3/17/23 at 1:14 pm to deeprig9
quote:
Didn't do shite for my neighbor.
Well that solves it then.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 1:14 pm to Northwestern tiger
quote:
The big push nowadays is in immunotherapy, which is >>>>>>>>>> metabolism
No one has done big studies using the metabolic approach to make this assertion.
If the metabolic approach is used, it is used in an incomplete manner with standard of care. Oncologist will not move from the standard of care.
The success seen with the metabolic approach is shown in mice, dogs and many patient anecdotal cases outside of standard of care clinical environments.
This post was edited on 3/17/23 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 3/17/23 at 1:15 pm to GumboPot
222mg Panacur every day is the cure fo cancer. No need to thank me.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 1:15 pm to GumboPot
quote:
In no way am I questioning what should or should not have been done in your mom's case. I struggle with regents ALL the time with my mom's death from breast cancer. In the YouTube video interview the professor does make the point that using the standard of care (radiation and chemo) does lower or slow the success of the metabolic approach.
Why? The standard of care damages and kills normal cells making it easier for the cancer cells to compete with the normal cells and weakens the patient.
That’s great. My Mom’s case was terminal and ended up being a more aggressive strain of breast cancer. When we discussed other options with her Oncologist (who was very receptive to doing what we could), it was too aggressive for a metabolic approach.
They did enter her in a trial for potential mRNA tech with Moderna but she passed before she could participate.
The larger point is, metabolic treatment isn’t a catch all for all types of cancer. Even breast cancer.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 1:18 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
it was too aggressive for a metabolic approach.
If he didn't talk about medicating with DON the metabolic approach is worthless.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 1:20 pm to GumboPot
I am leery of doctors who publish books. I always wonder if they push certain theories just to sell more books.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 1:20 pm to GumboPot
quote:
If he didn't talk about medicating with DON the metabolic approach is worthless.
So what is your expertise in this field?
My Mom’s oncologist is one of the highest rated oncologists in our region. And up on the newest treatments (she also utilize some experimental treatments that insurance didn’t cover).
Posted on 3/17/23 at 1:24 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
So what is your expertise in this field?
He watched a YouTube video so he’s pretty much an expert now.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 1:24 pm to guedeaux
quote:
You cannot generalize cancer into 1 disease. That is why there will never be a single cure for cancer.
And "big pharma" is the reason there will never (allegedly) be any cure for cancer.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 1:26 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
So what is your expertise in this field?
I have no expertise in this field. The title of the thread should have given you that information.
quote:
My Mom’s oncologist is one of the highest rated oncologists in our region. And up on the newest treatments (she also utilize some experimental treatments that insurance didn’t cover).
Just uses simple logic. Cancer needs glucose and glutamine. Do not provide it glucose and glutamine.
Page 1 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News