Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Energy Deregulation:Licensing Tumors to Grow

Cancer is something that has been studied for years now and the information gathered from research is quite interesting. Cancer cells can invade other tissues and grow exponentially. There have been many theories about cancer accepted and eventually discredited. For example, the Warburg effect. This was the idea that cancer cells used glycolysis to produce energy; also that it went through both an anaerobic and aerobic process to produce energy.

Although this was discredited scientist are going back to this idea by Dr. Warburg. In order for cancer cells to proliferate they need a large some of energy. These cells do not need any signal permission to take up nutrients they are just auto sufficient. With the cause of these cancer cells proliferating being glycolysis energy blockers can be formed. One way to is to stop the process from beginning and another way is to let citrate build up which in turn blocks the begining stages of glycolysis; both causing apoptosis. They have used an experimental drug on a mouse that had a tumor on its back and after drug administration it disappearing.

This is interesting in two ways; if this proves to be more successful there will be no more need for Chemotherapy. Another reason why it is interesting is because this is more of a nutrition approach. What i mean is that scientist most definitely worked with nutritionist on how glucose and glycolysis are used for cellular energy. That being said in turn a cancer patients diet would problem have less glucose intake. It seems as if the battle between nutrition (natural foods) and modern medicine will always have their bouts; but for this current news in seems like a draw. Imagine the possibilities.

posted by Louis Dumas (1)


  1. Well now there are several medical techniques which can be helpful to control the chronic diseases like cancer but that does not mean that every technique can be used on patients, in terms to treat them. For instance, every proposed new idea has to go through and pass certain examinations from scientists and doctors. If they feel that this new proposed idea can be helpful and there are no risks then they allow the ideas like energy deregulation to work. But the one thing I am unable to understand is this that if this technique to treat cancer is useful and better than chemotherapy, are there any adverse reactions of this technique too? like chemotherapy?
    Posted by Ammar Zafar

  2. Well, nutrition is proved to be a serious part of the before and after scenarios of cancer patients and nutrition is an important part of cancer treatment. Eating the right kinds of foods during and after treatment can help you feel better and stay stronger. and the National Cancer Institute estimates that at least 35% of all cancers have a nutritional connection.

    Cleopatra Duque

  3. Louis, I find this study hugely interesting and as a great opportunity to finally fight cancer head on properly. Having several relatives who suffered with cancer, the thought of it is always on my mind. Finding a way to defeat this terrible disease definitely needs to be at the forefront of biological research, and I believe it is. I find it difficult to believe nobody has thought of this method before, as it seems fairly simple compared to other methods used to treat it. I am also really interested to find out if medicine and nutrition can truly work together to take down cancer. There are people who live and die by medicine, and others who live and die by nutrition. I know a man who refused to be treated medicinally for cancer, but stuck to his nutritional principles. Sadly, it was not working for him, and he had to forfeit his principles and look to medicine. I believe using both medicine and nutrition in a joint effort will open new doors in the search for the cure for cancer.

    Posted by Derek Melzar

  4. I am curious to see if this treatment is relevant to all types of cancers, since I can imagine that not all types behave equally. Some cancers are much more aggressive than others and, while this seems like a very possible way to kill cancer cells, I have a hard time believing that the cure to cancer is a simple as eating less glucose. I would think that the level of glucose necessary to kill cancer cells would cause other nutritional issues for the patient. Although chemotherapy certainly has its serious issues as well, so any progress in this field is a success in my opinion.

    Posted by Marlena Grasso

  5. It's very interesting that scientists discredited the idea that cancer cells use glycolysis to fuel their expansion and growth. This treatment would make cancer treatment much less invasive than chemotherapy. I wonder if this procedure could work for most cancers. Either way, its great to hear that there is just another possible cure for cancer. I find it strange that scientists did not discover this sooner considering glycolysis is the mode of energy production.

    Posted by Kevin McLaughlin

  6. Nutrition can play an amazing impact on the course that cancer can take. I have heard stories and read articles of people who change their diet to help fight cancer (and be successful) when typical treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation were not an option. I am not sure that this means chemotherapy will be obsolete because sometime cancer can be too aggressive or advanced. I believe that even if this research continues to provide more promising results, chemotherapy will be used simultaneously with diet change to keep risks low.

  7. I never understand why people always seek so tirelessly to make an ideological distinction between nutrition and modern medicine. No such distinction exists; nutrition is as much a part of modern medicine as pharmaceutical research and development. A study like this certainly could challenge many of the assumptions made by oncologists and scientists researching medical treatments for cancer, but not the enterprise of modern medicine itself.

    'Modern Medicine' refers to treatments that have been shown to be effective under controlled scientific conditions. 'Natural Medicine', as distinct from modern medicine, refers to those treatments that have not. Such criticisms may be seen as being shallow and pedantic, but proper communication is vital to the proper function of science. Being cognizant of use of terminology is a job of utmost importance for any scientist.

  8. I agree with all your posts. This is definitely a topic that we can discuss for a long time. However, this is a great step towards curing cancer and i believe nutrition and medicine should definitely work as a whole to advance further. To address some questions;Ammar, i am not sure if there are any adverse reactions but one could imagine that if the cancer cells werent correctly targeted then the normal cells would be in the cross-fire and that would not have a good outcome. Marlena; i think you have a point with this working with different types of cancer, but i believe if it did not fully destroy it would at least keep it in check for other means of therapy.

    Thanks for posting guys, all your points were interesting and entertaining.

    posted by Louis Dumas