You've been told cancer is a genetic disease.
But what if everything you know about cancer is wrong?
Dr. Thomas Seyfried's groundbreaking research shows cancer might actually be a metabolic disease.
Here's why this changes everything:
For over 50 years, we've fought cancer by targeting mutations.
Yet cancer deaths remain staggeringly high—1,670 Americans die from cancer every day.
But in 2012, Dr. Seyfried challenged everything with his book "Cancer as a Metabolic Disease."
Let's explore why this matters:
Most doctors treat cancer by targeting genetic mutations.
But Seyfried found something fascinating:
You can transfer cancer cells into healthy cells by simply transferring damaged mitochondria. This suggests cancer isn't primarily about DNA—it's about energy metabolism.
This builds on Otto Warburg's Nobel Prize-winning discovery from 1931:
Cancer cells have a weird way of making energy.
They ferment glucose even when oxygen is present (the Warburg Effect).
But why was this crucial insight ignored for decades?
Seyfried's research shows that damaged mitochondria—our cellular power plants—drive cancer growth.
When mitochondria break down, cells switch to primitive energy production through fermentation.
This creates the perfect environment for cancer to thrive.
Here's where it gets interesting: If cancer is a metabolic disease, we might be able to fight it by targeting its fuel source.
Cancer cells are glucose-hungry monsters.
They need massive amounts of sugar and glutamine to survive.
This leads to Seyfried's treatment approach:
1. Press on Cancer's Metabolic Weak Spot
Cancer cells can't efficiently use ketones for fuel.
This creates a hostile environment for cancer cells.
2. Timing Matters
Seyfried's research shows that:
- Therapeutic fasting can enhance traditional treatments
- Cancer cells are most vulnerable during specific metabolic windows
- Treatment effectiveness increases when timed with natural circadian rhythms
These factors work together to support healthy metabolism.
4. The Controversy
Why isn't this mainstream? Because it challenges:
- Traditional treatment protocols
- Billion-dollar cancer drug industry
- Decades of genetic-focused research
But evidence supporting metabolic theory keeps growing.
Think about this: If Seyfried is right, we've spent billions targeting the wrong thing.
Cancer cells don't just have genetic mutations—they have broken metabolism.
Understanding this could revolutionize treatment.
The implications are huge. It suggests:
- Treatment could be less toxic
- Prevention could be more straightforward
- Cancer might be more manageable than we thought
Years ago, I met a man in his 50s who did metabolic ketosis during chemotherapy, and doctors were surprised with the progress he made with cancer treatment.
(Short chemo and remission).
Professor Peter Attia mentioned metabolic ketosis and the success of cancer treatment.
We cannot deny that optimising metabolism is central to disease prevention and cure, including cancer.
A low-carb diet, exercise, quality sleep, hydration and stress management are easy wins!
I am confident that by optimising my metabolic health, I have more power to influence my genes positively.
Thanks, Dr Thomas N. Seyfried @tnseyfried, for your in-depth insights on the subject.
@tnseyfried Follow me @dr_sumit_sharma for more actionable health tips.
Thank you for reading. Please retweet it to help others.