Somatic Vs Metabolic Theories

I’ve found a promising approach to address my cancer, and it’s not just about my journey to recovery; I’m convinced it could revolutionize how we help others, too. I’m fully committed to metabolic treatment, which blends a dedicated Ketogenic diet with sessions in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber (HBOT) and a glutamine inhibitor drug. Lab studies have shown strong signs that this combination might be our answer to defeating cancer. But here’s the thing: it’s high time more people tested it out in the real world. It showed success in the lab, animal studies, and one other human brave enough to try. – I’m next, with your help!

This isn’t just a shot in the dark; it’s a calculated leap towards a brighter future. By diving into this headfirst, I aim to heal myself and pave the way for countless others. Let’s make a difference, read more about the difference between the two theories below.

The somatic mutation theory of cancer suggests that the accumulation of genetic mutations in somatic cells, caused by factors like radiation, carcinogens, replication errors, and bad luck leads to the uncontrollable growth and division of cells. These uncontrollable growing cells are what we call cancer. This theory focuses on changes in the nuclear DNA, emphasizing mutations in oncogenes and tumour suppressor genes. This theory has yet to be proven but has been the leading theory for almost 100 years. We have spent billions and billions and have hardly made a dent in the mystery that is cancer, and even after mapping the human genome we still are no closer to a cure, let alone an understanding of its origin.

In contrast, the mitochondrial metabolic theory of cancer, influenced by the observations of Otto Warburg, suggests that disruptions in cellular respiration within the mitochondria are central to cancer development. According to Otto, defects in mitochondrial metabolism lead to increased fermentation, even in the presence of oxygen (the Warburg effect), shifting the cell’s metabolic processes which contribute to malignant transformation. While the somatic mutation theory emphasizes genetic changes as the primary driver, the mitochondrial metabolic theory emphasizes metabolic alterations in the cell’s energy production pathways. Otto Warburg was a pioneer in Cancer research, friends with Albert Einstein and by all measures of success has provided foundational knowledge that continues to guide cancer research to this very day.

Otto Heinrich Warburg (1883-1970) was a German physiologist, medical doctor, and Nobel laureate renowned for his extensive research on the respiration of cells, particularly in relation to cancer. His most significant contribution to the field was the discovery of the nature and mode of action of the respiratory enzyme, a feat for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1931. This groundbreaking work paved the way for further understanding of the complex biochemistry of cellular respiration.

Warburg’s work delved into the metabolic differences between normal cells and cancer cells. He proposed the hypothesis, now known as the “Warburg effect”, which observed that even in the presence of oxygen, cancer cells tend to ferment glucose into lactate. This phenomenon contrasts with the typical process in healthy cells, where glucose is oxidized via the tricarboxylic acid cycle (a crucial metabolic pathway) when oxygen is present. This shift in metabolism, according to Warburg, was a fundamental cause of cancer. Otto was truly a complex man. He was a gay, Jewish, narcissist living in Germany during the 1st World War. I can’t fathom a worse combination for the time, and believe that if he hadn’t been such a valued contributor to science he would certainly have not survived. For more about Otto Warburg check out this book by Sam Apple: Ravenous: Otto Warburg, the Nazis, and the Search for the Cancer-Diet Connection. For a summary, you can find a great podcast episode with Sam and Peter Attia on The Drive. If you prefer documentaries consider watching the award-winning CanceRevolution Film or indulge in the paper or audio version of Travis Christofferson’s Tripping over the Truth.

While the idea that altered metabolism is the primary cause of cancer is still very much a valid theory it eventually fell to the wayside in lieu of what our current belief is (Somatic Theory). This happened slowly over time as the scientific community rebuilt post World War 2 and new discoveries that seemingly lent weight to the Somatic Theory came into play. But to this day, they are both just theories – One of them proposed by one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century.

In the years that followed, Warburg’s discoveries stirred up much debate and prompted a new wave of investigations into the metabolic nature of cancer. While his assertions about the primacy of metabolic changes as a root cause of cancer were ultimately hushed by the growing belief that the disease is genetic, the significance of his findings cannot be understated. Today, metabolic pathways remain a focal point of cancer research, with the Warburg effect influencing both diagnostic techniques and therapeutic developments. Otto Warburg’s legacy is thus firmly entrenched in the annals of medical science, providing foundational knowledge that continues to guide cancer research.

In 1970 Otto Warburg passed and by then he was largely considered a “has been”. Fortunately, someone was willing to recheck Warburg’s work and judge it on its own merits. This is when Dr. Peter L. Pedersen, a prominent biochemist, was able to validate and build upon Otto Warburg’s earlier observations.  Dr. Pedersen has significantly contributed to the field of cancer research by investigating the intricacies of cellular metabolism, and his research further elucidated the metabolic alterations observed in cancer cells, specifically focusing on the role of hexokinase-2 (HK2) and its association with the mitochondria in tumours. He demonstrated that HK2 plays a pivotal role in the high glycolytic activity of tumour cells, even in the presence of oxygen (the Warburg Effect). By highlighting the unique metabolic dependencies of cancer cells, Pedersen’s work has paved the way for therapeutic interventions that target tumour metabolism including indirectly contributing to the conceptual foundation of PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans. PET scans use a radioactive glucose analog called FDG (Fluorodeoxyglucose) to visualize areas of high glucose consumption in the body. Given that many cancer cells exhibit heightened glucose uptake due to their altered metabolic state (which is part of the Warburg effect that Pedersen studied), they can be readily detected using FDG-PET. While Dr. Pedersen wasn’t directly involved in the development of the PET scan, his work on the metabolic peculiarities of cancer cells supported the broader understanding that made such imaging technologies effective in identifying tumours based on their metabolic profiles. This is where you might ask yourself…why is my oncologist telling me that diet and cancer have no relationship when a PET scan’s effectiveness is based on the fact that cancer consumes glucose 10x faster than healthy cells?!

After Pedersen’s significant contributions to advancing the Metabolic Theory, another brilliant man fell upon the obvious.

Dr. Thomas Seyfried is now a leading figure in advancing the mitochondrial metabolic theory of cancer. His research builds upon the foundational work of Otto and Pedersen, delving deeper into the metabolic abnormalities of cancer cells. Seyfried has over 150 peer-reviewed papers on the Mitochondrial Metabolic Theory and one of his seminal works is the book Cancer as a Metabolic Disease, in which he outlines evidence supporting the view that cancer primarily arises from defects in energy metabolism, especially within the mitochondria, and not just from genetic mutations. He suggests that by targeting these metabolic abnormalities, one can more effectively treat and manage cancer. Don’t buy the book though…its too expensive and he doesn’t get much of the money, he is way more consumable if you watch him on YouTube or listen to any one of the hundreds of PodCasts he has been on.

Part of Seyfried research has shed light on and he now advocates for dietary interventions, particularly the ketogenic diet, as a potential therapeutic approach for cancer. The idea is that since many cancer cells are highly dependent on glucose for energy (via glycolysis), restricting glucose and shifting the body’s metabolism to ketone bodies can help to starve cancer cells and inhibit tumour growth. In vitro (in a test tube) and in vivo (in an animal/human) Seyfried and his lab have been able to show that cancer cannot survive without glucose and glutamine and have paved the way for new, less toxic treatments that are extending the lives of many cancer patients in miraculous ways.

Overall, Dr. Thomas Seyfried’s work has rekindled interest in the metabolic aspects of cancer, pushing for a broader understanding of the disease that incorporates both metabolic and genetic factors.

For a more in-depth comparison please read Can the Mitochondrial Metabolic Theory Explain Better the Origin and Management of Cancer than Can the Somatic Mutation Theory? published in the National Library of Medicine’s Pub Med database.