What do you think?
Rate this book
Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer
The book addresses controversies related to the origins of cancer and provides solutions to cancer management and prevention. It expands upon Otto Warburg's well-known theory that all cancer is a disease of energy metabolism. However, Warburg did not link his theory to the "hallmarks of cancer" and thus his theory was discredited. This book aims to provide evidence, through case studies, that cancer is primarily a metabolic disease requring metabolic solutions for its management and prevention. Support for this position is derived from critical assessment of current cancer theories. Brain cancer case studies are presented as a proof of principle for metabolic solutions to disease management, but similarities are drawn to other types of cancer, including breast and colon, due to the same cellular mutations that they demonstrate.
448 pages, Hardcover
First published May 18, 2012
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
February 21, 2023
A controversial exploration into the biochemistry of cancer. Seyfried rejects genetics as the origin of cancer, and instead believes that a failure in cell respiration caused by excessive glucose in our blood cells is the central problem.
This book is a science book (Cost is over $75.00) and is meant to present his case to fellow scientists.
The final two chapters give a practical treatment plan to those diagnosed with cancer, and those that want to prevent cancer.
Actually, I am on a large part of his plan, since I am dieting ketogenically. Yes, to lower your glucose, he advises the same as Dr Atkins. He adds some supplements, and some glucose and glutamine lowering drugs to the regimen though.
This appears to me to be either a breakthrough book, or another attempt to find a cancer treatment that is not as toxic and fatal as Chemotherapy and Radiation. I hope Seyfried is shown to be right, for this is a regimen that many can do.
This book is a science book (Cost is over $75.00) and is meant to present his case to fellow scientists.
The final two chapters give a practical treatment plan to those diagnosed with cancer, and those that want to prevent cancer.
Actually, I am on a large part of his plan, since I am dieting ketogenically. Yes, to lower your glucose, he advises the same as Dr Atkins. He adds some supplements, and some glucose and glutamine lowering drugs to the regimen though.
This appears to me to be either a breakthrough book, or another attempt to find a cancer treatment that is not as toxic and fatal as Chemotherapy and Radiation. I hope Seyfried is shown to be right, for this is a regimen that many can do.
March 4, 2013
It is rare these days to read a new idea within the field of cancer, its causes and its treatment. There is no absence of old ideas, to be sure, but they are remarkably underwhelming in their explanatory power, and even less impressive in their ability to generate new and useful therapies.
Seyfried enters this field not only with some new ideas about causes, but some most excellent new ideas about therapeutics. And most surprising, he does it all in the context of a writing style that is both readable and even enjoyable. His recurring interjections with "Hello! Oncologists, are you listening?" seem, at the same time, out of place in an academic text and a welcome and needed shout at the conventional oncology world that has been oblivious to the evidence Seyfried amasses.
Seyfried's thesis might be summarized as, "It's the mitochondria, Stupid!" While the conventional oncology world has focused on a small percentage of characteristics that are unique to each type of cancer, Seyfried is calling attention to the set of changes that are common to all cancers, regardless of type. And central to those commonalities are specific alterations in mitochondrial function and the metabolic and genetic changes that flow from them.
Most importantly, Seyfried shows the obvious therapeutic interventions that are indicated by his thesis. The unfortunate point is that the therapies he is advocating are not likely to be embraced in the oncology world generally. For example, a very specific calorie-restricted diet for cancer patients is critical, and flies in the face of the common horrendous nutritional advice given to cancer patients, which is to eat lots of calories - in any form - just to maintain weight. Seyfried's nutritional approach to cancer control requires a great deal of patient *and physician* education about nutrition.
This is just one aspect of treatment addressed in the book. Overall, I found it to be well-written, well-substantiated, and clinically relevant. In the oncology world, that is an exceedingly rare Trifecta. I recommend this text for every health care practitioner involved in the treatment of cancer, and for cancer patients looking for a science-based understanding of their disease. Patients will end up with a list of critical questions to ask their oncologist, questions that will likely make those oncologists very uncomfortable.
Seyfried enters this field not only with some new ideas about causes, but some most excellent new ideas about therapeutics. And most surprising, he does it all in the context of a writing style that is both readable and even enjoyable. His recurring interjections with "Hello! Oncologists, are you listening?" seem, at the same time, out of place in an academic text and a welcome and needed shout at the conventional oncology world that has been oblivious to the evidence Seyfried amasses.
Seyfried's thesis might be summarized as, "It's the mitochondria, Stupid!" While the conventional oncology world has focused on a small percentage of characteristics that are unique to each type of cancer, Seyfried is calling attention to the set of changes that are common to all cancers, regardless of type. And central to those commonalities are specific alterations in mitochondrial function and the metabolic and genetic changes that flow from them.
Most importantly, Seyfried shows the obvious therapeutic interventions that are indicated by his thesis. The unfortunate point is that the therapies he is advocating are not likely to be embraced in the oncology world generally. For example, a very specific calorie-restricted diet for cancer patients is critical, and flies in the face of the common horrendous nutritional advice given to cancer patients, which is to eat lots of calories - in any form - just to maintain weight. Seyfried's nutritional approach to cancer control requires a great deal of patient *and physician* education about nutrition.
This is just one aspect of treatment addressed in the book. Overall, I found it to be well-written, well-substantiated, and clinically relevant. In the oncology world, that is an exceedingly rare Trifecta. I recommend this text for every health care practitioner involved in the treatment of cancer, and for cancer patients looking for a science-based understanding of their disease. Patients will end up with a list of critical questions to ask their oncologist, questions that will likely make those oncologists very uncomfortable.
July 6, 2021
Probably the best scientific book I have ever read, and must be the best book about the cancer. This was not the easiest and shortest read, but still quite feasible.
The analysis, the arguments, the depth of thoughts on the metebolic cancer theory are really on a very high level.
If you have a cancer, this may be your cure. If you don't, you can learn how to prevent. If you just like science - this is a great source of pleasure from reading.
Highly recommended!
The analysis, the arguments, the depth of thoughts on the metebolic cancer theory are really on a very high level.
If you have a cancer, this may be your cure. If you don't, you can learn how to prevent. If you just like science - this is a great source of pleasure from reading.
Highly recommended!
June 15, 2020
The most common view on the etiology of cancer is that it is a genetic disease involving mutations of genes that normally prevent cancer from occurring. The thought is that over time things like radiation cause damage to DNA, the cell replicates in an incorrect manner, and it's progeny become malignant. This became the prevailing theory in the 1970s with the discovery of oncogenes (genes that can turn cells into "tumor cells").
Since the 1970s, trillions of dollars has been sunk into Cancer research with nearly no effect. The mortality rate for all cancers has only declined 5% since the 1950s. That's sad.
Before the 1970s, the prevailing view of cancer was that it was a metabolic disease. Early research by Otto Warburg showed that cancer cells have abnormal metabolisms and produce the majority of their energy from glycolysis rather than oxidative phosphorylation (OxPhos), even though the latter produces many more ATP. Usually glycolysis happens in the absence of oxygen, but what Warburg found is that cancerous cells rely on glycolysis even in the presence of oxygen, which is unusual. This is referred to the Warburg effect. Usually when oxygen is present, OxPhos is preferred vs glycolysis, since it produces far more energy. Warburg believed this was due to the Mitochondria being permanently damaged and the cell unable to undergo OxPhos.
Seyfried understands that Cancer research since the 1970s has been less than fruitful and seeks to revive the metabolic theory of cancer of Warburg, with added research since then. Seyfried is able to show that oncogenes are up or down regulated by the mitochondria in response to weakened respiration, flipping the relation of genes to cancer on its head.
The most damning evidence against the somatic mutation theory is by way of nuclear-cytoplasm transfer experiments. The nucleus of a cancerous cell can be transplanted into the cytoplasm from healthy cells and the cancerous cell no longer proliferates. Weird right? The mitochondria in the healthy cytoplasm bring the nucleus of the cancerous cell back to normal function.
In the final chapters he suggests therapies to treat cancer in light of the fact that cancer is a metabolic disease. The main ways being the Ketogenic Diet and the other being caloric restrictions. He mentions some other research drugs that inhibit glycolysis, but I'm not sure they're widely used. My only critique here is that I'd like to see more talk about metabolic __enhancers__ rather than just glycolysis inhibitors (like fasting, Keto, etc). What are things we can do to restore mitochondrial function? Why can't we restore cardiolipin saturation since we know it's important in different ETC complexes? Why don't we have therapies to enhance the ETC like methylene blue?
This book is quite complicated, so I'm not sure I'd suggest reading unless you're very passionate about the subject or do research in this area.
Since the 1970s, trillions of dollars has been sunk into Cancer research with nearly no effect. The mortality rate for all cancers has only declined 5% since the 1950s. That's sad.
Before the 1970s, the prevailing view of cancer was that it was a metabolic disease. Early research by Otto Warburg showed that cancer cells have abnormal metabolisms and produce the majority of their energy from glycolysis rather than oxidative phosphorylation (OxPhos), even though the latter produces many more ATP. Usually glycolysis happens in the absence of oxygen, but what Warburg found is that cancerous cells rely on glycolysis even in the presence of oxygen, which is unusual. This is referred to the Warburg effect. Usually when oxygen is present, OxPhos is preferred vs glycolysis, since it produces far more energy. Warburg believed this was due to the Mitochondria being permanently damaged and the cell unable to undergo OxPhos.
Seyfried understands that Cancer research since the 1970s has been less than fruitful and seeks to revive the metabolic theory of cancer of Warburg, with added research since then. Seyfried is able to show that oncogenes are up or down regulated by the mitochondria in response to weakened respiration, flipping the relation of genes to cancer on its head.
The most damning evidence against the somatic mutation theory is by way of nuclear-cytoplasm transfer experiments. The nucleus of a cancerous cell can be transplanted into the cytoplasm from healthy cells and the cancerous cell no longer proliferates. Weird right? The mitochondria in the healthy cytoplasm bring the nucleus of the cancerous cell back to normal function.
In the final chapters he suggests therapies to treat cancer in light of the fact that cancer is a metabolic disease. The main ways being the Ketogenic Diet and the other being caloric restrictions. He mentions some other research drugs that inhibit glycolysis, but I'm not sure they're widely used. My only critique here is that I'd like to see more talk about metabolic __enhancers__ rather than just glycolysis inhibitors (like fasting, Keto, etc). What are things we can do to restore mitochondrial function? Why can't we restore cardiolipin saturation since we know it's important in different ETC complexes? Why don't we have therapies to enhance the ETC like methylene blue?
This book is quite complicated, so I'm not sure I'd suggest reading unless you're very passionate about the subject or do research in this area.
December 30, 2020
Hopefully, his arguments are correct. It is beyond my expertise to comment on the correctness of hsi theory, since an "appealing"argument need not necessarily be the correct from an empirical perspective. But his recommendations definitely appear to be worth trying out. I hope to apply his preventive techniques, in the near future, to both myself, and my family.
April 4, 2026
excellent. I was able to find a PDF online, I skipped around from one chapter to another. Started at the end and went forward, basically.
I was already fully onboard with the premise, I'd wanted to find this book and read it for completeness' sake. the digital copy was easier to deal with than I think a physical copy would be.
western medicine is a sorta funny thing.
To appreciate the metabolic theory of cancer, my mental model is that in sustainedly high sugar situations, cells eventually end up fermenting sugar for energy, and there's a bunch of other cancer-like things that happen.
The cause is "high blood sugar, in a sustained and overwhelming way, overwhelms the normal breath in/breath out cycle of glucose entering/exiting the blood stream for energy during the day, with that glucose being created/managed by the liver, rather than as a necessary spike to accommodate digestion of glucose and/or carbs.
Mitochondria are cool organelles, possibly originally foreign to the cell, and the mitochondria conduct much of the cellular activity, and of course they generate the power for that activity.
When sugar levels are high, it's like brewing kombucha and having too much sugar and not enough kombucha base - the ferment goes wrong because other stuff starts gobbling up the nutrition (sugar) available in the environment. Bacteria or mold can grow. When everything is done right, the scoby gets dibs on the nutrition and sets the environment to be convenient to itself.
anyway, blah blah blah, the book _Power, Sex, and Suicide_ is about mitochondria and they're cool.
They need to not be drenched in sugar, in order to function. They can also be drenched in glutamine! 'too much glucose' causes cancer, but a few spots they talk about cancer that sometimes sorts out the fermentation of glutamine. Makes sense, sorta? Glucose and glutamine? I didn't know what glutamine is, but googled around, I could see how a diet with tons of that could be eventually problematic. Much less so than sustained elevated levels of glucose.
Anyway, it's all fixable with easy interventions. Do some fasting, regularly, maybe by simply skipping breakfast, and then eat low carb, low protein, high fat & veggies some of the rest of the time. Blood sugar levels will drop and stay low and mitochondria fix themselves then start fixing the cells around them.
That's my big story. _Tripping over the truth_ regularly shows how banal the story is. Warburg's observation that 100% of cancer cells ferment sugar for energy like 100 years ago. For some reason it's tucked away, and someone is running hard with the somatic theory of cancer. thousands of people per day die from it.
I was already fully onboard with the premise, I'd wanted to find this book and read it for completeness' sake. the digital copy was easier to deal with than I think a physical copy would be.
western medicine is a sorta funny thing.
To appreciate the metabolic theory of cancer, my mental model is that in sustainedly high sugar situations, cells eventually end up fermenting sugar for energy, and there's a bunch of other cancer-like things that happen.
The cause is "high blood sugar, in a sustained and overwhelming way, overwhelms the normal breath in/breath out cycle of glucose entering/exiting the blood stream for energy during the day, with that glucose being created/managed by the liver, rather than as a necessary spike to accommodate digestion of glucose and/or carbs.
Mitochondria are cool organelles, possibly originally foreign to the cell, and the mitochondria conduct much of the cellular activity, and of course they generate the power for that activity.
When sugar levels are high, it's like brewing kombucha and having too much sugar and not enough kombucha base - the ferment goes wrong because other stuff starts gobbling up the nutrition (sugar) available in the environment. Bacteria or mold can grow. When everything is done right, the scoby gets dibs on the nutrition and sets the environment to be convenient to itself.
anyway, blah blah blah, the book _Power, Sex, and Suicide_ is about mitochondria and they're cool.
They need to not be drenched in sugar, in order to function. They can also be drenched in glutamine! 'too much glucose' causes cancer, but a few spots they talk about cancer that sometimes sorts out the fermentation of glutamine. Makes sense, sorta? Glucose and glutamine? I didn't know what glutamine is, but googled around, I could see how a diet with tons of that could be eventually problematic. Much less so than sustained elevated levels of glucose.
Anyway, it's all fixable with easy interventions. Do some fasting, regularly, maybe by simply skipping breakfast, and then eat low carb, low protein, high fat & veggies some of the rest of the time. Blood sugar levels will drop and stay low and mitochondria fix themselves then start fixing the cells around them.
That's my big story. _Tripping over the truth_ regularly shows how banal the story is. Warburg's observation that 100% of cancer cells ferment sugar for energy like 100 years ago. For some reason it's tucked away, and someone is running hard with the somatic theory of cancer. thousands of people per day die from it.
April 24, 2024
Cancer is one of the few fields where research areas are consistently hot, but progress toward the cure is consistently cold.
Is it genomic instability or is it insufficient respiration that is primarily responsible for the origin of cancer?
Might the origin of cancer as a simple metabolic disease create anxiety in those who assume that the disease must be infinitely complex?
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
1. No real progress has been made in the management of advanced or metastatic cancer for more than 40 years. The number of people dying each year and each day has changed little in more than 10 years.
2. Most of the conceptual advances made in understanding the mechanisms of cancer have more to do with nonmetastatic tumors than with metastatic tumors.
3. Most cancer, regardless of cell or tissue origin, is a singular disease of respiratory insufficiency coupled with compensatory fermentation.
4. Some factors that can cause respiratory insufficiency and cancer include age, viral infections, hypoxia, inflammation, rare inherited mutations, radiation, and carcinogens.
5. The genomic instability seen in tumor cells is a downstream epiphenomenon of respiratory insufficiency and enhanced fermentation.
6. Genomic instability makes cancer cells vulnerable to metabolic stress.
7. Cancer cells do not have a growth advantage over normal cells.
8. Cancer progression is not Darwinian but Lamarckian.
9. The view that most cancer is a genetic disease is no longer credible.
10. Respiratory injury can explain Szent-Gyorgyi’s oncogenic paradox.
11. Most metastatic cancers arise from respiratory injury in cells of myeloid origin, possibly involving hybridization events between macrophages and neoplastic epithelial cells.
12. Cancer cells depend largely on glucose and glutamine metabolism for sur- vival, growth, and proliferation.
13. Restricted access to glucose and glutamine will compromise cancer cell growth and survival.
14. Enhanced fermentation is largely responsible for tumor cell drug resistance.
15. Protection of mitochondria from oxidative damage will prevent or reduce
risk of cancer.
16. Life style changes will be needed to manage and prevent cancer.
17. Mitochondrial enhancement therapies administered together with drugs that target glucose and glutamine metabolism will go far as a nontoxic, cost- effective solution to the cancer problem.
18. A new era will emerge for cancer management and prevention, once cancer becomes recognized as a metabolic disease.
Is it genomic instability or is it insufficient respiration that is primarily responsible for the origin of cancer?
Might the origin of cancer as a simple metabolic disease create anxiety in those who assume that the disease must be infinitely complex?
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
1. No real progress has been made in the management of advanced or metastatic cancer for more than 40 years. The number of people dying each year and each day has changed little in more than 10 years.
2. Most of the conceptual advances made in understanding the mechanisms of cancer have more to do with nonmetastatic tumors than with metastatic tumors.
3. Most cancer, regardless of cell or tissue origin, is a singular disease of respiratory insufficiency coupled with compensatory fermentation.
4. Some factors that can cause respiratory insufficiency and cancer include age, viral infections, hypoxia, inflammation, rare inherited mutations, radiation, and carcinogens.
5. The genomic instability seen in tumor cells is a downstream epiphenomenon of respiratory insufficiency and enhanced fermentation.
6. Genomic instability makes cancer cells vulnerable to metabolic stress.
7. Cancer cells do not have a growth advantage over normal cells.
8. Cancer progression is not Darwinian but Lamarckian.
9. The view that most cancer is a genetic disease is no longer credible.
10. Respiratory injury can explain Szent-Gyorgyi’s oncogenic paradox.
11. Most metastatic cancers arise from respiratory injury in cells of myeloid origin, possibly involving hybridization events between macrophages and neoplastic epithelial cells.
12. Cancer cells depend largely on glucose and glutamine metabolism for sur- vival, growth, and proliferation.
13. Restricted access to glucose and glutamine will compromise cancer cell growth and survival.
14. Enhanced fermentation is largely responsible for tumor cell drug resistance.
15. Protection of mitochondria from oxidative damage will prevent or reduce
risk of cancer.
16. Life style changes will be needed to manage and prevent cancer.
17. Mitochondrial enhancement therapies administered together with drugs that target glucose and glutamine metabolism will go far as a nontoxic, cost- effective solution to the cancer problem.
18. A new era will emerge for cancer management and prevention, once cancer becomes recognized as a metabolic disease.
January 20, 2025
This was a really impressive work, covering a fantastic range of dimensions regarding the cancer as a metabolic disease theory. Color me convinced, and hopeful that this will take root and transform therapies around the world for those stricken with this devastating disease. It's a fight against moneyed interests of course, since pretty much all research funding goes to the genetic domain, and pharmaceutical companies don't see much potential winnings in curing cancer with simple dietary means (well perhaps not so simple always, but...) and cheap generic drugs.
The only thing missing (besides more hard data on successful interventions) I would say is more investigation into the origins of metabolic disruptions. But that is sure to come in the years ahead.
The only thing missing (besides more hard data on successful interventions) I would say is more investigation into the origins of metabolic disruptions. But that is sure to come in the years ahead.
September 23, 2024
I really like the author and his research more than i like his book. But the book is an excellent Science book... it sticks to the subject and is very well referenced. It also discusses the topic in general language in part But mostly, it's very technical in language specific to cancer treatment, biochemistry therapy and nutrition. All which makes this book a long and somewhat difficult read. But it's important for some to read and understand this book. And maybe all of us can take note if the plan to cure cancer and Never get it in the 1st place.
July 21, 2021
Very interesting book. Plenty of graphs and scientific analysis. If you are a scientist or a physician you will definitely enjoy this different approach to Cancer.
December 6, 2024
Interesting book, but written in very medical language making it difficult to follow.
February 4, 2025
Don't get cancer
December 25, 2024
The last two chapters give a treatment plan to those diagnosed with cancer and those who want to prevent cancer. It's not as easy as those who practice keto would think.
August 16, 2025
Must read for anyone you know who has cancer
February 17, 2015
Lots of information for the cancer patient, not cheap, but neither is life.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews