Spyke
ketogenic·Low Carb High Fat - Ketogenicbyjet

Mitochondrial dysfunction as the origin of cancer - PhD Seyfried - 2026 [Lecture]

Cancer is a mitochondrial metabolic disease driven by impaired respiration and compensatory glucose/glutamine fermentation, not primarily nuclear mutations. Management centers on press-pulse metabolic therapy: lowering glucose and glutamine, raising ketones, and combining diet, fasting, hyperbaric oxygen, and targeted drug pulses.

A presentation by Professor Thomas Seyfried recorded during the March 2026 Grand Rounds of the Australasian Metabolic Health Society

::: spoiler summerizer Mitochondrial origin of cancer

  • The mitochondrial-metabolic model links cancer to chronic damage in oxidative phosphorylation as the origin of malignant behavior.
  • The somatic mutation theory is weakened by tumor nuclei regaining regulated growth in normal cytoplasm, while tumor cytoplasm drives death or dysregulated growth.
  • Nuclear-transfer experiments in frogs, medulloblastoma mice, and melanoma mice place the decisive cancer defect outside the nucleus.
  • The National Cancer Institute definition keeps cancer inside a genetic-disease view, while the lecture places the core defect in mitochondrial energy production.

Energy metabolism and tumor growth

  • Warburg identified insufficient respiration and compensatory fermentation through glucose-derived lactate.
  • Glutamine fermentation adds a second major fuel stream, producing succinate in damaged mitochondria.
  • Glucose and glutamine supply ATP, carbons, and nitrogen for membranes, proteins, nucleotides, lipids, and other biomass.
  • Lactic and succinic acid create an acidic microenvironment that supports invasion and weakens drug and immune effects.
  • Reactive oxygen species arise downstream from damaged respiration and can produce the mutations seen in tumor genomes.

Cancer hallmarks from damaged mitochondria

  • Cell-cycle disorder follows mitochondrial effects on nuclear gene expression and regulatory control.
  • Loss of contact inhibition follows calcium and adhesion defects at the tumor-cell surface.
  • Angiogenesis follows HIF-1 alpha and c-MYC opening glucose and glutamine transport pathways.
  • Failed apoptosis follows dysfunction in the organelle that normally controls programmed cell death.
  • Metastasis follows fusion between a cancer stem cell and a macrophage-like immune cell, creating a mobile glucose- and glutamine-driven cell.

Metabolic management strategy

  • Management requires lowering glucose and glutamine while raising fatty acids and ketones.
  • Cancer cells cannot rely on fatty acids or ketone bodies when glucose and glutamine are unavailable.
  • Water-only fasting, calorie restriction, low-carbohydrate diets, ketogenic diets, ketone supplements, exercise, stress control, hyperbaric oxygen, and pulse drugs fit this strategy.
  • The glucose ketone index tracks the glucose-to-ketone ratio, with values near or below 2.0 used as the therapeutic zone.
  • Press-pulse therapy uses chronic metabolic pressure plus timed pulses against glucose and glutamine dependence.

Preclinical evidence

  • In an aggressive mouse brain-tumor model, 40% calorie restriction on the same high-carbohydrate diet reduced tumor size by 65% to 80%.
  • Higher blood glucose tracked with larger and faster tumors, while lower glucose tracked with slower tumor growth, lower inflammation, fewer abnormal vessels, and more tumor killing.
  • Calorie-restricted ketogenic diet plus pulsed DON produced far better survival in late-stage experimental glioblastoma than either diet or DON alone.
  • A juvenile high-grade glioma model used restricted ketogenic diet, mebendazole, and glucose-glutamine targeting, with longer survival and better quality of life.

Human and animal cases

  • Glioblastoma outcomes have barely improved, and standard surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, and steroids can increase glucose, glutamine, inflammation, and metabolic stress.
  • The Alexandria glioblastoma case combined fasting, restricted ketogenic diet, awake craniotomy, modified standard care, and hyperbaric oxygen, with 24-month follow-up publication.
  • Brittany Maynard is used as a standard-care contrast case: young glioblastoma patient, steroid effects, and medically assisted death in 2014.
  • Pablo Kelly used ketogenic metabolic therapy without chemotherapy or radiation, tracked glucose and ketones for years, and lived 122 months after diagnosis.
  • The Greece glioblastoma study pairs standard care with ketogenic metabolic therapy; four of six adherent patients lived at least three years versus one of twelve in the standard-care group.
  • Triple-negative breast cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, and canine mast-cell tumor examples are used as broader applications of the same metabolic strategy.

Closing thesis

  • Cancer management should avoid fatalistic terminal language when metabolic options remain.
  • Mitochondria, not the nucleus, belong at the center of cancer origin and management.
  • Substrate-level phosphorylation through glucose and glutamine fermentation drives dysregulated growth.
  • The future cancer program is press-pulse metabolic therapy: lower glucose and glutamine, elevate ketones, and use coordinated metabolic tools.

References

View original on hackertalks.com
jetreply
hackertalks.com

This critique is from 2014 - and focuses on "keto is not a cure for cancer" completely ignoring the Seyfried recommendation that keto is an adjunct and not a stand alone treatment - and complains about the lack of evidence...

Seyfried's diet position is fairly straightforward - there is no downside to not feeding glucose into cancer that thrives on glucose. This does not mean keto cures cancer.

Since 2014 there have been a few (>120) papers published by Seyfried.... might they be relevant?

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=ctSRQrsAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate

The giloblastoma patients who had a 800% increase in 3 year survival probably appreciate the theory.


The critique is well written, but 12 years out of date - Seyfried knows the mitochondrial metabolic theory of cancer is not popular among oncologists - most are deeply entrenched in the somatic mutation theory (As this David Gorski clearly is) - but as this article author wanted - he has moved onto clinical trials....

2
lemmy.world

Can you link me that giloblastoma study? From a quick look through those papers I couldn't see any that had a meaningful sample size.

Seyfried’s diet position is fairly straightforward - there is no downside to not feeding glucose into cancer that thrives on glucose.

Has that position changed since that critique was written? Because Seyfried saying "Ketogenic diet beats chemo for almost all cancers" doesn't seem to align with that?

2
jetreply
hackertalks.com

Can you link me that giloblastoma study? From a quick look through those papers I couldn’t see any that had a meaningful sample size.

Pilot studies so far. you didn't watch seyfrieds lecture before you pilloried him - he lists the study in one of his slides.

Has that position changed since that critique was written? Because Seyfried saying “Ketogenic diet beats chemo for almost all cancers” doesn’t seem to align with that?

See how these are different statements? KMT being a better then chemo isn't saying keto cures cancer?

3
lemmy.world

Pilot studies so far.

This is one of the critiques from that article that doesn't seemed to have changed in the time since it was written. The supporting studies are too preliminary or small scale to show any reasonable evidence. You said that Seyfried has published 120 papers but are there any that have a robust methodology and sample size that supports his theories?

See how these are different statements? KMT being a better then chemo isn’t saying keto cures cancer?

I mean, I dunno about "cures" but that statement seems to clearly be saying that keto is a more successful treatment for cancer than chemo? As I said, where is the evidence for that?

I'm not trying to troll anybody or just be negative for the sake of it, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Like, what is the gap between that article's critiques (which I thought were pretty even handed) when it was written and now? Has there been meaningful evidence produced since then?

2
jetreply
hackertalks.com

I'm not really interested in debating you on topics you refuse to engage with yourself. Have you actually watched his lecture, read any of his papers?

If you actually do, I'm happy to go down and discuss with you. But you're basically coming in without watching the content, with a 12-year-old critique. And you're putting the burden of a 12-year-old critique on me, that's not a collaborative discussion. And I refuse to do it.

Asking me to debate somebody from 12 years ago by proxy through you is unfair

3
lemmy.world

Ok I watched the video and its exactly what I expected. And to be clear, what I expected when I read the summary of the video, before I read that critique (it's why I looked up the critique).

He makes very strong claims. You said "Seyfried’s diet position is fairly straightforward - there is no downside to not feeding glucose into cancer that thrives on glucose.". That isn't his position in this video at all! He literally says "We understand cancer and we know how to manage cancer". He ridicules the rest of the field and compares himself to Copernicus. His reasoning for claiming that "scientists don’t read the papers" seems to be that if they'd read them then they would obviously agree with him?! He is extremely aggressively saying that he is right and almost everyone else is wrong.

And what's his evidence for this extraordinary claim? Some trials on mice and what amounts to anecdotes on a few individual cases, and the giloblastoma study. Which certainly seems promising! But is a tiny sample size, and that study itself describes its results as "encouraging"; hardly strong proof.

The critique's from the article I linked seem exactly as valid now as they were when it was written. There certainly seems like some promising paths of investigation in this field, but Seyfried is going way over the top with his claims. And I mean, those single cases that he presents in this video are a huge red flag, that just isn't science and isn't how a legitimate scientist presents evidence.

2

hardly strong proof.

Yup, early days, but it isn't contradicted by observed data - which makes the mitochondrial metabolic theory of cancer interesting. There are a few (8 i think) ongoing glioblastoma studies being run independently of Seyfried in NZ I think - so I wait to see those results. the press-pulse protocol paper is being used in some AU studies at the moment as well.

The critique’s from the article I linked seem exactly as valid now as they were when it was written.

My main concern with that article is that it isn't peer reviewed, the author is no stranger to publishing papers (100+ i could find), so why not publish his critique?

I think part of the problem is his smoking gun - https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2014.2382 - didn't actually use a ketogenic diet - 60g a day of carbs isn't therapeutic levels of ketosis (i.e. many people wont be in ketosis at this level), and they measured with urine strips - in 2014!!! - that's crazy. so they couldn't compute the GKI, which was a cornerstone of Seyfried's (at the time) kmt protocol.

As far as the human interventions go there is only the one published intervention - 6 patients - https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2024.1489812 - Successful application of dietary ketogenic metabolic therapy in patients with glioblastoma: a clinical study

There are a bunch of case studies (about 15 in total i think), which I'm sure you saw.

about 40 patients demonstrating keto was well tolerated during standard of care treatment in other studies.

and about 18 KMT papers where seyfried isn't directly involved, covering about 250 patients, all basically saying its tolerated as well.

none of this contradicts the mitochondrial metabolic theory of cancer. so yeah, if Gorski wants to hang onto the somatic mutation theory of cancer that is fine, but he doesn't actually have anything interesting to say about the metabolic theory other then he wants more data - whooptidoo - every theory and study wants more data.

And I mean, those single cases that he presents in this video are a huge red flag, that just isn’t science and isn’t how a legitimate scientist presents evidence.

It is when your close to retirement age and you don't worry about tenure and committees anymore. His papers haven't been retracted, which is the key point, and his human study protocols are implemented in ongoing trials. So his theory is interesting and worth thinking about, and not dismissing - even if you don't like someone if they have a theory that makes predictions with measurable outcomes - it's interesting.

2

And I told you they're in the slides of the video you have refused to watch.

3

21:30 The biggest problem we have in the cancer field is the scientists don't read the papers. I don't what you can do, if you don't read the literature there is no way I can let them know whats going on.

2

You reached the end