Ok, I’ve split this article into 3 parts for easier reading and digestion – there’s a lot to cover here…
Find Part 2 – here
And part 3 – here
Introduction: Lighting Up Like a Christmas Tree
When I had my first PET scan, the tumour in my oesophagus lit up like a Christmas tree on fire. Every radiologist in the room nodded knowingly. To them, it was textbook – cancer feeding on sugar. To me, it was an unwanted confirmation: my body had become the perfect host for a greedy, sugar-burning parasite.
That brightness on the scan wasn’t random. PET scans work by tagging glucose with a radioactive tracer and then watching where it goes. Healthy tissues take up a steady trickle. Cancer cells? They consume it, hoard it, and burn it like it’s going out of fashion.
This phenomenon is called the Warburg effect. It’s not just why my tumour glowed; it’s one of the most important discoveries in cancer biology. Nearly 100 years after Otto Warburg first described it, we’re still debating its true meaning.
What Is the Warburg Effect?
In simple terms:
- Normal cells use oxygen to burn glucose inside their mitochondria, a very efficient process called oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS).
- Cancer cells prefer to break down glucose through glycolysis, even when oxygen is available, and then convert the result into lactate.
This “aerobic glycolysis” is inefficient – like running a power plant on campfires. It generates only 2 units of adenosine triphosphate (ATP)* per glucose, compared to the 36 ATP that mitochondria produce.
*ATP provides the energy required for the early steps of glucose breakdown and is then generated in the later stages of glycolysis, storing chemical energy that can be used to fuel cellular processes.
So why would cancer cells choose to work on fumes?
Why Cancer Chooses Inefficiency
The answer is that cancer doesn’t care about efficiency. It cares about survival and growth.
1) Rapid Energy Supply
- Glycolysis may be inefficient, but it’s fast. Cancer cells divide rapidly. A steady, quick energy supply matters more than efficiency.
2) Building Blocks for Biomass
- Cancer isn’t just burning glucose for energy; it’s using the components to build new cells. Glycolysis produces intermediates that are used to make nucleotides (for DNA), lipids (for membranes), and amino acids (for proteins).
- It’s less about calories and more about construction materials.
3) Surviving in Hypoxia
- Many tumours grow in poorly oxygenated environments. Oxygen-dependent mitochondria struggle there. Glycolysis, which doesn’t require oxygen, keeps cancer fighting.
4) Immune Evasion
- Fermentation produces lactate. Tumours dump it into their environment, acidifying it.
- Acid is bad for immune cells. T-cells lose function in acidic areas, allowing tumours to thrive.
5) Treatment Resistance
- Hypoxic, glycolytic tumours are harder to kill with radiotherapy and some chemotherapies. The very metabolism that fuels them also protects them.
In other words, the Warburg effect isn’t just a quirk. It’s an evolutionary adaptation that helps tumours grow quickly, survive hostile conditions, and fend off attacks.
A Century-Old Argument
Otto Warburg, who first described this effect in the 1920s, believed cancer was fundamentally a disease of metabolism – broken respiration in mitochondria. He argued that genes were secondary.
The establishment disagreed. As the genetic revolution progressed, the dominant theory became that cancer is a disease of mutations. Metabolism was dismissed as a downstream effect – a symptom, not the cause.
But here we are, a century later, and the debate continues.
- Genetic theory: Mutations drive cancer; metabolic changes are side effects.
- Metabolic theory: Dysregulated metabolism drives cancer; mutations follow.
The truth is likely somewhere in the middle: mutations and metabolism are interconnected. Ignoring the metabolic side has cost us decades of potential treatments.
Why the Warburg Effect Still Matters
- Imaging – PET-CT scans, a key tool in oncology, work because tumours consume glucose. No Warburg effect means no glowing scans.
- Therapeutic Targets – If cancer relies on glycolysis, blocking glucose metabolism could starve it. Drugs, diets, and treatments are being tested to take advantage of this dependency.
- Patient Empowerment – If metabolism plays a role, it opens up options for patients – diet, fasting, oxygen therapies, and exercise. These don’t replace treatment, but they may change the conditions.
Personal Connection: From Theory to Action
For me, the Warburg effect wasn’t just a theory in a textbook. It was clear on the scan that showed my tumour.
When I learned my cancer was incurable, the NHS narrative suggested it was genetic bad luck – a story of faulty DNA without any solution. However, I couldn’t ignore what I saw: cancer feeding differently, behaving differently.
It made me question everything. If my tumour was addicted to sugar, what would happen if I changed the supply lines? If metabolism was part of the problem, could it also be part of the solution?
That’s why I switched to a vegetarian ketogenic diet (you can learn more about why I went this route here), cut out sugar, incorporated fasting, and added metabolic therapies like metformin, HBOT, and high-dose vitamin C. Not because they were guaranteed cures, but because they made biological sense.
It wasn’t about rejecting conventional care. It was about refusing to believe that genes were the only explanation.
Warburg in Numbers
Let’s look at some numbers:
- ATP yield per glucose
– Oxidative phosphorylation: ~36 ATP
– Glycolysis + fermentation: 2 ATP - Glucose uptake
– Normal cells: steady, controlled
– Tumor cells: up to 20 times faster - PET scans
– PET-CT’s detect ~95% of solid tumors by tracking glucose uptake. - Lactate
– Accumulates to millimolar levels in tumour microenvironments, acidifying and disabling immune surveillance.
The NHS vs the Metabolic View
The NHS and most of mainstream oncology still view cancer primarily as a genetic disease. And yes, mutations are real, important, and often explain why drugs work or fail.
But my story – and thousands like it – shows that genetics isn’t the whole picture. If it were, PET-CT wouldn’t work. If it were, metabolic therapies wouldn’t show benefits in trials. If it were, lifestyle changes wouldn’t impact outcomes.
Metabolism isn’t a sideshow. It’s at the forefront.
Why Warburg Isn’t Just About Cancer
Interestingly, the Warburg effect also appears in:
- Immune cells when they’re rapidly activated.
- Developing embryos, where rapid growth requires quick fuel.
- Wound healing, where tissues temporarily revert to glycolysis.
This isn’t a “cancer invention”; it’s a hijacked survival strategy. Cancer copies a method from the body’s own emergency handbook and never lets go.
Conclusion – Part 1
The Warburg effect explains why tumours appear on scans, why they grow quickly, and why they create hostile environments for the immune system. It challenges the gene-only point of view and opens the door to metabolic treatments.
For me, it was the crack in the wall – evidence that cancer wasn’t just determined by my DNA, but also shaped by my biology’s conditions.
In the next part (Part 2 Link Here), we’ll delve into the complexities – tumours that don’t follow Warburg’s rules and what that means for patients.
References
- Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science. 1956.
- Vander Heiden MG, Cantley LC, Thompson CB. Understanding the Warburg effect: the metabolic requirements of cell proliferation. Science. 2009;324(5930):1029–1033.
- Liberti MV, Locasale JW. The Warburg Effect: How Does it Benefit Cancer Cells? Trends Biochem Sci. 2016;41(3):211–218.
- Pavlova NN, Thompson CB. The Emerging Hallmarks of Cancer Metabolism. Cell Metab. 2016;23(1):27–47.
- Lunt SY, Vander Heiden MG. Aerobic glycolysis: meeting the metabolic requirements of cell proliferation. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2011;27:441–464.
Subscribe to stay connected
