The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
the warberg effect which had always been you know people had always thought well it must be that cancers can't undergo oxidative phosphorilation and that's why they're doing this inefficient thing but to your point between the substrate argument you know going through reams of glucose leaves you more building blocks which is what they need more than ATP
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
proposed that the reason that cancer cells do the warberg effect is that they're not optimizing for energy they're optimizing for cellular building blocks and if you do the mass balance it completely makes sense like dividing cells need building blocks more than energy and glycolysis while very inefficient for generating ATP is much more efficient at generating substrate to make more cells
They're basically saying, "I'm willing to do an inefficient process of getting ATP in exchange for something else."