Lactate helps cancer cells resist chemotherapy
nature.comNeither this article, nor the actual paper it is based on (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02731-9#:~:text=T....) has any mention of exercise, and the title here seems to be editorialised to add in "Metabolic byproduct of anaerobic exercise".
Just because lactate is produced from anaerobic exercise and this study found that lactate was used by the cancer cells, doesn't automatically follow that the cancer cells can use the lacate produced from exercise.
They're probably talking about the Warburg effect, not exercise. The body is complicated and just because exercise can produce lactate doesn't mean it has anything to do with this.
You’re right, I’ll edit it.
Thanks.
This is all I can read. Does the paper imply that any exercise is bad?
“ Lactate helps cancer cells resist chemotherapy The molecule lactate is a waste product of the metabolism of sugar without oxygen — a metabolic pathway preferentially used by cancer cells to generate their energy. Metabolomics analysis reveals that lactate in tumour cells promotes resistance to chemotherapy, and sheds light on the molecular mechanism that underlies this unexpected role of lactate in cancer”
I’m reading Silent Spring, which was published in 1962. We already knew then that sugar to ATP transition in the mitochondria is a multiple step process to oxidize the sugar and produce ATP, and different pollutants or injuries could interrupt any of those steps and cause major problems.
And relevant to this conversation: we knew that a breakdown in these stages of cellular metabolism could result in tumors.
Lactate accumulates in the body only during a high intensity exercise, which generates lactate faster than it can be consumed by oxidation (like a sprint for up to 400 m).
When the intensity of an exercise is low enough that you could sustain it for much more than a few minutes continuously, there should be no increased amount of lactate in the body.
I want to expand a bit on your last statement. It is generally true but there is some important nuance I'd like to add. There may be some increased lactate temporarily but it will be minimal for aerobic exercise. It takes at least 2 minutes from a resting state for the body to reach VdotO2max. This means that even during aerobic exercise, you will be using at least some anaerobic energy production initially if you were not already warmed up. This is one reason why doing a warmup is a good idea.
Guys, guys. It's not about exercise. Cancer makes lactate independent of exercise. Exercise, in lack of oxygen, also makes lactate.
Here's the thing with cancer (1) sometimes it actually does lack oxygen, because it grows faster than blood vessels, so may prefer lactate creation, known as "fermentation" (yes, like beer which ferments sugar to alcohol, but humans ferment sugar into lactate). So the whole body may be bedridden, not exercising, but a little part of it is not getting oxygen. (2) EVEN IF there is oxygen available to the cancer cell, they have been shown to, EVEN THOUGH there is oxygen there, they still proceed through fermentation and produce lactate. And it's not well known WHY cancer cells do this. This paper suggests that it's a chemo resistance mechanism. Other thoughts have been that it simply pushes through more physical carbon atoms which help make more cancer faster.... this concept of "why does the cancer ferment even though oxygen is readily available" is known as "The Warburg Hypothesis"
Because with oxygen 30x more ATP is produced. Why would cancer seek the vastly more inefficient energy production pathway, the insinct is that cancer would be hyperefficient at being canerous.
Dunning-Kruger energy here...
Hi, I didn't comment on the cancer part. The discussion elsewhere in this thread connecting this to exercise seems specious to me. I was just trying to put in a good reminder to warm up before you exercise. I appreciate your clarification nonetheless.
> Does the paper imply that any exercise is bad?
How did you leap from (anaerobic) exercise to just exercise?
I guess I didn’t process it.
Just got back from a 3 mile walk and had my first chemotherapy yesterday. A little panic set in. Sounds like walking is still good. Thanks
Fasting before chemo is probably also good, but you can read about its applicability for your case.
Has this been incorporated into protocols or is this still fringe?
That's entirely the wrong set of questions to ask. It is scientifically validated which is what matters as far as the truth is concerned.
I think you’re going to find a lot of family of cancer victims who have a few choice, withering words for you.
Consider this #1. Your response is ghoulish.
On the contrary, it is willfully ignoring science that is ghoulish. Most people don't have the moral fortitude to fast even if they wanted to, so fasting is never going to get incorporated into any "protocol".
jeez I cant imagine I'd be reading anything on cancer once i started treatement... that would cause me to second guess everything.
good luck to you fellow hacker.
It keeps coming back to metabolism being the entire key to all types of cancer.
You should read “Tripping over the Truth: The Metabolic Theory of Cancer”[0]
Do hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism patients show fewer cancer cases?
This news should be irrelevant to anyone not undergoing this specific type of chemotherapy.
Is there a potential for beta-alanine/L-Carnosine to help here?