There have been many studies that have generated considerable data to believe that sugar in the blood (more typically referred to as blood glucose) can be associated with both triggering, and feeding the progression, of cancer. However, it is currently not possible for scientists to say we know that sugar causes cancer. This is partly because people (be they scientists or not) can interpret research data in various ways.

And of course, any findings as well as conclusions and/or implications from any interpretation of any data will very much depend on :

What the questions were. Were they the correct questions to have asked and what answers did the research provide, as well as any further questions?

Well, in the case of a connection between food and cancer, it is quite clear from a 2016 paper that up until then, the studies failed to ask and research several important questions; questions that Maria Liberti and Jason Locasale pose in their paper “The Warburg Effect: How Does it Benefit Cancer Cells?”; questions that should have been asked after scientist, Otto Warburg, proposed the connection between blood glucose and cancer, and not now, over 100 years later!

For those who have not heard of the Warburg Effect before. it is, to quote Liberti and Locasale, when “Cancer cells rewire their metabolism to promote growth, survival, proliferation, and long-term maintenance. The common feature of this altered metabolism is increased glucose uptake and fermentation of glucose to lactate. This phenomenon is observed even in the presence of completely functioning mitochondria..” .

Put in more simple terms; it seems that cancerous cells to feed on glucose i.e. glucose can keep cancer cells alive and can support tumour growth and a potential ability to spread

I don’t know if it is having a scientific research background, or simply my nature, but I’m often drawn to ask questions like “Why?”. In this case, why didn’t or hasn’t the “Warburg Effect” received greater attention in over 100 years. If it had, perhaps we would have answers to the questions that Liberti and Locasale ask, including:

“Does the Warburg Effect promote the development of cancer or is it a dependency imposed by other cancer-promoting processes?”.

“Does the function of the Warburg Effect provide insights into its role in tumor evolution?”

As Liberti and Locasale suggest, we most certainly need answers to such questions if we are to “better understand the biology…” and “if therapeutic advances are to be made…” and perhaps most importantly, for us to experience significantly reduced cancer deaths.

If we had that data, not only would we have the evidence to enable a greater public understanding of why foods rich in carbohydrates, including pasta, rice, cereals, and potatoes, can cause diabetes (as well as a contribute to epilepsy), we would be much closer to explaining why we are talking about this connection to cancer, as well as the neuroscience illnesses, Parkinson’s and dementia.

So, that for me, begs questions like:

1. Why weren’t further research questions asked at the time and hence a lack of data.
2. Were the results, that lead to the Warburg Effect, not believed?
3. If not, why not?
4. Could it be possible that what Warburg proposed lead people to feel a little uncomfortable.
5. If so, might that have been because it was/is because of people’s habits i.e. how and what they eat and drink, that explains how, via the Warburg Effect, we have this connection between food via blood glucose and cancer?

But given this revitalised interest in the Warburg Effect, to support a connection between cancer and foods such as rice and pasta, there is one, in my view vitally important question that needs to asked, and for which I will attempt to offer an answer. That question:

• What makes it possible for the Warburg Effect to connect foods like rice, pasta and potatoes to a potential cancer diagnosis?

Before offering an answer, I feel I must and wish to make it very clear: I am not ‘against’ foods that are high in carbs. This article is most certainly not to say or spread a message that says, if you eat the likes of rice or pasta, that you are automatically at increased risk of cancer. I don’t believe you are. What I am hoping to make clear is, like all activities that support person’s health and wellbeing, it is about being balanced.

So my answer: When people eat the likes of bread, pasta, rice and potatoes their body manufactures glucose (which many people think of as ‘sugar’).

The significance of that step, for those who are not aware, is found on the various food labels. They will or should state that these foods contain carbohydrate (plus how much carbohydrate per 100g). What that translates to is the higher the amount of carbohydrate (carbs) in the food, the more it can increase the level of glucose in the blood. The resulting glucose then moves into the blood, for it to be pumped, by the heart, around the whole body, to supply fuel for the body cells to function. Of course, a considerable proportion of that fuel can get pumped toward the cells that operate the nervous system (i.e. cells in the brain and spine, which, in the spine extend out to various areas, such as your hands and feet).

Now, for something a little different, although still extremely relevant to the point of this article; I’d like you to imagine you’re filling up the petrol or diesel tank of your car. Personally, when I do that, I don’t tend to fill it full. That is partly because I am mindful that when I fill the tank, the weight of the car will increase, and that increase can impact how far the car can be driven before more fuel is needed.

This can, of course, be equated to the quality, nature and amounts of food we put into our body, to then generate an amount of fuel that ‘drives’ the activity of body and mind for a certain period. So, let’s say the person is a long-distance runner; they are likely to fuel differently than the sprint runner. Plus, a long-distance runner is likely to pay closer attention to their body weight.

So, when someone continues to eat foods that increase glucose in the blood, and they do very little to ‘burn it off’, via the likes of muscle or ‘brain’ activity, levels will continue to rise. That, of course, is until the body’s ‘self-regulation’ system will naturally kicks into action, to lower the blood glucose levels and for the whole system to re-balance and return to a state of equilibrium.

However, if a person continues to ‘stress’ their self-regulation system, which can happen ‘under the radar’ and via the likes of ‘uncontrolled’ and ‘emotional’ eating, the body and mind can become sick.

Hence, my passion and drive to create a @Person-Centred Neurosciences Society and @Lifestyle Health Foundation, Person-Centred Lifestyle Health ‘mentorship’ programme, which we will launch with an EATing (Emotions Awareness Thinking) module. The objectives of that module which include:

• To enable and empower people to recognise why and how emotions and thoughts impact a person’s mental and physical wellbeing, with some pointings toward some of simple neuroscience ‘logic’.
• To identify and illustrate how people can be empowered to change habits that associated with the connection between high carb foods (and drinks) and illnesses, including cancer and neuroscience conditions like Parkinson’s.

In part two of this two-part article, my aim will be to continue this discussion on the connection between food and cancer, by exploring the relationship between blood glucose and the health our “self-defence system”.

As I shall explain, this is a term I now speak about to be a little more ‘descriptive’ when it comes to explaining how our immune system is designed, not only to defend us from external ‘pathogens’ such as bacteria and virus, but to protect us from the likes of rogue body cells. These are cells that are thought to appear especially as the body continues to change with age.

The Warburg Effect: How Does it Benefit Cancer Cells?