[Alex3917]

> Her oncologist didn't like the idea because there is also lots of research that says it spurs growth in tumors.

To be fair, if that's the effect you're going for it doesn't seem like the best option. If you want something to promote oxidative stress, take something like pawpaw supplements or a drug like metformin.

Tumors need more energy than normal cells, and oxidative stress interferes with the ability of your mitochondria to produce energy. So yeah, it makes intuitive sense that antioxidants are not what you'd want for cancer. Although as you mentioned, these systems are pretty complicated and there are a lot of chemicals that can act as antioxidants in some circumstances and oxidative agents in others.

[chasil]

> Tumors need more energy than normal cells, and oxidative stress interferes with the ability of your mitochondria to produce energy.

Isn't the mitochondria usually silenced in cancerous cells?

[azalemeth]

Not exactly. My understanding of the Warburg effect is that cells rely upon glycolysis for their _additional_ energetic demands but still have functioning mitochondrial with the ability to oxidise fats; a lot of the pentose phosphate pathway is upregulated in tumors as they're busy making amino acids for protein biosynthesis. Of course, tumours do literally everything imaginable somewhere so take this with a glacier sized disclaimer. The main thing is that the reactions that are favoured tend to be either anaplerotic (contributing carbon towards the Krebs cycle) or straight up anabolic. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-39...

[hattmall]

>Tumors need more energy than normal cells

Could this be why meditation was shown to reduce tumor size? I saw a recent article, on here I think, about a study showing proof via imaging that meditative practices of aligning chakras was successful at reducing tumors where chemotherapy could not. Could it just be that extreme relaxation causes the tumors energy demands to exceed the bodies supply in a relaxed state?