Biology Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for biology researchers, academics, and students. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

What is wrong with the following chain of reasoning?

  1. Nearly all cancer cells rely on high rates of glucose uptake (upto 200 times more than normal cells). This is known as the the Warburg effect.
  2. There is only one cell type in the human body that is obligated to use glucose - red blood cells (erythrocytes).
  3. Starve cancer cells of their only energy source by inducing hypoglycaemia in the patient, preserving red blood cells using, for example, erythrocytapheresis or an oxygen-carrying substitute.

I understand that to completely eliminate a tumour such a regime would need to be in place for an extended period, but would like to know why such a treatment isn't feasible in theory?

share|improve this question
neurons also need glucose.. – WYSIWYG Apr 25 '14 at 5:11
Theoretically you could infuse glucose into the CSF and prevent hydrocephalus by creating a shunt. – AndroidPenguin Apr 25 '14 at 8:19

The human body needs energy (ATP) for even the most basic function. I guess when you decrease glucose levels (which is broken down for ATP), you will be in affect taking away the ability of the body to function normally by depriving it of energy. This is my theory so I would be happy to if someone with more information on the topic could tell me if I am right or wrong.

share|improve this answer
I think Kelvin is suggesting the use of beta oxidation to yield ATP from fats. – AndroidPenguin Apr 25 '14 at 8:18

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.