science

also 50g of fibre in the feed diet, maybe the tumors are responding to fibre?

i'm just skimming right now, but the papers studies each used 2-4 mice, and are not powered at all. it's hard to say even if you WERE a PPAR-CPT1A engineered mouse that these results are relevant... they knocked out ketogenesis in a few of the mice and still saw tumor growth.... let's not forget the genetic engineering here not only induces tumors, but also suppresses bhb production... so maybe these tumors respond well to fatty acids, but would be suppressed by healthy bhb production and ketone metabolism... this paper doesn't know. it's possible the net effect of a healthy ketogenic metabolism would be enough in non-genetically engineered mice to reduce the tumors.... they didn't test that.

plus...... they didn't measure all cause mortality! so we just know tumor growth for a window... why not actually get all cause mortality data? nothing ruins short term results like long term data.

the fact we have human interventional studies directly linking tumor growth to glucose intake, and in this mice study we see the opposite only in their genetically engineered tumors.... i'm not sure we can make any meaningful conclusions from that.