Wow! well I tried reading the link Sid but I am not a professional scientist and I'll admit my hat is off to you if that is the kind of thing you read... perhaps you can correct any misunderstandings for me?
As best I can figure it out:
The researchers focussed on a specific type of ketone body called 3-hydroxy-butyrate and also L-lactate (not a ketone body) which they describe as "end-products of aerobic glycolysis" in a process they term “the Reverse Warburg effect.”
Unless I am mistaken "aerobic glycolysis" is also known as "oxidisation of glucose" or "burning glucose for energy"?
In this study they attempt to "directly evaluate whether the end-products of aerobic glycolysis (3-hydroxy-butyrate and L-lactate) can stimulate tumor growth and metastasis".
To test their hypothesis they "...chose MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer cells, which show a marker profile most consistent with triple negative and basal-like breast cancers. MDA-MB-231 cells were grown in athymic nude mice as solid tumors via flank injections, or were induced to undergo lung metastasis via tail vein injections. Then, we systemically administered 3-hydroxy-butyrate or L-lactate via intra-peritoneal (i.p.) injections. Our results clearly show that 3-hydroxy-butyrate or L-lactate “fuel” tumor growth and metastasis, without a measurable increase in tumor angiogenesis [growth of new blood vessels]. Thus, our results provide metabolic/functional evidence to directly support the “reverse Warburg effect.”"
In the discussion they note "More specifically, we show that 3-hydroxy-butyrate is sufficient to promote a 2.5-fold increase in tumor volume, without any significant increase in angiogenesis. Although L-lactate did not increase tumor growth, it had a significant effect on lung colonization/metastasis, resulting in a 10-fold increase in the formation of metastatic tumor foci. Our results are consistent with the idea that human breast cancer cells can reutilize the energy-rich end-products of glycolysis for oxidative mitochondrial metabolism."
The conclusion seems to suggest a change to medical intervention within the hospital setting "we discuss the possibility that it may be unwise to use lactate-containing i.v. solutions (such as lactated Ringer’s or Hartmann’s solution) in cancer patients, given the dramatic metastasis-promoting properties of L-lactate." But I'm not clear that they draw any conclusions as to dietary interventions one way or the other?
To my layman's reading this suggests that: these end-products of burning glucose for energy are to be avoided as they increase tumour growth... and especially they should not be given intravenously.
Also of interest to me -- in light of the repeated inferences that ketones are inefficient -- was this statement "Ketones are a 'super-fuel' for mitochondria ['cellular power plants'], producing more energy than lactate and simultaneously decreasing oxygen consumption."
