About a decade ago, a very controversial study came out, which claimed to demonstrate that the amino acid glycine is pro-cancer, and that glycine restriction may be therapeutic. Subsequent in-vivo studies repeatedly demonstrated that glycine addition to the diet was actually therapeutic in cancer and in many cases halted tumor growth, but the damage the original study did was already done and even now many prominent dietitians and even doctors advise against supplementing with gelatin\/glycine due to its pro-cancer effects. The study below is yet another one to demonstrate that glycine deficiency actively drives tumor growth and aggressiveness by increasing the stemness of cancer cells. Metabolically, this effects seems to be mediated by the increased fatty acid oxidation resulting from the glycine (or serine) deficiency. Thus, once again, we have evidence that cancer is metabolically driven and that its reliance on fat for fuel is a fundamental growth factor, and simultaneously a therapeutic target. Since glycine supplementation is known to shift the macronutrient preference in favor of glucose, it seems that Peat’s statements have once again been confirmed correct. Namely, glycine deficiency strongly promotes cancer growth, while glycine supplementation is oncostatic, and this effect is once again manifested through the “controversial” Randle Cycle.<\/p>\n