Biologist reveals unexpected reason why wealthier countries have a higher rate of cancer

A biologist has claimed that the modern lifestyles common in wealthier nations, rather than genetics, are largely responsible for higher cancer rates in countries like the United States, Australia and New Zealand, compared to lower-income nations.

Thomas Seyfried, a professor of biology at Boston College, made the claims during an appearance on The Diary Of A CEO podcast with host Steven Bartlett.

Seyfried, who has spent decades researching the metabolic origins of cancer, argued that high-income countries are dealing with 'massive amounts of highly processed carbohydrates, inactivity, emotional stress' and poor sleep habits that he believes damage cellular health over time.

According to Seyfried, countries such as Niger, Gambia and Nepal consistently rank among the lowest in the world for cancer incidence, while wealthier nations report the highest rates.

He attributed the gap not to genetics but to lifestyle factors that he says chronically damage mitochondria, the structures inside cells responsible for producing energy.

A biologist has claimed that the modern lifestyles common in wealthier nations, rather than genetics, are largely responsible for higher cancer rates in countries like the United States, Australia and New Zealand, compared to lower-income nations.(Getty stock image)

Why do wealthy countries have higher cancer rates?

Seyfried argued that human biology evolved to store energy efficiently during times of famine, a trait that becomes a liability in modern environments where food, particularly processed carbohydrates, is constantly available.

"We are now in a new environment where we have massive amounts of highly processed carbohydrates, inactivity, emotional stress, poor sleep habits," he said, adding that these factors combine to chronically damage the mitochondria.

He pointed to physician Albert Schweitzer's historical observations of African tribes as an example, claiming Schweitzer had found remarkably low rates of cancer among populations living according to traditional diets and lifestyles with minimal exposure to modern food and chemical exposures.

Seyfried also compared domestic dogs to wild wolves, noting that cancer is a leading cause of death in pet dogs while it is rare in wolves, a difference he attributed to diet and activity levels rather than genetics.

It's worth noting that Seyfried's framing of cancer as primarily a metabolic rather than genetic disease runs counter to the position of mainstream oncology bodies, including the National Cancer Institute, which describes cancer as a genetic disease driven by mutations (Getty stock image)

What does Seyfried say people can do to lower their risk?

Seyfried and his colleagues developed a tool called the Glucose Ketone Index, a calculation using a person's blood glucose and ketone levels, which he says can offer insight into metabolic health.

He described dividing blood glucose readings by ketone readings to produce a score, claiming lower scores are associated with what he called a 'zone of prevention'.

The professor said his approach centers on avoiding highly processed carbohydrates, exercising regularly, reducing chronic stress and prioritizing sleep, rather than any single diet.

Seyfried, who has spent decades researching the metabolic origins of cancer, argued that high-income countries are dealing with "massive amounts of highly processed carbohydrates, inactivity, emotional stress and poor sleep habits that he believes damage cellular health over time. (Getty stock image)

He stressed repeatedly that decisions about diet should remain with individuals and their physicians, saying, 'no government or government official' should tell people what to eat.

It's worth noting that Seyfried's framing of cancer as primarily a metabolic rather than genetic disease runs counter to the position of mainstream oncology bodies, including the National Cancer Institute, which describes cancer as a genetic disease driven by mutations.

Seyfried disputes this characterization, arguing that damage to mitochondrial function, not DNA mutations, is the root cause.