Go To Main TNBC Website


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Over weight and cancer
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Over weight and cancer

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
krisa View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 21 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 1090
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote krisa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Over weight and cancer
    Posted: Nov 30 2008 at 7:32am
I had my first appointment with the Physical Therapist for my mild case of lymphedema and she STRESSED to me the importance of getting rid of excess body fat and the connection of increasing my survival rate. 

The lymph system gets "lost" in body fat and does not work as well; the lymph system performs at a higher level when it is next to muscle..

Then I received this today from Hester Hill, an article on weight--What I am curious about is the post menopausal women who were over weight, who did not use hormone therapy and the type of breast cancer they had.  Some of the doctors are trying to make a connection between body fat and estrogen and breast cancer...where does TN fit in?  I am overweight and estrogen didn't play a part in my bc---could it be nothing more than my lymph system smothered in fat?


NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Overweight and obese women are at increased risk of breast cancer and of being
diagnosed with advanced disease, according to results of a large study published Wednesday in the Journal of the
National Cancer Institute.
And it's not because overweight and obese women get fewer mammograms than normal-weight women. "Even after
taking into account how often women were screened for breast cancer, overweight women had a 10 percent increased
risk of advanced disease and obese women a 56 percent to 82 percent increased risk of advanced disease compared to
normal-weight women," Dr. Karla Kerlikowske told Reuters Health.
It's also not because mammograms are less accurate in heavy women. "We were able to show that breast tumors are
easy to detect in overweight and obese women, so the increase in advanced disease among overweight and obese
women is not because more tumors are missed on mammography in these women," Kerlikowske said.
"The message to women is to get routine mammography and to maintain ideal body weight -- two factors that decrease
the chance of being diagnosed with advanced-stage breast cancer," added Kerlikoswke, a physician at San Francisco VA
Medical Center and a professor of medicine, epidemiology, and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.
From 1996 to 2005, Kerlikoswke and colleagues collected mammography data on 287,115 postmenopausal women not
using hormone therapy who underwent a total of 614,562 mammograms. A total of 4,446 of these women were diagnosed
with breast cancer within 12 months of a mammography exam.
The researchers found that the overall breast cancer rates rose in tandem with weight, as did rates of advanced tumors.
As mentioned, differences in mammography use and accuracy did not explain the higher rates of breast cancer among
overweight and obese postmenopausal women not taking hormone therapy.
"The reason may be that being overweight increases circulating estrogen, which in turn promotes tumor growth,"
Kerlikowske suggested.
Fortunately, she added, "this is a modifiable risk factor. There are very few breast cancer risk factors that can be modified.
Not taking postmenopausal hormones is one. Maintaining a healthy weight is another."

Back to Top
krisa View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 21 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 1090
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote krisa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 30 2008 at 12:27pm
I got this in an email today, don't know if any of this is true but the foods described are "good" for us.    time for a walnut snack Wink

 


A sliced Carrot looks like the human eye. The pupil, iris and radiating lines look just like the human eye... and YES, science now shows carrots greatly enhance blood flow to and function of the eyes.

 


A Tomato has four chambers and is red. The heart has four chambers and is red. All of the research shows tomatoes are loaded with lycopine and are indeed pure heart and blood food.

 


Grapes hang in a cluster that has the shape of the heart. Each grape looks like a blood cell and all of the research today shows grapes are also profound heart and blood vitalizing food.

 


A Walnut looks like a little brain, a left and right hemisphere, upper cerebrums and lower cerebellums. Even the wrinkles or folds on the nut are just like the neo-cortex. We now know walnuts help develop more than three (3) dozen neuron-transmitters for brain function.

 


 Kidney Beans actually heal and help maintain kidney function and yes, they look exactly like the human kidneys.

 


Celery, Bok Choy, Rhubarb and many more look just like bones. These foods specifically target bone strength. Bones are 23% sodium and these foods are 23% sodium. If you don't have enough sodium in your diet, the body pulls it from the bones, thus making them weak. These foods replenish the skeletal needs of the body.

 


Avocadoes, Eggplant and Pears target the health and function of the womb and cervix of the female - they look just like these organs. Today's research shows that when a woman eats one avocado a week, it balances hormones, sheds unwanted birth weight, and prevents cervical cancers. And how profound is this? It takes exactly nine (9) months to grow an avocado from blossom to ripened fruit. There are over 14,000 photolytic chemical constituents of nutrition in each one of these foods (modern science has only studied and named about 141 of them).

 


Figs are full of seeds and hang in twos when they grow. Figs increase the mobility of male sperm and increase the numbers of Sperm as well to overcome male sterility.

 


Sweet Potatoes look like the pancreas and actually balance the glycemic index of diabetics.

 


Olives assist the health and function of the ovaries. 
Oranges, Grapefruits, and other Citrus fruits look just like the mammary glands of the female and actually assist the health of the breasts and the movement of lymph in and out of the breasts.

 


Onions look like the body's cells. Today's research shows onions help clear waste materials from all of the body cells. They even produce tears which wash the epithelial layers of the eyes. A working companion,
Garlic
, also helps eliminate waste materials and dangerous free radicals from the body


Back to Top
Sadie Rose View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: Mar 28 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 96
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sadie Rose Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 30 2008 at 5:01pm

Hi Krisa,

I am overweight.  I am trying to eat better.  I've been reading Andrew Weil's book, Health Aging.  He says it is better to be healthy, fit and over weight than to be slim and not fit.
 
I climb stairs every day, do yoga and park my car far away from stores I am going to.  I can see I have to intensify my exercise.
 
Thank you for sharing the article.
 
Sadie
Back to Top
anna921 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: Nov 12 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 91
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote anna921 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 30 2008 at 5:58pm

While being overweight isn't the best thing, but to correlate that with cancer is, as far as I'm concerned, asinine. Remember all the other things that were supposed to cause cancer, coffee, beer, chocolate, etc? Instead of admitting they don't know what does cause cancer, the 'researchers' are coming up with all kind of suggestions just to keep their research money.

As for the list of fruits and vegetables, all that sounds good, but even those can be harmful as I found out the hard way. I've alwys loved tomatoes, pears, small red potatoes and drank orange juice and other, no sugar added pure juices every day. I also ate pears every day since their fiber is the best to keep me regulated. Well, my last blood test revealed a high potassium level, high enough that my oncologist told me in no uncertain terms to stop eating and drinking those foods. Turns out, high potassium is as dangerous to your heart as low potasium is to your kidneys.

August 2007, Stage III, 5+ cm, Grade 4F, 4 FAC with booster after 4 days, 12 weekly Taxol, radical mastectomy, 36 radiation treatments.
Houston, Texas
Back to Top
Sadie Rose View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: Mar 28 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 96
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sadie Rose Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 30 2008 at 6:26pm

  Anna,

You stated just what I was thinking !!!   They don't really know?
Question%20MarkHmmmm....

Sadie




Back to Top
krisa View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 21 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 1090
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote krisa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 30 2008 at 7:18pm
I didn't read the article to say that being overweight causes cancer-but increases your chance of getting cancer....but, I haven't read anything that gives an exact reason why there is a connection.
my mother has for the most part, been overweight--no heart disease, cancer, nary a stroke and she is 93 Smile

anna,
sorry to hear that those foods caused you so many problems.  I eat most foods on the list--especially garlic and onionsCry




Edited by krisa - Nov 30 2008 at 7:32pm
Back to Top
krisa View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 21 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 1090
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote krisa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Dec 01 2008 at 9:32am
I found this article to be interesting---  having my own little thread day. Smile

OncologyStat® One Source, Many Resources.®
By Elsevier

Vitamins, Micronutrients, and Cancer Prevention: Where Do We Stand?
2008 Nov 18, Lee Schwartzberg, MD, Editor-in-Chief

Abundant preclinical evidence supports the use of antioxidants to reduce the incidence of cancer. Antioxidants interact with free radicals generated by a variety of environmental toxins, including tobacco and radiation. Excessive free radical accumulation leads to damaged DNA, which can cause oncogene activation and other processes that result in cancer.

Many antioxidants exist in nature. Some of the most potent are common micronutrients, such as vitamins A, C, and E and betacarotene.

Studies showing the linkage of antioxidants to cancer initiation and the ability to terminate tumor progression in vitro ultimately led to several large-scale cancer prevention trials designed to reduce the burden of cancer.


Cancer prevention trial results
The first large randomized cancer prevention trial, published in 1993, was conducted in a relatively poor Chinese province. This trial, which examined the effect of a combination of beta-carotene, vitamin E, and selenium in healthy individuals at risk for gastric cancer, showed a reduction in the incidence of both gastric cancer and all cancers.
However, the next large trial, the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene (ATBC) Cancer Prevention Study, targeting Finnish smokers as the at-risk population, demonstrated an increase in lung cancer rates with beta-carotene supplementation and no effect of alpha-tocopherol (vitamin E) supplements.

Concerns that vitamins could actually increase cancer incidence were heightened by results of the Beta-Carotene and Retinol
Efficacy Trial (CARET), also published in the early 1990s, which suggested that beta-carotene and vitamin A supplementation may
increase lung cancer rates

Two more recent, large, prospective, US trials in healthy individuals—the Physicians’ Health Study and the Women’s Health Study
—showed, respectively, that beta-carotene did not reduce lung cancer in male physicians and that neither beta-carotene nor
vitamin E offered cancer-preventive benefits in healthy women.

One of the largest cancer prevention trials investigating vitamins and antioxidants to date was the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer
Prevention Trial (SELECT) funded by the National Cancer Institute and conducted in 35,000 men at risk for prostate cancer. This
study, which started in 2001, assessed whether selenium, vitamin E, or the combination would reduce this heightened risk.

The results of this trial, revealed publicly in November 2008, showed that neither selenium nor vitamin E lowered the risk of prostate
cancer. The Data Safety Monitoring Committee concluded that it was extremely unlikely that the trial would ever meet its goal of a
25% reduction in prostate cancer incidence. The interim results further revealed a nonsignificant trend toward more prostate cancer
in men taking vitamin E and a slightly higher likelihood of diabetes mellitus in men taking selenium. Based on these results, the
study was halted, and men enrolled in the study were instructed to stop taking the supplements.

Why was SELECT negative?
So why was this trial negative? Was it worth spending $120 million to obtain these results?

SELECT was based on solid, preclinical evidence supporting the use of the antioxidants studied. Selenium, a mineral that is an
integral component of several enzymes that control antioxidant processes, demonstrates cancer-preventive activity in preclinical
systems. The clinical rationale for SELECT was based on observations made in other trials of antioxidants for cancer prevention.

A 50% reduction in prostate cancer incidence was detected in a skin cancer prevention trial testing selenium.  As a secondary
endpoint in the ATBC study, significantly less prostate cancer was seen in men who took beta-carotene and vitamin E. Based on
these data, it was reasonable for SELECT to proceed.

Furthermore, a previous cancer prevention trial testing finasteride had been carried out successfully, so the infrastructure to conduct SELECT largely existed before the start of the trial.

SELECT proves once again that hypotheses generated from well-conducted, well-designed cohort studies or as secondary
endpoints from randomized trials cannot be accepted as fact until they have been formally tested in a prospective trial that includes
a control group.

It may be inappropriate to extrapolate results, such as the putative reduction in prostate cancer seen in Finnish smokers, to another group, such as American males over age 55 at risk for prostate cancer. The lack of benefit for selenium and vitamin E observed in SELECT could reflect a random result in the other trials.

Alternatively, perhaps endogenous levels and consumption of these micronutrients may have differed between the population study and the previous trials.
The SELECT population may well have had higher baseline nutritional status and fewer deficiencies in these vitamins than either of the groups
previously determined to have lower prostate cancer risks. Further reports from SELECT should answer this question by examining
stored blood samples for baseline micronutrient levels.

In a recent editorial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology before the SELECT results were released, Goodman, Alberts, and
Meyskens, the pioneering group in this field, reviewed 25 years’ worth of vitamin chemopreventive research. They presciently
stated that “taking super physiologic doses [of micronutrients] for a prolonged time may also affect many organ systems. Our
understanding of the pharmacology and physiologic effects at these high doses is incomplete.”

Indeed, a recent meta-analysis of antioxidant supplements for cancer prevention assessing 67 randomized trials actually demonstrated a net increase in mortality in the treatment arms.

What are the lessons for oncologists?
What lessons do these results offer for oncologists, their patients, and their patients’ families? First, we should not be so arrogant
as to believe we know the answers before doing the studies.

Second, while vitamins and other micronutrients are critically
important for maintaining good health, it does not necessarily follow that use of supplements by nutritionally repleted individuals has
beneficial effects on either cancer or cardiovascular disease.

Third, despite compelling in vitro evidence, an intervention may simply
not work in vivo.

Fourth, in view of our admittedly incomplete knowledge at this point, the best advice may be what we learned at our mother’s knee: Eat your fruits and vegetables! This may be the most effective way to derive benefit from antioxidants.

It is entirely plausible that nature developed combinations of micronutrients to be ingested in a way that provides maximum
preventive benefit as well as nutrition. Perhaps the next wave of chemoprevention trials will evaluate that hypothesis rather than the
approach used up to now, namely, supplementation with higher doses of individual micronutrient and antioxidants.


In an era of harsh economic realities, the time for large-scale expensive chemoprevention trials may have passed. Biomarkers as endpoints
and targeted at-risk populations are likely to be the focus of future prevention trials.

Back to Top
Nancy Bell View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: Feb 18 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 150
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Nancy Bell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Dec 02 2008 at 6:26am

Just recently had an "in-law" pass away.  They are still trying to figure it out.  He apparantly had some kind of heart condition.  He had started taking acacia (Noni) to improve his health.  Come to find out it was not beneficial in that case in fact, possibly detrimental.  Just because it is natural doesn't mean it is safe.  I am a believer in natural remedies but we all need to be aware of the dangers of some of these and do our homework. 

Thanks for the info Kris.
dx 8/17/2007 IDC Grade 3 Stage2
lumpectomy 9/19/2007
1.2cm w/extension into multiple intramammary lymph nodes
SNL 0/1
Ki-67 81%
Dose Dense AC/T completed 2/21/08
37 rads completed 5/02/08
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.05
Copyright ©2001-2016 Web Wiz Ltd.