Saturday, December 18, 2010
Overweight
Similarly, here is the situation about being overweight: AFTER menopause (and I honestly don't know about chemically-induced menopause), fat cells manufacture small levels of estrogen. To a significantly lesser extent pre-menopause, so do all fat cells. However, this is "overweight" not "healthy weight" -- so I don't know the BMI or anything.
Here it is, courtesy of Mayo Clinic:
BMI
25.0 — 29.9 Overweight
30.0 and higher Obese
The risk is overweight as measured by BMI, not by high fat diet:
Research shows that eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables doesn't offer direct protection from breast cancer. In addition, a recent study of dietary fat and breast cancer showed only a slight decrease in the risk of invasive breast cancer for women who ate a low-fat diet.
Here it is, courtesy of Mayo Clinic:
BMI
25.0 — 29.9 Overweight
30.0 and higher Obese
The risk is overweight as measured by BMI, not by high fat diet:
Research shows that eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables doesn't offer direct protection from breast cancer. In addition, a recent study of dietary fat and breast cancer showed only a slight decrease in the risk of invasive breast cancer for women who ate a low-fat diet.
Alcohol
Alcohol consumption did not influence the risk of hormone receptor-positive ductal carcinoma.
You have doubtless read some version of this from late this summer:
Women who averaged one alcoholic drink a day had almost double the risk of hormone-sensitive breast cancer of nondrinkers, data from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) showed.
Alcohol consumption had a significant association with invasive breast cancer overall, invasive lobular carcinoma, and hormone receptor-positive tumors (P≤0.022), but the risk of receptor-negative breast cancer was unaffected.
The analysis, reported online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, also showed that the association between alcohol and hormone-sensitive breast cancer applied only to lobular invasive breast cancer and not to ductal invasive cancer.
Just a little lesson in journalism: log line: "almost double the risk" for ER+ cancers.
"Almost double" is a lot, for ER+ cancers: the vast majority of cancers of any type in premenopausal women.
Not until the third line do we learn does NOT apply to DCIS or anything originally arising in the duct, which over 90% of all cancers, and... invasive lobular... even fewer...
Oh, but look at this! It doesn't apply to anyone premenopause. And the findings are a bit klugy because they didn't correct for various types of hormone supplements and therapies. We know this only from the title of the real paper in the footnote:
Primary source: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Source reference:
Li CI, et al "Alcohol consumption and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer by subtype: the Women's Health Initiative observational study" J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djq316.
Going there we see the assumption that I am checking out:
Alcohol consumption is a well-established risk factor for breast cancer.
And some more facts -- again, for all postmenopausal women, not premenopausal women or postmenopausal women who have had breast cancer.
Compared with never drinkers, women who consumed seven or more alcoholic beverages per week had an almost twofold increased risk of hormone receptor–positive invasive lobular carcinoma (HR = 1.82; 95% CI = 1.18 to 2.81) but not a statistically significant increased risk of hormone receptor–positive invasive ductal carcinoma.
So, a 2% risk increase in getting a type of cancer that one is...at 5%-8% (per 10000 years? so is that .01%?... risk of 11% risk of getting. It is -- I think -- "background" risk -- all women are subject to this risk.
This said, they are thinking that there are distinctions in ways cancers are made (etiology), and this points that this is a way that -- some cancer survivors could be making a different cancer from the initial one.
What I am receiving is that definitely this is a risk that is there, but that it is a risk that when measured between "never having had a drink" and "drinking moderately" is small. And, unavoidable if you drank ever, especially even in teens and 20s, and even moderately.
This, on the surface (I haven't read about the topic), seems to indicate that this might explain why red wine isn't quite as good for women as men.
From Mayo:
In fact, if you're a woman and drink alcohol, talk to your doctor about taking supplemental folate to help reduce the risk of breast cancer associated with alcohol use. UNLESS YOU DON"T WANT TO INCREASE YOUR RISK OF ER- BREAST CANCERS... FOLIATE has as a direct tie to ER- breast cancer.
You have doubtless read some version of this from late this summer:
Women who averaged one alcoholic drink a day had almost double the risk of hormone-sensitive breast cancer of nondrinkers, data from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) showed.
Alcohol consumption had a significant association with invasive breast cancer overall, invasive lobular carcinoma, and hormone receptor-positive tumors (P≤0.022), but the risk of receptor-negative breast cancer was unaffected.
The analysis, reported online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, also showed that the association between alcohol and hormone-sensitive breast cancer applied only to lobular invasive breast cancer and not to ductal invasive cancer.
Just a little lesson in journalism: log line: "almost double the risk" for ER+ cancers.
"Almost double" is a lot, for ER+ cancers: the vast majority of cancers of any type in premenopausal women.
Not until the third line do we learn does NOT apply to DCIS or anything originally arising in the duct, which over 90% of all cancers, and... invasive lobular... even fewer...
Oh, but look at this! It doesn't apply to anyone premenopause. And the findings are a bit klugy because they didn't correct for various types of hormone supplements and therapies. We know this only from the title of the real paper in the footnote:
Primary source: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Source reference:
Li CI, et al "Alcohol consumption and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer by subtype: the Women's Health Initiative observational study" J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djq316.
Going there we see the assumption that I am checking out:
Alcohol consumption is a well-established risk factor for breast cancer.
And some more facts -- again, for all postmenopausal women, not premenopausal women or postmenopausal women who have had breast cancer.
Compared with never drinkers, women who consumed seven or more alcoholic beverages per week had an almost twofold increased risk of hormone receptor–positive invasive lobular carcinoma (HR = 1.82; 95% CI = 1.18 to 2.81) but not a statistically significant increased risk of hormone receptor–positive invasive ductal carcinoma.
So, a 2% risk increase in getting a type of cancer that one is...at 5%-8% (per 10000 years? so is that .01%?... risk of 11% risk of getting. It is -- I think -- "background" risk -- all women are subject to this risk.
This said, they are thinking that there are distinctions in ways cancers are made (etiology), and this points that this is a way that -- some cancer survivors could be making a different cancer from the initial one.
What I am receiving is that definitely this is a risk that is there, but that it is a risk that when measured between "never having had a drink" and "drinking moderately" is small. And, unavoidable if you drank ever, especially even in teens and 20s, and even moderately.
This, on the surface (I haven't read about the topic), seems to indicate that this might explain why red wine isn't quite as good for women as men.
From Mayo:
In fact, if you're a woman and drink alcohol, talk to your doctor about taking supplemental folate to help reduce the risk of breast cancer associated with alcohol use. UNLESS YOU DON"T WANT TO INCREASE YOUR RISK OF ER- BREAST CANCERS... FOLIATE has as a direct tie to ER- breast cancer.
Grilled Meat
The chemicals that are generated -- not by putting a nice char on something, but totally burning it -- are in tiny quantities (if at all) on beef and pork, and in higher quantities on fish and chicken.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Monoclonal Breast Cancer Treatment
Monoclonal is antibodies that are antagonistic against the proteins, which are in or around cancer cells. They discern an invader such as a cancer cell and attack it.
I'll look this up.
I'll look this up.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Radiation Risks
Also new to the known carcinogen list are three types of radiation: X-rays, gamma radiation, and neutrons. Studies have shown that exposure to X-ray and gamma radiation is most strongly associated with leukemia and cancer of the thyroid, breast, and lung.
This risk is real, but reportedly minimal, and in this case, these induced secondary cancers IN THE SAME AREA are rarely fatal, but have significantly larger and long-term side effects to treat. I.e., the cure isn't going to kill *breast cancer patients* although -- other cancer patients? It might contribute...
This risk is real, but reportedly minimal, and in this case, these induced secondary cancers IN THE SAME AREA are rarely fatal, but have significantly larger and long-term side effects to treat. I.e., the cure isn't going to kill *breast cancer patients* although -- other cancer patients? It might contribute...
Nutrition
OK, I have a pretty long history of weird nutrition, allergies, and dumbkopf nutritionists. I assign this to the fact that I'm in LA, and that my needs are specific.
So are yours, if you're reading this.
If you are young, despite your cancer, I am assuming that you, like me, are in relatively good shape, have a relatively good diet, quit smoking years ago, and etc.
I get to do this because I am not a medical professional. I also get to do this because I am a woman. Brushes with anorexia, bulemia, and hormonally-induced obesity: yes, I share your pain. And frankly, if you're female and overweight, YOU KNOW IT and it has been something that has caused at least some psychological pain, even if you have Grave's Disease, or never lost your baby weight, or hate sweating, or your husband enjoys ample curves. And, unfortunately, it is not time to "go on a diet" -- it is time to commit to being slim(mer) for the rest of your life.
For me, part of the nutritionist-world is that most of these people can't cook, don't really deeply CARE about delicious food or the social aspects of food and drink, view food as medicine, and are being very judgmental in an area that we, as women, are of course super-sensitive. I have had female nutritionists (I think most are).
So:
First of all, if you're not going through chemo, you should not suddenly become lactose intolerant, celiac, or suffer from IBS. If you think this is happening to you, it is totally cool to say, look, I seem to be suffering from something, and I want to be recommended to a gastroenterologist, immunology/allergy person, and tested, BEFORE doing radical things and trying to get through a serious health event without the comforts of Cheddar Cheese.
Corollary: if you are doing chemo at stage II or less, it is probably optional. SO -- ask your oncologist if s/he is open to you protecting your immune system and gut from chemo side effects, especially since the necessity of really slashing & burning isn't there in your case. My oncologist, speaking before we knew if chemo was even on the table or not, said, SURE. SAVE YOUR GOOD CELLS. YOU DON'T NEED TO DO THE MOST EXTREME CHEMO IN ANY CASE.
Secondly, though I haven't read deeply in the Greek, I assure you that Hippocrates didn't say sick people should become caffeine-free vegans because there's nothing harmful in becoming an ascetic. Unfortunately, when asked point-blank, in the U.S., your doctors have no choice to make recommendations (generally, consult a nutritionist/CYA/pass the buck) or to make "harmless" recommendations. No one is ever going to tell you to eat steak and chocolate cake. Although, I have heard of cancer patients with a chronic cancer -- towards the end of their lives -- being recommended an occasional glass of white wine, especially if they have loss of appetite. [Note, this blog isn't for people with anything more than Stage 2 breast cancer!]
Look at this bobo rec:
If you have been diagnosed with cancer (or just want to eat a healthy diet) it is prudent to eat about 25% of your calories from fat predominantly from fish or plant sources.
It is probably also not prudent to live in the street, sheltered only by the buzz you hang from bum wine and doritos. Duh.
Thirdly, the biggest stat -- i.e., from a nutritionist cancer site -- about nutrition and cancer is that 30% of cancers are impacted in some way by nutrition. Awfully vague and unscientific, huh? "In some way"? Like, I dunno, how many cancers are influenced by barometric pressure? We know lymphodema is influenced by altitude...
Another search about the relationship between saturated fat and breast cancer returned NO RESULTS that stated there was ANY TESTED CONNECTION and two results that reported that saturated non-transfat actually HELPS some cancers by boosting "good" cholesterol.
What I did find was the connection between fats and colon cancer. C'est someone else's vie. PASS THE CHEDDAR.
So are yours, if you're reading this.
If you are young, despite your cancer, I am assuming that you, like me, are in relatively good shape, have a relatively good diet, quit smoking years ago, and etc.
I get to do this because I am not a medical professional. I also get to do this because I am a woman. Brushes with anorexia, bulemia, and hormonally-induced obesity: yes, I share your pain. And frankly, if you're female and overweight, YOU KNOW IT and it has been something that has caused at least some psychological pain, even if you have Grave's Disease, or never lost your baby weight, or hate sweating, or your husband enjoys ample curves. And, unfortunately, it is not time to "go on a diet" -- it is time to commit to being slim(mer) for the rest of your life.
For me, part of the nutritionist-world is that most of these people can't cook, don't really deeply CARE about delicious food or the social aspects of food and drink, view food as medicine, and are being very judgmental in an area that we, as women, are of course super-sensitive. I have had female nutritionists (I think most are).
So:
First of all, if you're not going through chemo, you should not suddenly become lactose intolerant, celiac, or suffer from IBS. If you think this is happening to you, it is totally cool to say, look, I seem to be suffering from something, and I want to be recommended to a gastroenterologist, immunology/allergy person, and tested, BEFORE doing radical things and trying to get through a serious health event without the comforts of Cheddar Cheese.
Corollary: if you are doing chemo at stage II or less, it is probably optional. SO -- ask your oncologist if s/he is open to you protecting your immune system and gut from chemo side effects, especially since the necessity of really slashing & burning isn't there in your case. My oncologist, speaking before we knew if chemo was even on the table or not, said, SURE. SAVE YOUR GOOD CELLS. YOU DON'T NEED TO DO THE MOST EXTREME CHEMO IN ANY CASE.
Secondly, though I haven't read deeply in the Greek, I assure you that Hippocrates didn't say sick people should become caffeine-free vegans because there's nothing harmful in becoming an ascetic. Unfortunately, when asked point-blank, in the U.S., your doctors have no choice to make recommendations (generally, consult a nutritionist/CYA/pass the buck) or to make "harmless" recommendations. No one is ever going to tell you to eat steak and chocolate cake. Although, I have heard of cancer patients with a chronic cancer -- towards the end of their lives -- being recommended an occasional glass of white wine, especially if they have loss of appetite. [Note, this blog isn't for people with anything more than Stage 2 breast cancer!]
Look at this bobo rec:
If you have been diagnosed with cancer (or just want to eat a healthy diet) it is prudent to eat about 25% of your calories from fat predominantly from fish or plant sources.
It is probably also not prudent to live in the street, sheltered only by the buzz you hang from bum wine and doritos. Duh.
Thirdly, the biggest stat -- i.e., from a nutritionist cancer site -- about nutrition and cancer is that 30% of cancers are impacted in some way by nutrition. Awfully vague and unscientific, huh? "In some way"? Like, I dunno, how many cancers are influenced by barometric pressure? We know lymphodema is influenced by altitude...
Another search about the relationship between saturated fat and breast cancer returned NO RESULTS that stated there was ANY TESTED CONNECTION and two results that reported that saturated non-transfat actually HELPS some cancers by boosting "good" cholesterol.
What I did find was the connection between fats and colon cancer. C'est someone else's vie. PASS THE CHEDDAR.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)