HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post - <<Mediterranean diet>>, should be extremely efficient at blocking HER2

R.B. · 04-21-2007, 01:58 PM

Thank you for posting that. It is a very interesting report.

Just for those who have not seen any of these threads Virgin Olive oil seems preferable for a number of reasons. One is that the refined oils have up to 50% omega six, where a good quality virgin oil will have less than 10%. Another is that some of the other benifical chemicals can be removed by processing.

I wondered whether to include the trial. I was worried people might start gulping down olive oil. This was a test tube based experiment which does not always translate into what happens in the body, which is not to say it is not good just maybe less spectacular or more but we don't know for sure.......

The metabolism of fats is very complex.

BC risk has been reported in a number of trials to link to both type of fat and quantity of intake so suggestions to consider would include

1. Balancing the omega threes and sixes as a starting point
2. Using non promoters for cooking variety benefits (eg olive oil) in diet etc and if you need more fat
3. But keeping intake overall strictly moderate for lots of reasons

Moderation is good too. Many trials equate more fat to more BC. Early work showed a straight line graph between BC death rates and TOTAL fat intake.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0813/is_n2_v15/ai_6482555

"LC: When I came into this field in 1972, if you proposed to do a study on diet and cancer, you would literally be laughed out of the room by your peers. I wrote a grant back in those days to study dietary fat and breast cancer, and one of the reviewers wrote back, "This will contribute nothing to science, but it will contribute a great deal to the folklore of science."

So it's been a very difficult time over the last ten, fifteen years to get people--not only the public, but the medical establishment, the government, and the American Cancer Society--to take the relationship between nutrition and cancer seriously.

NAH: When did scientists first begin to think of dietary fat as a cause of breast cancer?

LC: Over 40 years ago, a scientist named Albert Tannenbaum, at the Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago, carried out a series of classical experiments showing that if animals are fed high levels of fat in their diet, they develop more breast cancers than if they are fed a low-fat diet. Tannenbaum and others published many experiments in the 1940s and 1950s, but no one paid any attention until about 1967, when Kenneth Carroll at the University of Western Ontario in Canada began to study the problem. Now at least 20 groups around the world are involved in similar lines of research.

NAH: What prompted epidemiologists to compare fat consumption in different countries?

LC: The real breakthrough came when the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization published its food balance sheets. The FAO compiled data on the export and import of food in about 50 or 60 countries around the world. Carroll took a look at these and noted how very different food intake was worldwide. If you compare 40 countries, you'll find low breast cancer mortality in countries with low fat intake and the opposite in countries with high fat intake (see graph).

NAH: Couldn't the differences in cancer rates be due to something other than diet?

LC: Evidence from Japan suggests otherwise. The Japanese are exposed to as much environmental pollution as we are, and educationally and health-wise, they are close to or above the U.S. level. Yet the Japanese have breast cancer death rates which are only one-quarter of ours. So there has to be something in the Japanese environment other than pollution or industrialization to account for these low rates.

In addition, when Japanese migrate to Hawaii and California, the second generation's breast cancer death rates come up to the rates of Americans. This suggests that the differences are not based on genetics.

On the other hand, one thing about the Japanese is that their diet is one of the lowest in fat in the world. Among farmers and fishermen, it remains around 11 percent of calories from fat, whereas our diet is 40 percent fat, as are the diets of most western countries.

NAH: What other evidence do we have from populations that a high fat diet promotes breast cancer?

LC: Over time, when a low-risk population's fat intake increases, breast cancer mortality also increases. Since World War II, we've seen dramatic increases in breast cancer in Japan, Greece, and Iceland. The people of these countries eat a lot more fat than they used to."............

"LC: At least 25 independent studies in different countries using different animal models have shown that if you feed animals a low-fat diet (10 to 20 percent of calories) they will exhibit one-third to one-half fewer breast tumors than if you feed them a high-fat diet (40 percent of calories). It is one of the strongest and clearest of all the diet-cancer relationships."...........

" NAH: Which types of fat promote cancer?
Advertisement

LC: In animal experiments, so far we know that olive, fish, and coconut oil are non-promoters. Lard, beef tallow, corn, safflower, and sunflower oils are promoters. Butter, peanut, canola, and soybean oil haven't been adequately studied."..........

04-21-2007, 01:58 PM	#5
R.B. Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,843	Thank you for posting that. It is a very interesting report. Just for those who have not seen any of these threads Virgin Olive oil seems preferable for a number of reasons. One is that the refined oils have up to 50% omega six, where a good quality virgin oil will have less than 10%. Another is that some of the other benifical chemicals can be removed by processing. I wondered whether to include the trial. I was worried people might start gulping down olive oil. This was a test tube based experiment which does not always translate into what happens in the body, which is not to say it is not good just maybe less spectacular or more but we don't know for sure....... The metabolism of fats is very complex. BC risk has been reported in a number of trials to link to both type of fat and quantity of intake so suggestions to consider would include 1. Balancing the omega threes and sixes as a starting point 2. Using non promoters for cooking variety benefits (eg olive oil) in diet etc and if you need more fat 3. But keeping intake overall strictly moderate for lots of reasons Moderation is good too. Many trials equate more fat to more BC. Early work showed a straight line graph between BC death rates and TOTAL fat intake. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0813/is_n2_v15/ai_6482555 "LC: When I came into this field in 1972, if you proposed to do a study on diet and cancer, you would literally be laughed out of the room by your peers. I wrote a grant back in those days to study dietary fat and breast cancer, and one of the reviewers wrote back, "This will contribute nothing to science, but it will contribute a great deal to the folklore of science." So it's been a very difficult time over the last ten, fifteen years to get people--not only the public, but the medical establishment, the government, and the American Cancer Society--to take the relationship between nutrition and cancer seriously. NAH: When did scientists first begin to think of dietary fat as a cause of breast cancer? LC: Over 40 years ago, a scientist named Albert Tannenbaum, at the Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago, carried out a series of classical experiments showing that if animals are fed high levels of fat in their diet, they develop more breast cancers than if they are fed a low-fat diet. Tannenbaum and others published many experiments in the 1940s and 1950s, but no one paid any attention until about 1967, when Kenneth Carroll at the University of Western Ontario in Canada began to study the problem. Now at least 20 groups around the world are involved in similar lines of research. NAH: What prompted epidemiologists to compare fat consumption in different countries? LC: The real breakthrough came when the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization published its food balance sheets. The FAO compiled data on the export and import of food in about 50 or 60 countries around the world. Carroll took a look at these and noted how very different food intake was worldwide. If you compare 40 countries, you'll find low breast cancer mortality in countries with low fat intake and the opposite in countries with high fat intake (see graph). NAH: Couldn't the differences in cancer rates be due to something other than diet? LC: Evidence from Japan suggests otherwise. The Japanese are exposed to as much environmental pollution as we are, and educationally and health-wise, they are close to or above the U.S. level. Yet the Japanese have breast cancer death rates which are only one-quarter of ours. So there has to be something in the Japanese environment other than pollution or industrialization to account for these low rates. In addition, when Japanese migrate to Hawaii and California, the second generation's breast cancer death rates come up to the rates of Americans. This suggests that the differences are not based on genetics. On the other hand, one thing about the Japanese is that their diet is one of the lowest in fat in the world. Among farmers and fishermen, it remains around 11 percent of calories from fat, whereas our diet is 40 percent fat, as are the diets of most western countries. NAH: What other evidence do we have from populations that a high fat diet promotes breast cancer? LC: Over time, when a low-risk population's fat intake increases, breast cancer mortality also increases. Since World War II, we've seen dramatic increases in breast cancer in Japan, Greece, and Iceland. The people of these countries eat a lot more fat than they used to."............ "LC: At least 25 independent studies in different countries using different animal models have shown that if you feed animals a low-fat diet (10 to 20 percent of calories) they will exhibit one-third to one-half fewer breast tumors than if you feed them a high-fat diet (40 percent of calories). It is one of the strongest and clearest of all the diet-cancer relationships."........... " NAH: Which types of fat promote cancer? Advertisement LC: In animal experiments, so far we know that olive, fish, and coconut oil are non-promoters. Lard, beef tallow, corn, safflower, and sunflower oils are promoters. Butter, peanut, canola, and soybean oil haven't been adequately studied."..........