Nutrition & cancer: A review of the evidence for an anti-cancer diet

[RhondaH]

I know much of this may be repetetive, but I found it VERY informative, specific and provides much information in 1 article. Take care and God bless.

Rhonda

http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/19

[StephN]

Yes, Rhonda, this has a lot of diet and supplement info PLUS the research in one package. Thus it is rather long, but there is a printable version and worth doing and keeping as a reference.
Interesting as to what diets lowered the chances of other cancers than breast. We all should be mindful that once we have one cancer we are at greater risk to develop other cancers. Not what you wanted to read, but it is true, and maybe more impetus to try harder on our diets.

Reminded me that my med onc had told me that 1000mg of vit D was what I should consider taking in the dark winter months. Was on my way to the supplements store and will get some more vit D!

Also interesting that the author is from a college town where I got my final degree! Also the place where I learned to make my own bread (whole wheat with wheat germ added - but don't do this now that such good bread is ready made!) and to recycle everything I could - and that was in 1971!

[sherri]

Thank you Rhonda. It's a great source of information. Much appreciated.

[AlaskaAngel]

Thanks for all of the interesting articles, Rhonda. I've been taking CoQ10 since diagnosis several years ago but not really aware that taking it with an oil could improve how it works. I found other interesting things in this article too.

AlaskaAngel

[Julie2]

How much Vitamin D is too much? I am taking a multivitamin everyday. Is it OK if

I take 1000mg of vitamin D in addition to that?

Julie

[lia]

I know this is from a few weeks ago but wondered if you could direct me to the relevant bit about co q 10 and oil? thanks.

[RhondaH]

http://her2support.org/vbulletin/sho...ighlight=coq10

[al from Canada]

Hello Rhonda,

I have read the article and with all due respect, I don't buy it. To say they just a simple diet change can reduce cancers by 60% - 70% is too simplistic. I think there is something far greater at work here. I read that in 1900, there chances of getting BC was 1 in 400. Now it is 1 in 8!! I don't believe that people ate "healthier" 100 years ago, but I do believe what they ate was different than what we eat now.
Call it environmental toxins, heavy metals, etc. I don't think that's it's what we eat but what's in what we eat.

I am a staunch supporter of CO-Q10 but when you read the article, it's pretty questionable. But still I think it's one of the best supplements to take.

My always questioning mind tells me that we shouldn't believe everything we read.

Regards,
Al

Al

I am not suggesting diet is all and the only factor in respect of the huge increases in BC and cancer, but I am coming from a neutral starting point to beleive it is a magor factor.

Whilst we have much better access to food the average diet has changed massively - just look in peoples shopping baskets - and for me the key factor of food change is omega three and six intake.

The fats are potentially key factors as they are recognised suggested to be potentiators in evolutionary terms AND we have never had access to the levels of omega six now available. It was always a scarce resource. For me it would be reasonvle to postulate that the body works on the expecation of omega six being a scrce resource and has no mechanism to moderate excess.

Cleary all the other listed factors work in a synergistic way and are cofactors but the fey for me is fats, and particularly omega six and three. The more I read the more certain in my very amateur way I am.

Trials have shown differences as high as 70% in womens risks of lumps being cancerous based on fish oil intake, so I do not think figures of this order can be totally discounted. (And if they were taking fish / oil they proably had an otherwise "good" diet, were not overweight, good cardiac figures etc)

RB

[RhondaH]

that a great deal of it has to do with what is IN our food/products as well as our sedentary life. Before I go too far, let me apoligize for anyone I may offend, but I feel that this is a forum to speak your mind and agree to disagree...I LOVE YOU ALL I DO however feel that the "Western diet" has changed so much that a large number of people eat not only more processed foods than WHOLE foods, but also there are more toxic chemicals used to grow our foods and that are PUT in our foods which are not good for us (I'll get to than in a minute...and yes, I'm so PISSED about it, I WILL vent which I normally don't). My GRANDMOTHER/'s were born in 1892 and 1903 (they both lived to the age of 91 and 92) and growing up they BOTH cooked from scratch (pre packaged food was NEVER in their house and quite honestly never in my moms house, though my father insisted on steak every Sat AND Fry Daddys on the counter for chicken, smelt etc...ie, he died of heart problems...calcified arteries which was also exascerbated by his diabetes...the man would have me bring Krispy Kreme donuts when I would visit and THEN after he ate one would want me to check his sugar and would laugh when it was 700, he was strange), but when I go to the "regular store" (I now buy most of my food at the health food store where everything is organic AND the contents in my sons cereal bars are "pure" not processed) I watch what other people are buying and the MAJORITY are buying pre packaged food (read the contents on them sometime...scary) and there MAY be a fresh fruit or veg, but not often. Growing up, no, there were foods I didn't like, but yes I had to eat them (or eat least try them) that's probably why I found myself binging on candy etc when I was a teenager and find it IMPORTANT to teach Tony moderation and that treats are ok once in a while, but the good foods will keep you healthy so that you don't get sick like mommy...between me, mom and I my refrigerator isn't big enough for the fresh fruits and veg I buy as we ALL like them and No, there are STILL foods I don't like, but I know they (along with the surgery, drugs, radiation, exercise etc) will give me a BETTER chance for long term survival (I know, there are no guarantees, BUT I do want whatever I can to be in my favor and as far as people saying that a "strict diet" prohibits them from "qol", I disagree, I think you need to have BALANCE, so YES, I eat ULTRA healthy 6 days a week, but I DO give myself 1 cheat day a week and I DON'T feel deprived). NOW, on to the environment...YESSSS I agree that the environment has a large role in the growing incidence of cancer and am CURRENTLY getting in a local fight (http://www.wwmt.com/engine.pl?statio...agesearch.html) as to a problem in the town I grew up in (most directly affecting the elementary school I attended AND I'm having my fathers house tested as he still has well water and his house is in the affected area...I just found out that one of my friends growing up is one of the teachers affected and has brain cancer and is not doing well, AND the company they believe to be the cause of the problem is the plant and bulb company (not too far from the school) my mother was an accountant for for many years for just prior to being dx w/ rheumatoid arthritis (she says the owners son died in his 20's of prostate cancer) when she had to stop working. When I spoke to the the person at the health department yesterday about the well test, he "hinted" that he believes" that the herbicides DeGroots (this is the name of the company) used DO have carcinogens though the current level doesn't reflect that (the current "safe" level is .73, though he thinks it should be lower and the school has greater than 1.0 levels). I told him that in MY opinion, in a lot of ways (though not ALL ways) progress has set us back, he laughed. SERIOUSLY, do you REALLY think that if the environment were taken better care of AND if people would take better care of themselves, that the cancer rate would be what it is now? Now the "latest" thing is 0 trans fats (buy a bag of 0 trans fat Baked Lays and see not only the corn oil in it, but all the other CRAP...does it REALLY taste that good (like I tell my friends, no food tastes so good that it's worth going through chemo again..unless I HAD to). I'm just waiting to find out that the "sugar" component Splenda has carcinogens since it is added to all our foods and people who eat it think they are doing something good for themselves. No, NOT IN ALL CASES, but in many. Healthcare is growing, WHY? Companies are pumping chemicals in us (from ALL directions, herbicides, preservative, other "unknown" chemical) so that the drug companies can make us better...OF COURSE healthcare is growing!!!! Kind of like, we drive a car to get us to work to pay for the car that gets us to work. The guy at the health department told me yesterday that you wouldn't BELIEVE all the stuff that has carcinogens in it...pumping gas, causes cancer. l Think of all the "latest and greatest" things to make our life easier (people are too damned busy or only want what they want, not what they need), it seems that with time, they are found that they are not safe for us. I'm sorry for going on so long, AND I know I will get grief about it, but I'm mad, especially since I know like in the environmental case, like the guy at the health dept said, they aren't going to investigate it TOO much (political reasons you know...remember Erin Brokavich), so we citizens need to push the bar. It just pisses me off that a friend of mine is dying because of an "asshole" my mother worked for (and she would confirm this due to his business practices).

Rhonda

[al from Canada]

Isn't it great to vent sometimes?? That was exactly my mood last night.

Rhonda, it sounds like you have your hands full and I wish you lots of luck in your battle.

I think basically we're all saying the same thing, you are what you eat, breath and drink!

Thanks ladies for sharing your views.

Al

Message Deleted by Board Administrator.

[RhondaH]

I know YOU and LINDA have a far BIGGER fight than mine and keep you BOTH in my daily prayers. I know there is no ONE answer, but am thankful that we have this forum to express our views. I'm sorry that we are viewed as "Lemings", but in THIS fight, we are ALL looking for answers AND solutions (drugs, diet, exercise...WHATEVER) and I think we have a MARVELOUS group of not only ladies, but gentlemen who really come together to not only provide support, advise, treatments options, ideas and that is why I love it so much... no cat scratching, just input and love...in the REAL world. I come here to get information and GIVE information, how you process it is up to you. Take care and God bless.

Rhonda

PS, Joe said it best in a recent post

"Our website has been averaging about 600 visits a day. This is a peer support group website which means that every one should help in their own way.

There are far too many lurkers out there.

Regards
Joe


just now I checked and there were 3 members and 42 "unregistered"

I came to and JOINED this site over a year ago due to good, sound information and support and NO name calling (people are fighting for their life and don't need that bs), but if THAT is going to start, I'm out of here.

[al from Canada]

WOW! I have to wonder why I posted.


To "unregistered", it's nice of you to compliment however it is now appreciated at the expense of my friends on this board. This is no place for derrogatory comments as the members on this site have enough to deal with without name calling. I'm at a loss for words that you would sacrifice your self respect because you don't approve of the way others handle information.

I will be asking Joe to close this thread and block your IP adress.

Rhonda, I really think it's time we closed the doors to this board for registrants only. Let people be accountable for their mouth, which here is translated by a keyboard.
regrettably,
Al

[AlaskaAngel]

Thanks, Al. Most people recognize the cowardice of sarcastic criticism that is offered without providing personal identification. There is room at this kitchen table for differing opinions, some wiser than others, and there will always be leaders and followers. I hope others will never be afraid of being attacked here.

AlaskaAngel

[Joe]

Al,

Unfortunately "unregistered" signed on through AOL. I cannot block him/her without blocking all AOL members.

We may in fact have to close our boards to all but registered members, but for reasons unrelated to this one.

Regards
Joe

[Kim in CA]

Rhonda,

I too try to eat healthfully, but it sure is hard sometimes. I hate to cook to begin with, so it really takes effort on my part. It seems like everything that is quick and easy is loaded with chemicals. Oh, I wish I could just hire someone to do nothing but cook homemade organic meals for me and my husband! It really is true though, anything that is worthwhile usually does take more effort. Sigh!

Kim in CA
P.S. and I forgot to mention.... it really bugs me that organic costs so much more!

Actual fat content (tissue biopsy) in real people related to actual level of invasive breast cancer.

The third of women with highest DHA had odds of 31% invasive tumours v the third of women with the lowest DHA.

My response to a suggestion that diet has no part in BC.


RB


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

1: Int J Cancer. 2002 Mar 1;98(1):78-83. Related Articles, Links
Click here to read
N-3 and N-6 fatty acids in breast adipose tissue and relative risk of breast cancer in a case-control study in Tours, France.

Maillard V, Bougnoux P, Ferrari P, Jourdan ML, Pinault M, Lavillonniere F, Body G, Le Floch O, Chajes V.

Laboratoire de Biologie des Tumeurs, Clinique d'Oncologie-Radiotherapie, Service de Gynecologie-Obstetrique, E.A. 2103, Unite de Recherche Associee Universite-INRA, CHU, Tours, France.

Experimental studies have indicated that n-3 fatty acids, including alpha-linolenic acid (18:3 n-3) and long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids inhibit mammary tumor growth and metastasis. Earlier epidemiological studies have given inconclusive results about a potential protective effect of dietary n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids on breast cancer risk, possibly because of methodological issues inherent to nutritional epidemiology. To evaluate the hypothesis that n-3 fatty acids protect against breast cancer, we examined the fatty acid composition in adipose tissue from 241 patients with invasive, nonmetastatic breast carcinoma and from 88 patients with benign breast disease, in a case-control study in Tours, central France. Fatty acid composition in breast adipose tissue was used as a qualitative biomarker of past dietary intake of fatty acids. Biopsies of adipose tissue were obtained at the time of surgery. Individual fatty acids were measured as a percentage of total fatty acids, using capillary gas chromatography. Unconditional logistic regression modeling was used to obtain odds ratio estimates while adjusting for age, height, menopausal status and body mass index. We found inverse associations between breast cancer-risk and n-3 fatty acid levels in breast adipose tissue. Women in the highest tertile of alpha-linolenic acid (18:3 n-3) had an odds ratio of 0.39 (95% confidence intervals [CI] = 0.19-0.78) compared to women in the lowest tertile (trend p = 0.01). In a similar way, women in the highest tertile of docosahexaenoic acid (22:6 n-3) had an odds ratio of 0.31 (95% CI = 0.13-0.75) compared to women in the lowest tertile (trend p = 0.016). Women in the highest tertile of the long-chain n-3/total n-6 ratio had an odds ratio of 0.33 (95% confidence interval = 0.17-0.66) compared to women in the lowest tertile (trend p = 0.0002). In conclusion, our data based on fatty acids levels in breast adipose tissue suggest a protective effect of n-3 fatty acids on breast cancer risk and support the hypothesis that the balance between n-3 and n-6 fatty acids plays a role in breast cancer. Copyright 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

PMID: 11857389 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]