Article Today in Wall Street Journal..

[sabpri]

First of all I love this site!! Lots of great information. Anyway, I only had a chance to glance at the Wall Street Journal today (while I was waiting for my Lean Cuisine to cook in the micorwave at work!).

The article was about the results from a 15 year study that the NIH was conducting on 3 women's issues:

Impat of Low Fat Diet on Breast Cancer Risks
Heart Health Impact from Hormone Replacement Therapy
Bone Health with Calcium and Vitamin D supplements

Anyway, what came out of this huge study wat that there was no statistical significance reported between those that ate a low fat diet and those who ate a "normal" diet and their risk of developing breast cancer. The media apparently focused on the whole "Eating a Low Fat Diet won't help you fight against Breast Cancer" point and that is what got out to the news organizations.

The article today talks about how severly flawed the study was (groups were not 100% equal in fat content eaten, only 14% of the "low-fat" group stuck with the low-fat guidlines, etc. The major point that did not get emphasized is that for the group of women who started out with the highest fat content diet and cut their fat intake by 12 %, their breast cancer risk was cut by 22%. Apparently this one was not touted and was put in the back of a 2 page summary and not part of the "big findings". I will take the article home with me tonight in case anyone wants the details.

I remember meeting with a second opinion Onc when I was first diagnosed who told me that eating a low fat diet would not help cut my risk of BC recurrance and even though I had no data to support that, intuitivley I thought that it did not make any sense. No wonder so many people get confused!

Natalie

[saleboat]

Hi Natalie,

I read the same article this morning and was relieved to see a more thoughtful analysis of the studies that came out. I think the real story that isn't being written is just how difficult it is to make lifestyle changes and for patients to adopt 'preventative' measures in regards to their health. Those radomized into the low-fat just couldn't eat that way consistently, as you pointed out. And on the calcium study, there wasn't great compliance in the 'calcium' arm (let alone the other problems highlighted in the article).

That said, I'm about to have a yummy salad with lots of full fat dressing, some cheese and maybe some chocolate if I have room...

Do you try to stick to a low-fat diet? I've always felt exempt, as I don't eat meat (just fish). That's magical thinking on my part, most likely.

Jen

for post meno ER pos folks, isn't body fat an issue since it is involved with aromatase?

Rich please read the posts on omega three and six if you have time.

A key factor is the type of fats ingested.

Anybody who has read some of the trials on obesity cannot but come to the conclusion that obesity figures in all sorts of diseases.

The more one reads the more evident how complex the subject is.

RB

To RB, what oils do you think are the best to cook with. I was using olive oil, but then read something that it should not be heated . Any ideas?

Thanks, Laurie

[sabpri]

Jen.

I am not sure how to navigate this system yet. Can I send you an e-mail response like you sent me with a response? I am not even sure if I am replying with the correct post! Anyway, I am "doing my best" to try and stick to a low fat diet and have tried to cut out a lot of my meat, and replacing it with Fish. My Radiation Oncologist is a Zelout about diet and nutrition and she freaked me out enough to make me change my eating habits. It is just hard when you have 3 kids under 5 and you are trying to make seperate meals because the kids and my husband want meat and junk food. I have done a lot to improve their nutrition, but sometimes I have to pull out the mac and cheese if they don't like the couscous that I made!

I also had a major problem with sugery foods when I was on Taxotere and they tasted bitter. They still taste bad to me which is probably a good thing, so I am taking advantage of it while I can.

Let me know if you get this.
Natalie

Laurie

I am no expert but the thinking seems to be that monosaturates are more stable than polyunsaturates.

Some refined olive oils have as much as 50% omega six - so good quality oil is important.

Several reports suggest a small amount of saturated fat is ok eg 1% dairy. Some suggest very small amounts of other saturates beef palm coconut etc.

It is important to check lablels as everything tends to contain sixes (Including yes some olives in oil!) ( Almost all seed oils I have checked on except flax perillia are high in six and low in threes - canola has low sixes and some threes, and soy is high in si and has some threes) - and so if you are trying to balance threes and sixes it is almost impossible without cutting out high six seed oil which limits your options) AND grass fed ruminants are best as in the same way our fats are altered by what we eat the same applies to grain fed animals including fish - factors that have to be borne in mind at the same time as being practical about things.

Flax fish and greens are usually cited starting points - and as we can but have difficulty in making the omega three derivates found in fish oil EPA and DHA several books subscribe to fish oil to get a daily intake of about 2-3 grams of DHA EPA (5tps but check the label) (not cod liver which is different taken for other reasons)

The recent post below is a particulary powerful argument for balancing the threes and sixes.

As always whilst fish oil etc has few side effects except at high doses it is best to speak to you adviser about diet change - print out the article and show it to them - it might raise their eyebrows. It is also useful to check things for yourself - posts on this site the web books etc.

RB

[Christine]

Regardless of all diet info, fats that are high in saturated fat are not recommended to prevent both cancers and heart diseases. Trans fats also have been also deemed unhealthy. The preferred fats are from monounsaturated fats as in olive and canola oils. There are a number of magarines on the markets getting healthier ingredients READ THE NUTRITION LABELS!
Eat with your health in mind, and don't forget Sugar is a culprit, when we over indulge the excess Calories get processed into dietary FATS, definitely a problem in the American Diet.
Keep well and get into a healthier Lifestyle.

Hugs Christine

I did say SMALL quanitities of saturates, and that means SMALL.

I think it is generally accepted that large quantities of saturates are bad news.

BUT there is an ongoing debate on the bodies needs for SMALL quantities.

Artificial trans fats are generally regarded as bad, and the suggestion seems to be the body simply does not recognise them and so dumps them where it can which is bad news for general health.

In the generality fats are solid or partially solid due to saturation, and many margerines are made by artificially saturating fats - trans fats - so please do check them out carefully to make sure you are getting what you think.

At least you have some idea what a grass fed cow has been up to, and CLA a product of herbivore fat is reported as benificial - at a level of diary making one percent of diet (I would guess that is carbs and not weight !).

The subject is complex and you will find well argued divergent opinions on what is the best option if you need a scrape on your toast.

RB