Jul
20
2024

A Plant-based Diet Helped Prostate Cancer Patients Significantly

By | breast cancer, Cancer, Cardiovascular disease, colorectal cancer, diet, exercise, Mortality, Processed food

Leave a Comment

A new study in JAMA Network Open showed that a plant-based diet helped prostate cancer patients significantly. Briefly, in this study physicians followed 2062 men with localized prostate cancer for a median follow-up of 6.5 years. The researchers paid close attention to the diet of these patients. Physicians compared patients with a high plant-based diet index to patients with a high meat/dairy diet index. Researchers measured prostate cancer progression and found a 47% reduction in prostate cancer progression with the plant-based diet group. This was in comparison to the meat/dairy group. They concluded that consumption of a primarily plant-based diet associated with a better health outcome for prostate cancer patients.

Colon cancer studies on plant-based diet and exercise

The medical literature shows that the survival of colon cancer improves when patients consume plant-based diets and at the same time exercise regularly. One study showed that a combination of plant-based diet and regular exercise allowed colon cancer patients to survive longer. This was in comparison to a control group on meat/dairy products who did not exercise.

Breast cancer patients

Researchers followed 6,235 breast cancer patients for 9.4 years. A group of women with hormone-negative breast cancer on soy products reduced their risk of dying from breast cancer by 21%. A low-fat diet following breast cancer diagnosis reduced the risk of breast cancer recurrence by 23%. At the same time a low-fat diet also reduced mortality from breast cancer by 17%. Another medical study compared the diet of women who developed breast cancer with diets of women who did not have breast cancer. The offending foods were American, cheddar, and cream cheeses. Women who ate most of these in their diet had a 53% higher risk of developing breast cancer.

36 foods that help you to fight cancer

The MD Anderson Cancer Center website lists 36 foods that help you to fight cancer. On top are foods like berries, broccoli, tomatoes, walnuts, grapes and other vegetables, fruits and nuts. Vegetables come in a variety of different colors. Be sure you aim for a rainbow color mix to get the most phytochemicals from your vegetables. Include frozen vegetables, whole grains and avoid processed foods. The website also reminds people that processed meats, red meat and too much alcohol causes various cancers. Women should limit alcoholic drinks to one drink per day. Men should limit their alcohol intake to two drinks per day. Less than that is desirable.

Prostate Cancer Patients Were Significantly Helped with a Plant-based Diet

Prostate Cancer Patients Were Significantly Helped with a Plant-based Diet

Conclusion

Recently a medical publication stated that prostate cancer patients were significantly helped with a plant-based diet. However, further research of medical publications showed that colon cancer and other cancers were also reduced on this diet. In addition, breast cancer survival increased on soy products, low-fat diets and plant-based diets. Any processed food leads to cancer, heart attacks and strokes with increased mortality rates. The MD Anderson Cancer Center website lists 36 foods that showed cancer protection from phytochemicals. Don’t wait until you come down with cancer, adopt a sensible diet for cancer prevention now!

Oct
01
2016

Sugar Can Cause Heart Attacks

By | Arthritis, Cancer, Cardiovascular disease, Diabetes, heart attack, Nutrition, Obesity, Processed food, Stroke, sugar

Recently an online medical journal article from JAMA has revealed that sugar can cause heart attacks. As the Guardian reports, this analysis of influence peddling of the sugar industry going back 60 years has had far-reaching effects by confusing the public and policy makers in the US and around the world. At the same time the interference of the sugar industry was protecting its own interests. It increased sugar sales, but made people sick with obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This story is similar to the tobacco industry that was able for years to cover up that cigarette smoke is causing heart attacks and lung cancer.

Denying that sugar can cause heart attacks

The English physiologist John Yudkin noted in the 1960’s that sugar was elevating cholesterol and triglycerides. The sugar industry panicked. They wanted to do something to stop this new type of research. As we can read online the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) had 319 correspondences (1551 pages) with Roger Adams. He was a professor serving on the SRF’s scientific advisory board (SAB) from 1959 to 1971. Another piece of evidence of influence peddling came from a review of correspondence between the SRF and D. Mark Hegsted. He was professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. At the same time he was co director of the SRF’s first coronary heart disease research project. This took place from 1965 to 1966.

Historic falsification of research findings by John Yudkin

There are 27 documents totalling 31 pages in the Harvard medical Library. It is clear from this correspondence that the SRF was looking for a way to undermine the new research findings of negative effects of sugar. The SRF was looking for a way to confirm that fat reduction would be beneficial for patients. This way physicians would put many people on a low fat diet. This in turn would ensure continuing and rising sales of sugar.

New evidence that sugar can cause heart attacks

New research came out by D. Mark Hegsted in the Annals of Internal Medicine in June 1965. It linked sugar consumption to cardiovascular disease. It noted that blood sugar levels were a better predictor of hardening of arteries than cholesterol levels or high blood pressure. Another paper stated that it was sugar rather than starches causing high triglycerides in the blood. He hypothesized that “perhaps fructose, a constituent of sucrose but not of starch, was the agent mainly responsible.” An editorial in the same publication noted that these new findings corroborated Dr. Yudkin’s previous research that sugar could cause heart attacks.

The sugar industry was very concerned about these studies. If publicized widely, it would have the capacity to lower sugar sales.

Sugar can cause heart attacks, but review paper ignores this

On July 1, 1965, the SRF’s Hickson visited D. Mark Hegsted to discuss his publication. He wanted him to be part of an extensive literature review that would show that it was too much saturated fat that was the cause of high cholesterol and triglycerides, not sugar. It also should state that a lowering of fat content from 40% to 20% was necessary and that polyunsaturated fatty acids should be used to replace much of the fat. The fact that the food industry would quietly increase sugar content in processed foods was not mentioned. The review paper was called “Project 226”. It resulted in a 2-part literature review by McGandy, Hegsted, and Stare. It was entitled “Dietary Fats, Carbohydrates and Atherosclerotic Disease,” and was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 1967. Industry and non-industry funding of the review authors’ experimental research was disclosed.

Falsified study from 1967 in the New England Journal of Medicine

However, the funding by the Sugar Research Foundation was omitted. The authors of the study received handsome amounts of money from the SRF for their efforts. The story that was told is all too well known, but false. There was the claim that the medical literature would have shown that a reduction of saturated fat intake lowered cholesterol. Triglyceride levels did not matter. Only cholesterol levels counted with respect to coronary artery hardening. There was also the statement that replacement of saturated fat with polyunsaturated fatty acids like corn oil would be beneficial in reducing heart attack rates.

Effect of the literature review on heart attack rates

Sadly the NEJM literature review has resulted in a government policy that lasted for decades. The gospel was that a low fat diet would prevent heart attacks. The food industry prepared foods that were low in fats and high in sugar and supposedly healthy. But the extra sugar made people fat, it did not decrease heart attack rates, but made them more frequent. Strokes were also on the rise and diabetes has become rampant. The reliance on corn oil has introduced another problem: omega-6 fatty acids are now consumed at an alarming rate. Corn oil has a 1:59 ratio for omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids.

Corn oil causes inflammation

This means that corn oil contributes to the lack of omega-3 fatty acids in our food. When the ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids falls below 1:3 or 1:4 the metabolism changes towards inflammation as the arachidonic acid system switches toward inflammation. Cardiologists have pinpointed inflammation as an important cause of hardening of arteries. Fish oil, a rich source of omega-3 fatty acids helps to prevent hard attacks and strokes.

The end result of the confusion regarding fat, sugar and heart attacks caused by the biased literature review meant misery, suffering and death for many for decades. But recently there has been a renaissance of Dr. John Yadkin’s research: Now it is clear what sugar is doing and how it affects our health.

How sugar can cause heart attacks and more

It is clear that sugary soda has detrimental effects on us: as little as one or two cans of sugary soda drinks per day lead to

  • 26% greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes
  • A 35% greater risk of heart attack or fatal heart disease
  • A 16% increased risk of stroke

Dr. Frank Hu’s study

Dr. Frank Hu has participated in a study that spanned over 24 to 30 years and examined the replacement of saturated fat with polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), monounsaturated fatty acids and whole grain carbohydrates. The study involved 84,628 women (Nurses’ Health Study, 1980 to 2010), and 42,908 men (Health Professionals Follow-up Study, 1986 to 2010). The researchers did detailed diet assessments every 4 years. 7,667 cases of cardiovascular disease (CHD) occurred during the study. Compared to controls that did not change their diet with respect to saturated fatty acid intake, those who replaced with PUFA had 25% less CHD, those who replaced with monounsaturated fatty acids had 15% less CHD and those who replaced saturated fatty acid intake with whole grains had 9% less CHD. In contrast, a subgroup that had replaced saturated fatty acid intake with carbohydrates from refined starches/added sugars ended up with a 10% increase of CHD.

Effect of sugar

We know now that sugar can increase cholesterol and triglycerides as Dr. John Yudkin has said in the 1960’s.

We also know that sugar can cause arthritis when combined with low omega-3 fatty acids and high omega-6 fatty acids. In the 1950’s Dan Dale Alexander wrote a book called “Arthritis and common sense”. The medical establishment did not accept that simple remedy and Dan Dale Alexander was classified as a “quack”. However, Dr. Mirkin describes a study from Berlin that later confirmed that Dan Dale Alexander’s observation was correct: an emulsion made by shaking orange juice with cod liver oil and taken three times per day on an empty stomach would indeed improve osteoarthritis.

High glycemic foods and starchy foods cause cancer

High glycemic foods (sugar, starchy foods) caused breast cancer, colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer. The majority of trials showed this association although not all. The more obese patients were, the more pronounced the insulin resistance was and the more the relationship to these cancers became apparent. A diet that is high in starchy foods like potatoes, rice and bread is causing pancreatic cancer as was shown by researchers at the Dana-Faber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard School of Public Health.

Sugar Can Cause Heart Attacks

Sugar Can Cause Heart Attacks

Conclusion

The low fat/ high glycemic diet was a fad-diet based on fictitious science, sponsored by the sugar industry. It became a human experiment and resulted in 60 years of suffering. During that time it became apparent that this diet did not work. It caused the obesity wave, a wave of heart attacks, strokes and cancer. This was all caused by too much sugar in the diet. Associated with this are the consumption of processed foods. There is too much sugar and an abundance of omega-6 fatty acids in processed food. This causes inflammation and hardening of the arteries.

What sugar does

We finally know that sugar raises cholesterol (LDL cholesterol in particular) and triglycerides. This leads to fat deposits and hardening of the arteries resulting in strokes and heart attacks. Remove refined sugar, limit your starchy food intake and eat fish as a source of omega-3 fatty acids. Feast on vegetables, salads and have some nuts as another source of omega-3 fatty acids. You are well on your way to preventing heart attacks, strokes and many cancers. After reading all the facts, there is no need to be a victim of the sugar industry. This also helps you to stay away from sugar’s associated health risks.

Feb
28
2015

A Low Fat Diet is Not Protective Of Heart Attacks

By | Diabetes, heart attack, Heart Disease, lifestyle, Mortality, Nutrition, Obesity

This article is about the fact that a low fat diet is not protective of heart attacks. The British Medical Journal (BMJ Publishing Group, James J DiNicolantonio) published a critical editorial review regarding the lack of science behind the low fat diet guidelines. The low fat guidelines became law  in 1977 in the US and in 1983 in England. The devastating fact was that it was based only on a study of 2467 men (not a single female included) and there was no evidence of lower heart attacks in the low fat diet group when compared to the normal diet control. Yet the guidelines were the cause of the obesity and diabetes epidemic that followed causing heart attacks and strokes. February, the month where we think about heart disease  is the appropriate month to discuss the findings of this British Medical Journal article that exposes it all.

No significant difference between control group and low fat diet group

The BMJ Publishing Group re-traced all of the data that were available at the time of the decision in 1977. There were six clinical trials (with randomization) that had a mean duration of 5.4±3.5 years where the researchers compared low fat diets to normal diets. They found that the authorities who wrote the dietary recommendations for a low fat diet should have come to the conclusion that there was no statistical difference between the experimental group and the control group. The summary of the present re-analysis of the studies that were available to the US government in 1977 and to the UK government in 1983 was as follows: “There was no statistically significant relationship between dietary interventions and all-cause mortality.”

The researchers noted that the all cause mortality was identical in the experimental group and the control group (370 deaths in both groups). There was no significant difference of coronary heart disease (CHD) between the low fat diet group and the control group.

Low fat diet recommendations based on false data

There was no statistically significant difference in deaths from CHD (heart attacks). The reductions in mean serum cholesterol levels were significantly higher in the intervention groups; however, this did not result in measurable differences in mortality from CHD or all-cause mortality.

What is troublesome is that the six studies with randomization were the basis of all of these observations.  The studies included only 2467 men, but there was not a single woman in the trial. Yet the researchers recommended the diet for both men and women alike.

The authors concluded “It seems incomprehensible that dietary advice was introduced for 220 million Americans and 56 million UK citizens given the contrary results from a small number of unhealthy men”.

Political mistakes introducing low fat diets

Dr. Robert Olson of St Louis University warned Senator George McGovern that the studies did not support the dietary recommendations the Senator was about to announce. To this objection Senator McGovern replied: “Senators don’t have the luxury that the research scientist does of waiting until every last shred of evidence is in”.

There was very good evidence that dietary changes (low fat diet) will not change the rate of heart attacks and strokes. Yet the government committees in the US and in Great Britain did not consider this evidence. Other publications have examined the consequences of replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates in the recommended low fat diets.

Sugar is the problem in low fat diets

The researchers made the following observations regarding low fat diets:

  1. In processed foods low fat diet meant that more sugar was added to bring the saturated fat content down. This has detrimental effects on insulin sensitivity and causes type 2 diabetes on the long-term. In these patients there is an increase of small LDL particles and triglycerides, while there is a reduction of HDL. Blood clot markers increase, weight increases causing obesity. Polyunsaturated fats of the omega-6 type (including oils from corn, soybean, safflower and cottonseed) replaced saturated fats.
  2. However, randomized controlled trials showed the following. When omega-6 polyunsaturated fats (without simultaneously increasing omega-3 fatty acids) replaced trans-fats and saturated fats, there was an increase of death rates from heart attacks and strokes.
  3. The Anti-Coronary Club trial showed that more people died from heart attacks when saturated fat was replaced by polyunsaturated fat.
  4. The reason for the heart attack causing omega-6-fatty acids (from polyunsaturated fats) has been worked out in several research papers between 2006 and 2012 (cited in this link): they cause inflammation, cause cancer, weaken the immune system, lower the protective HDL cholesterol and increase the susceptibility of LDL cholesterol to be oxidized.
  5. When polyunsaturated fatty acids (omega-6) replaced saturated fat there was more breast cancer and prostate cancer.

Low fat diets don’t work

This review stated that there was a lack of data that low fat diets help prevent heart attacks and strokes. We have now clinical trials that numbered 347 747 participants. These trials showed that increased fat intake did not cause heart attacks. The Women’s Health Initiative included 48, 835 postmenopausal women. It showed that a low fat diet did not reduce cancer. It also did not prevent heart attacks or strokes. All of this supports what has been summarized before in a critical review regarding “The Oiling of America“.

Low Fat Diet Not Protective Of Heart Attacks

Low Fat Diet Not Protective Of Heart Attacks

Conclusion

Enjoy saturated fat as it does not cause you harm. Cut out omega-6 fatty acids like oils from corn, soybean, safflower and cottonseed. Use virgin olive oil or coconut oil instead. Take regular supplements of omega-3 fatty acid (marine derived) to balance natural omega-6 fatty acids in turkey or chicken meat. You can eat cheese and enjoy nuts. But in the US buy organic or imported cheeses from Canada or Europe. In Canada and Europe bovine growth hormone is illegal.

It is most important to avoid sugar, honey and high fructose corn syrup. These all oxidize LDL cholesterol, which is the pre-stage for hardening of the arteries. The oxidized LDL cholesterol is part of the plaques of arteries and leads to strokes and heart attacks. This also means that you must avoid all processed foods that contain sugar and high fructose corn syrup (read labels).

It is not that difficult to follow such diet recommendations as my wife and I have done this since 2001. We use stevia to replace sugar for sweetening (no calories, no effect on insulin). Do what’s good for your body!

Jun
08
2013

Breast Cancer Due To Stress

By | Cancer, Health, Hormones, Stress management, Women’s Diseases

The medical profession is of the opinion that breast cancer is multi-factorial, where genetics, body weight, hormonal and other factors play a role in causing it (details see Ref. 1). The Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (United States) showed in May 2012 that girls from families of lower socioeconomic status have a higher risk of breast cancer later in life. The study also showed that girls from families with a higher socioeconomic status had a low risk of breast cancer later in life.

The same cohort of women was the subject of another study, which was just published in April of 2013. In this study the question was asked whether stress in career women could cause a higher rate of breast cancer. Using 1957–2011 data showed that 297 of the 3682 White non-Hispanic women of the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study developed breast cancer. Details of the study showed that the peak of the age for breast cancer to develop was around 55 to 65. Women working with the lowest job authority had the lowest rate of breast cancer. High job authority, being the “boss”, was associated with a 1.57-fold (range 1.12 – 2.18-fold) increase in breast cancer. There was also a striking difference between the lengths of job stress exposure, 5 years versus 15 years with both groups, high and low job authority. The lowest risk of breast cancer was for the low stress group of women who worked under these conditions only for 5 years, followed by the same group who had worked there for 15 years. Slightly above that latter group was the breast cancer risk for the 5-year employed high job authority. The highest group of breast cancer risk, rising above all other groups, was the group with high job authority, exposed to this for type of stressful situation for 15 years (see Fig. 1 of the above link). The researchers interpreted their data to say that the majority of the breast cancer risk in these groups of women was due to the stress hormone (cortisol). Minor contributions were thought to be due to the carcinogenic effect of estrogens.

Breast Cancer Due To Stress

Breast Cancer Due To Stress

 

Review of the literature regarding this study

Dr. Lee had been publishing about estrogen dominance for many years (Ref. 2 and 3). When women age, their ovaries do not produce as much progesterone during the luteal phase as in younger years and above the age of 30 to 35 anovulatory cycles are common. During anovulatory cycles ovulation (=release of an egg) does not occur and there is no formation of a corpus luteum that would produce progesterone for 2 weeks. The end result is that there is a lack of progesterone as a woman ages. This has been discussed in detail in Ref. 3. Dr. Lee called this disbalance of estrogen and progesterone “estrogen dominance”. This is one of the important causes of breast cancer as explained in Ref.2. This can be caused by aging, xenoestrogens from exposure to artificial fertilizers, insecticides and cosmetics, but also taking the birth control pill for prolonged periods of time. However, stress by itself can also produce a state of estrogen dominance. Dr. Lee explained (page 180 of Ref. 2) that the cortisol-binding globulin (CBG), which binds both cortisol and progesterone, is a storage form for both of these hormones. As a person is under chronic stress the CBG is increased binding both cortisol and progesterone. This means that less of these hormones are preliminarily available in their free form for body consumption as CBG binding is a storage form for these hormones. The free progesterone, which is the only biologically active progesterone portion, is lowered as a result of stress causing estrogen dominance. If estrogen is not opposed by progesterone, it is cancer causing for breast tissue and the uterine lining, which translates into being at risk for breast and uterine cancer. Only supplementation with bioidentical progesterone cream as described in Ref. 3 will rebalance the hormones (progesterone/estrogen balance) and reduce the cancer risk. The symptoms of estrogen dominance according to Ref. 4 (p. 29) are fatigue, weight gain, less ability to handle stress, headaches, mood swings, loss of sex drive, irregular periods, uterine fibroids, fibrocystic breasts, fluid retention (particularly around the ankles), irritability and depression.

Practical recommendations for women in stressful jobs

Above the age of 35 it is wise to have a saliva hormone test done, checking the levels of 5 hormones (cortisol, DHEAS, estrogen, progesterone and testosterone). This establishes the baseline values for these hormones. The relationship between the levels of these hormones determines whether they are balanced or not. For instance, if the ratio between progesterone and estrogen (divide the level of progesterone by the level of estrogen) is less than 1 in 200 the patient has estrogen dominance (see Ref. 5). You may need to get a naturopathic physician or an A4M physician who is knowledgeable in interpreting these results and treating the patient with bioidentical hormones. Some women may need to start bioidentical hormone replacement at this point if a hormone deficiency is noticed.

In order to counterbalance stress you need to schedule some time for yourself regularly where you can relax, do yoga exercises, meditation, and/or self-hypnosis. Make sure you get enough sleep. Avoid alcohol, if you can as it interferes with a restful sleep, or reduce alcohol to the absolute minimum. Alcohol causes decreased hormone production of both ovaries. It also weakens the adrenal glands contributing to hormone disbalance. Usually the first hormone to show a decline with stress and aging is progesterone. It has to be measured by the saliva test. Ref. 2 and 3 explain why: progesterone is fat-soluble and is transported through the blood in its free form through red blood cells. However, a progesterone blood test measures the serum progesterone level after the red blood cells have been spun down in the centrifuge, which leads to misleading results; only the saliva test gives reliable results in terms of bio-available progesterone levels. Many conservative physicians blindly insist on blood progesterone levels, which will lead to false results. This is why you need a naturopathic physician or A4M physician to help you with the proper interpretation of the test results.

If saliva progesterone levels are low, progesterone cream (bio-identical, as explained below) is applied daily in a concentration that will normalize the levels. Physicians who have been influenced by drug company representatives may suggest to use Provera (or another progestin, which are synthetic hormone substances) as a “supplement”, but this is known from the Women’s’ Health Initiative to cause breast cancer, heart attacks and strokes.

Do the proper monitoring tests with saliva testing and only substitute what is missing with bioidentical hormone creams. Otherwise a low fat, low refined carbohydrate diet, exercise and other good health habits as I have summarized in this link will be very beneficial to prevent stress as a cause of breast cancer. Ref. 6 is also a useful text written for the layperson explaining what to do when stress leads to adrenal fatigue.

References

  1. A review of the causes of breast cancer: http://www.nethealthbook.com/articles/causesofbreastcancer.php
  2. Dr. John R. Lee, David Zava, Ph.D. and Virginia Hopkins: “What your doctor may not tell you about breast cancer”. 2002 Hachette Book Group, New York,NY, USA.
  3. Dr. John R. Lee: “Natural Progesterone”.  2nd edition. Jon Carpenter Publishing, 1999 Charlbury, England.
  4. George Gillson, M.D., Ph.D.: “You’ve hit menopause. Now what? 3 simple steps to restoring hormone balance” 2nd edition, 2004, Rocky Mountain Analytical Corp., Calgary, AB, Canada.
  5.  John R. Lee, M.D. and Virginia Hopkins: “Dr. John Lee’s Hormone Balance Made Simple- The Essential How-to Guide to Symptoms, Dosage, Timing, and More”. Wellness Central Hachette Group USA, New York, NY 10017. Published 2006. Page 57 discusses saliva testing and states: “The healthy ratio of progesterone to estradiol is at least 200 to 1 and can go up to 1,000 to 1 in women using transdermal (delivered through the skin with cream, gels, oils) progesterone.”
  6. James L. Wilson, ND, DC, PhD: “Adrenal Fatigue, the 21sty Century Stress Syndrome – what is it and how you can recover”; Second printing 2002 by Smart Publications, Petaluma, Ca, USA

Last edited Nov. 6, 2014

Mar
01
2006

Dementia Prevented With Diet And Exercise

By | Alzheimer’s disease, Nutrition

According to an Australian review a low-fat diet along with physical and mental activity is the best way to avoid dementia late in life.
The Australian team looked at numerous studies and concluded that many drugs and supplements promoted as treatments do not work. They did find that maintaining healthy blood pressure levels and an ideal body weight, staying physically and mentally active and consuming a low-fat diet reduces the risk of developing dementia. Dr. Michael Woodward, lead researcher of the report “Dementia: Can It Be Prevented?” states a very simple fact: any advice that is good for the heart is also good for the brain. A number of dietary supplements and medications have been suggested as being useful in the prevention of dementia, but none of them have been conclusive. One small study from Portugal suggested that even coffee could prevent dementia. It made headlines in the media, especially in the American press. However this was a small study involving only 54 people in Portugal. Another study a few years ago claimed that hormone replacement therapy for menopausal women reduced the risk of dementia. Again, this study got a lot of coverage. The study had a strong selection bias: these women were generally more health conscious, in better physical health and from a more socioeconomically privileged background.

The results of this review are further confirmed by Australian and American researchers led by Dr. Ralph Martins of the Center for Aging and Alzheimer’s disease in Joondalup, Australia and Dr. Samuel Gandy of the Farber Institute of Neurosciences in Philadelphia. They found that overweight and obese people are having a higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease than normal weight individuals. Increased body mass index and higher levels of plasma amyloid-beta, which is a key substance in the development of Alzheimer’s, go hand in hand.

Dementia Prevented With Diet And Exercise

Dementia Prevented With Diet And Exercise

Experts in the area of dementia caution that we cannot count on drugs and supplements, instead prevention is the key with dementia, which comes in the form of a healthy lifestyle.

More info about:

1. Research that has revealed a number of causes for Alzheimer’s disease: http://nethealthbook.com/neurology-neurological-disease/alzheimers-dementia-and-delirium/alzheimers-research/

2. Fitness:  http://nethealthbook.com/health-nutrition-and-fitness/fitness/

The Medical Post, January 24,2006,page 39.

3. Blog showing that exercise delays onset of Alzheimer’s: https://www.askdrray.com/regular-exercise-will-delay-onset-of-alzheimers-or-dementia/

Last edited October 30, 2014

Jul
01
2005

Less Alcohol And Fat, More Exercise Battles Cancer

By | Cancer, Substance abuse

A lot has been said about choosing a healthy lifestyle in the prevention of cancers, but there is even better news now. It is not too late to make a switch to healthy living for those who have been diagnosed with cancer to reap significant benefits.
Dr. Bruce Johnson, director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute says that it is helpful to impress on cancer patients to cut down on fat and to exercise more in order to reduce their risk for recurrence. Dr. Jeffrey Meyerhardt, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also points out that in the past studies have shown that physical activity can lower the risk of developing colon cancer, but his new research is the first to suggest a benefit for people who already have the disease. A study including 832 patients with Stage III colon cancer who had been treated with surgery and chemotherapy showed that the cancer survival rate (where no disase was present) was 49% higher in those who were moderately active. The activity was either a two to three mph walk, six days a week, or other equivalents: running fast two times a week, or playing tennis three times a week.

Less Alcohol And Fat, More Exercise Battles Cancer

Less Alcohol And Fat, More Exercise Battles Cancer

In a second study breast cancer was investigated in a group of patients who adopted a low-fat diet. Compared to those who continued to eat their regular food they were about one-fourth less likely to suffer a breast cancer recurrence in the next five years. This report comes from Dr. Rowan Chlebowski at the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles. This was a larger study involving 2,437 women ages 48 to 79 years. The goal was to reduce fat intake to 20% or less of daily calories. The women were not taught to reduce total calories; just fat was reduced: no butter, margarine or baked goods. By five years, less than 10% of women on the low-fat diet had a breast cancer recurrence, compared with more than 12% of those on their usual diet. This translates into a relative risk reduction of 24%, concludes Dr. Chlebowski.

Breast Cancer Risk From Longterm Daily Alcohol Consumption As Compared To Non-Drinkers

Breast Cancer from Daily Exposures to Increasing Amounts Consumed

Breast Cancer from Daily Exposures to Increasing Amounts Consumed

Research about alcohol intake and the risk of developing breast cancer is especially important for women.The study comes also from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Dr. Wendy Chen, a medical oncologist, reports that the more alcohol consumed regularly, the greater the risk. A study involved 121,700 registered nurses who were 30 to 55 years old in 1976. This study went on for 14 years and between 1980 and 1990 alcohol consumption questions were asked on several occasions; the women were followed up until 2004. Women who drank 5 to 9.9 grams of alcohol per day on average (the equivalent of a half-glass of wine) were 6% more likely to develop breast cancer than teetotalers. Women who consumed 10 to 19.9 grams per day saw their risk increase to 21%, and those who drank more than 20g per day, which means two drinks per day, were 37 % more likely to develop breast cancer. The finding of increased breast cancer rates was an independent risk factor associated solely with alcohol consumption. There has been a lot of hoopla lately about the benefits of a glass of wine for heart health, and the phrase of “everything in moderation” consoles us that a little bit cannot hurt. It turns out, that a little bit on a daily basis, alcohol in this case, can be a risky choice for women (see dose-response curve in the graph above). A link has been established between alcohol and breast cancer.

More information on:

Cancer causes: http://nethealthbook.com/cancer-overview/overview/epidemiology-cancer-origin-reason-cancer/

Exercise: http://nethealthbook.com/health-nutrition-and-fitness/fitness/

Lowering fat intake: http://nethealthbook.com/health-nutrition-and-fitness/nutrition/fat-good-bad-fatty-acids/

Reference: The Medical Post, June7, 2005, page 20

Last edited October 28, 2014