Low-Fat, Plant-food Diet Slows Breast Cancer & More

[Guest guest]

Low-fat, Plant-food Diet Slows Breast Cancer

 

Dietary fat, fiber, vegetable, and micronutrients are associated with

overall survival in postmenopausal women diagnosed with breast cancer

by Archana Jaiswal McEligot in the second issue of the journal

Nutrition and Cancer concluded, " These results suggest that in

postmenopausal women diagnosed with breast cancer, reduced dietary

fat and increased fiber, vegetable, fruit, and other nutrient intakes

associated with a plant-based, high-fiber diet improves overall

survival after breast cancer diagnosis. " 1 Women with breast cancer

consuming the highest fat diet had three times the risk of dying

compared to those with the lowest fat intake. All kinds of fat

including saturated fat, monounsaturated fats, and polyunsaturated

(vegetable) fats were found to reduce survival. Monounsaturated fat—

from margarine, doughnuts, cookies, cakes, biscuits, muffins,

cheeses, and cheese spreads—was associated with three to four times

the risk of dying. Markers of higher fruit and vegetable intake like

vitamin C, folic acid, carotenoids, and lutein were associated with

better survival. Note: Nutrients from food, rather than from

supplements (pills) meant better survival. There was no association

with alcohol intake and overall survival in women with a diagnosis of

breast cancer.

 

Comments: In 1984 the first study showing the benefits of a low-fat,

plant-food based diet for women who already had breast cancer was

published in a medical journal.2 I was the author of that study.

Since my report there have been 17 more studies published on the

effect of diet on breast cancer survival. Common sense

dictates, " You should not pour gasoline on a fire. " Since most

scientists and doctors believe the Western diet has a major causative

role in this disease, then a fundamental therapy recommended to all

women must be a healthy diet. Yet, in real life few women are ever

told of this connection and to improve their diet.

 

The course of breast cancer is highly variable with some women dying

quickly and some living 35 and more years with their disease. The

outcome is determined by the aggressiveness of the cancer pitted

against the resistance of the person. The patient's ability to fend

off the cancer is determined largely by her diet. Without any doubt,

better nutrition will improve the quality of a woman's life and the

evidence says her years will also be extended. Could five years

expected survival time be lengthened to ten or fifteen by improving

the vitality of her immune system and the powers of her other cancer-

fighting defenses? I believe so—and this is one more study that

supports my beliefs.

 

Recommending that women with breast cancer eat healthier should be

easy for doctors. After all, this therapy does not cause nausea,

vomiting, or any loss of hair. This is not like chemotherapy costing

thousands of dollars. Plus, a healthy diet will also reduce the risk

of most diseases from heart attacks to gallbladder disease.

 

Weight loss follows the adoption of a low-fat diet, offering another

survival edge. Trim women with breast cancer are known to live much

longer than overweight women. Another cost-free, side-effect-free

habit, exercise, has been shown to reduce the absolute risk of death

for women with breast cancer by 6% over 10 years.3 Thus, the

survival benefits achieved from a healthy diet and an exercise

program exceed those of all other commonly prescribed therapies:

surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. But, how many patients know

that?

 

1) Jaiswal McEligot A, Largent J, Ziogas A, Peel D, Anton-Culver H.

Dietary fat, fiber, vegetable, and micronutrients are associated with

overall survival in postmenopausal women diagnosed with breast

cancer. Nutr Cancer. 2006;55(2):132-40.

 

2) McDougall J. Preliminary study of diet as an adjunct therapy for

breast cancer. Breast 10:18, 1984.

 

3) Holmes M, Chen W, Feskanich D, Kroenke C, Colditz G. Physical

Activity and Survival After Breast Cancer Diagnosis. JAMA.

2005;293:2479-2486.

 

Mammograms Fail Women from Age 40 Years

 

Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer

mortality at 10 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial by

Sue M. Moss in the December 9, 2006 issue of the Lancet found

that, " Although the reduction in breast-cancer mortality observed in

this trial is not significant, it is consistent with results of other

trials of mammography alone in this age-group. Future decisions on

screening policy should be informed by further follow-up from this

trial and should take account of possible costs and harms as well as

benefits. " 1 In real numbers, this study found that after an average

of 10.7 years of screening there would possibly be one less death for

every 2512 women undergoing annual mammography.

 

Comments from an accompanying editorial by Benjamin Djulbegovic

brought up these important concerns about mammography.2

 

" False-negative screens might lead to inappropriate reassurance and

delays in diagnosis, whereas false positives might result in

unnecessary biopsies and additional imaging studies. However, the

main harms associated with screening mammography relate to potential

death from radiation-induced breast cancer. Although the overall

reduction in death from breast cancer during the 10–15 years' follow-

up in trials of screening mammography is clear, the anticipated peak

for radiation-induced breast cancer occurs some 10–20 years after

exposure, and risk might remain increased throughout a woman's life.

A model estimated that starting screening mammography at age 40 years

is justified if associated with decreased relative risk of death from

breast cancer by 20% or more—assuming that this theoretical model is

correct and accurate. " (This study showed a nonsignificant relative

risk reduction of 17%—therefore, mammography is not justified.)

 

" Although the best estimates of harms from screening mammography seem

to be less than the benefits, they remain too uncertain to conclude

with a high level of confidence that screening mammography in this

age-group is associated with a net benefit. Every woman, with her

physician's guidance, should decide whether regret will be greater if

she develops breast cancer that could have been detected earlier by

screening mammography, or if she develops breast cancer later in life

as a result of screening mammography itself. "

 

Comments: The burden of proof resides with those recommending the

tests and treatments. This study clearly states the proof of benefits

is lacking. The reason mammography fails women is because this

measurement is crude and on average detects cancers only after they

have been growing 8 to 14 years—by this time if the lump detected is

truly cancer—often referred to as invasive cancer—then the disease

has spread to the rest of the body and is unreachable by surgery or

radiation.

 

Mammography harms a woman by finding " disease " that would have never

threatened her life. In many cases mammography detects a condition

called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). This is not cancer, but when

detected it is still treated aggressively with surgery and

radiation. DCIS rarely turns into a life threatening cancer. Thus,

for women for whom a cure is possible (those with DCIS) early

detection and treatment are not necessary, while for women for whom

cure is necessary (those with invasive cancer), this goal is rarely

possible because the disease has already spread beyond the boundaries

reached by local treatment (radiation and surgery).

 

After 10 disappointing trials, what I keep hearing from my colleagues

and many women is, " Mammography remains the best opportunity doctors

have to offer women. " But that's not true; there is something better

for preventing breast cancer, which is an enthusiastic recommendation

to change their diet.

 

1) Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, Johns L, Waller M, Bobrow L; Trial

Management Group. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years

on breast cancer mortality at 10 years' follow-up: a randomised

controlled trial. Lancet. 2006 Dec 9;368(9552):2053-60.

 

2) Djulbegovic B, Lyman GH Screening mammography at 40-49 years:

regret or no regret? Lancet. 2006 Dec 9;368(9552):2035-7.

 

Raw Food Vegetarian Diet Protects Us from Cancer

 

Long-term low-protein, low-calorie diet and endurance exercise

modulate metabolic factors associated with cancer risk by Luigi

Fontana published in the December 2006 issue of the American Journal

of Clinical Nutrition found that a low-protein, low-calorie diet and

exercise lower hormones and growth factors that increase a person's

risk of developing and dying from cancer.1 This research compared

three groups, each consisting of 21 people. The first group selected

from members of the St. Louis Vegetarian Society ate uncooked and

unprocessed plant foods; the second group selected from local running

clubs ate the Western diet but ran an average of 48 miles a week; the

third group was made up of sedentary people who ate the Western

diet. The lowest levels of the very powerful cancer-promoting growth

hormone, Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) were found in the raw

food group. These same healthy eaters had low levels of C-reactive

protein, insulin and cancer-promoting sex hormone activity.

 

Comments: This study demonstrates the health benefits of a plant food

based diet and some people will argue the importance of the diet

consisting of all raw foods. Their foods choices were raw

vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, grains, and cereals, and olive oil;

and they strictly avoided processed and refined foods, and foods of

animal origin. As this and other studies have demonstrated, a diet

of uncooked plant foods is far healthier than the American diet, and

can reverse and prevent many diseases.

 

From the title of the article you should notice that the raw food

group ate a " low-protein, low-calorie diet, " but fat is not

mentioned. This is because this raw food diet was very high in fat—

actually 43 percent of the calories were from fat—compared to 34

percent from fat for those on the Western diet.

 

I do recommend people eat some uncooked foods, but I do not recommend

an all raw food diet, because this kind of eating almost obligates a

person to eat a high-fat, high-sugar diet. Most of the people

following the McDougall Diet want to lose weight, which is one

important reason to minimize foods naturally high in fat—the liberal

use of nuts, seeds and avocados makes weight gain almost effortless.

The liberal use of simple sugars from fruits and juices also makes

weight loss harder.

 

Similar benefits in IGF-1, C-reactive protein, and sex hormone

activity are seen with a diet centered around cooked starches, such

as I recommend.2-4 A starch-based diet is low in fat and calories—

both qualities of food associated with cancer promotion. Lack of

compliance is the biggest stumbling block to dietary change. My

experience has been an all raw food diet is harder to follow than a

diet with cooked foods. This is one reason no large population of

people in recordable history has ever followed a raw food diet. My

experience has been that a diet of cooked potatoes, sweet potatoes,

rice, and/or beans, with fruits and vegetables is easily followed.

That is one important reason why all populations living on plant food

based diets throughout history have consumed most of their calories

from cooked starches.

 

1) Fontana L, Klein S, Holloszy JO. Long-term low-protein, low-

calorie diet and endurance exercise modulate metabolic factors

associated with cancer risk. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Dec;84(6):1456-62.

 

2) McCarty MF. A low-fat, whole-food vegan diet, as well as other

strategies that down-regulate IGF-I activity, may slow the human

aging process. Med Hypotheses. 2003 Jun;60(6):784-92.

 

3) Roberts CK, Chen AK, Barnard RJ. Effect of a short-term diet and

exercise intervention in youth on atherosclerotic risk factors.

Atherosclerosis. 2006 Oct 18; [Epub ahead of print]

 

4) Tymchuk CN, Tessler SB, Barnard RJ. Changes in sex hormone-

binding globulin, insulin, and serum lipids in postmenopausal women

on a low-fat, high-fiber diet combined with exercise. Nutr Cancer.

2000;38(2):158-62.

 

Low-carb, High-protein Diets Reduce Survival

 

Low-carbohydrate-high-protein diet and long-term survival in a

general population cohort by Antonia Trichopoulou of the University

of Athens Medical School published in the on-line version of the

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that " …higher intake of

carbohydrates was associated with significant reduction of total

mortality, whereas higher intake of protein was associated with

nonsignificant increase of total mortality… with respect to both

cardiovascular and cancer mortality. " 1

 

This study involved 22,944 healthy adults, under observation from

1993 to 2003, whose diets were assessed through questionnaire. The

authors make a point of saying proteins of plant origin are not the

problem and " …are generally considered innocuous, if not beneficial,

to health. "

 

Comments: After observing the diets of people for a decade this

report finds eating more protein and less carbohydrate will shorten

your life. In more practical terms, animal products shorten life—

plant foods will help you live longer. A daily increase of 15 grams

of protein and a decrease of 50 grams of carbohydrate was associated

with a 22% increase in overall mortality. In practical terms this

could translate into 1 1/2 ounces more of chicken and a decrease of

one potato could shorten your life by years. This report is one more

lesson that demonstrates that people who have made the mistake of

following diets like Atkins, South Beach, and the Zone can expect to

live significantly shorter lives.

 

1) Trichopoulou A, Psaltopoulou T, Orfanos P, Hsieh CC, Trichopoulos

D. Low-carbohydrate-high-protein diet and long-term survival in a

general population cohort. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2006 Nov 29; [Epub ahead

of print]

 

Blissed be, Annie

 

BodyByBliss.com

bodybybliss