Disease Proof : Disease Proof : Health & Nutrition News & Commentary : Dr. Joel Fuhrman

 Two new studies have examined the effects of certain dietary factors on recurrence of breast cancer in survivors. Soy had protective effects, and alcohol had detrimental effects.  Read the full article on DrFuhrman.com.

Soy and breast cancer recurrence

Some individuals suspected and even promoted the idea that soy was potentially dangerous with regard to breast cancer risk, because of the phyto-estrogenic compounds it contains. However, in Asian countries where soy is a staple food, rates of breast cancer were much lower than those in the U.S. This paradox launched much debate and hundreds of studies on the relationship between soy and breast cancer.

A review of the most recent clinical studies on this subject supports a protective effect of soy:

•  2006: A meta-analysis in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute examining data from 18 studies on soy and breast cancer that were published between 1978 and 2004 concluded that soy overall has a protective effect.¹

• 2008: A meta-analysis in the British Journal of Nutrition compiling data from 8 different studies (not included in the 2006 meta-analysis) also concluded that soy consumption decreases breast cancer risk. These effects were dose-dependent – a 16% reduced risk for each 10 mg of soy isoflavones consumed daily.²

In spite of these clear documented results, the myth that soy contributes to breast cancer has persisted. Plus, many scientists and physicians continue to doubt the safety of soy for current or previous breast cancer patients, because of soy’s phytoestrogen content.

A new study of breast cancer survivors has shown that these doubts are unwarranted too. Premenopausal breast cancer survivors who consumed more soy had a 23% reduced risk of recurrence.³

Which soy products are most beneficial?

Cruciferous vegetables are the most powerful anti-cancer foods. In addition, Dr. Fuhrman also recommends consuming a variety of beans, including soybeans, as components of an anti-cancer diet. Soybeans may be consumed as edamame (whole soybeans), or in minimally processed forms such as unsweetened soymilk, tofu, and tempeh. As little as 10 mg of soy isoflavones consumed per day has a protective effect with regard to breast cancer – this equates to approximately 1 ounce of one of these soy foods.

Alcohol and breast cancer recurrence

In contrast to the mainstream assumption that alcohol is heart healthy, even moderate amounts of alcohol are associated with increased risk for breast cancer.⁴

The current study of breast cancer survivors showed that women who consumed 3-4 alcoholic drinks per week were 34% more likely to experience a recurrence than the women who had less than 1 drink per week. This study was presented last week at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.⁵

Alcohol has no beneficial effect on the cardiovascular system, it only inhibits the blood’s clotting mechanisms. Since breast cancer is the second leading cause of death in women (second to cardiovascular disease), Dr. Fuhrman recommends minimizing alcohol consumption in order to reduce this risk.

Read the full article here.

Read “Dr. Fuhrman on Breast Cancer” to learn more diet and lifestyle strategies for breast cancer prevention.

References:

1. Trock BJ et al. Meta-analysis of soy intake and breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Apr 5;98(7):459-71.

2. Wu AH et al. Epidemiology of soy exposures and breast cancer risk. British Journal of Cancer (2008) 98, 9– 14

4. Lew JQ et al. Alcohol and risk of breast cancer by histologic type and hormone receptor status in postmenopausal women: the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2009 Aug 1;170(3):308-17. Epub 2009 Jun 18.

5. http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/SABCS/17444

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (7)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Folic acid supplementation is dangerous – especially for pregnant women

In a 10-year study,^1,2 scientists found that women who take multivitamins containing folic acid increase their breast cancer risk by 20-30%.

Even more alarming are the associations between supplemental folic acid during pregnancy and death from breast cancer,⁸ and asthma and respiratory tract infections in children.^5-6

Read full article

Folic acid is the synthetic form of folate, a B vitamin, which is abundant in green vegetables. Folate protects against birth defects known as neural tube defects (NTDs). Pregnant women could safely increase their folate status and prevent NTDs by eating green vegetables, but instead they are instructed to take folic acid supplements, putting them and their children at risk. Folic acid supplements are not a substitute for folate-containing green vegetables – there are inverse associations between maternal vegetable intake and childhood cancers.^12-13

Unlike synthetic folic acid, folate obtained from food sources – especially green vegetables – protects against breast and prostate cancer.

There is inverse relationship between dietary folate intake and breast and prostate cancer.^14,3 Chemical differences between folate and folic acid translate into differences in uptake and processing of these two substances by the cells in the intestinal wall – excess folic acid in the circulation can occur. Luckily, folate from food comes naturally packaged in balance with other micronutrients and the body regulates its absorption.⁹

Rich sources of food folate

As a reference point, the U.S. RDA for folate is 400μg. Below is the approximate folate content for a 100-calorie serving.⁸

Additional foods listed in full article

Clearly, we do not need synthetic folic acid supplements to meet our daily folate requirements.

Dr. Fuhrman’s Gentle Care Formula Multivitamin does not contain folic acid

Supplemental folic acid has also been linked to prostate cancer³, colorectal cancer⁴, and overall cancer mortality.⁷ Because folate is abundant in the nutritarian diet, and synthetic folic acid is so potentially dangerous, folic acid is not included in Dr. Fuhrman’s Gentle Care multivitamin.

Dr. Fuhrman does not recommend prenatal vitamins because of the potentially harmful ingredients, such as folic acid.

Dr. Fuhrman’s special recommendations for pregnant women:

• Gentle Care Formula
• Osteo-Sun
• Iron supplementation (approx. 30 mg/day when needed)
• DHA Purity
• A nutrient dense diet, rich in green vegetables (and folate)

(See full article for references)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (21)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 The European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) is warning the public that antibiotic overuse has the potential to cripple the entire modern medical system.¹

Despite public awareness campaigns about responsible use of antibiotics, antibiotics continue to be prescribed for colds, flu, sinusitis and bronchitis. Medical authorities continually warn doctors that antibiotics should NOT be prescribed for routine bronchitis and sinusitis. The scientific studies show that they do not improve outcome.  These are infections that, except in rare instances, are caused by viruses, not bacteria. Plus, these infections resolve by strengthening the immune system with excellent nutrition, not weakening it and creating more serious future infections that can develop as a result of antibiotic use

As inappropriate use of antibiotics continues, more and more resistant microbes will spread, and antibiotics will consequently become less effective. Drug-resistant bacteria emerge from mutations – microbes are constantly mutating, and these mutations eventually cause resistance to antibiotics.

Drug-resistant infections kill about 19,000 people each year in the U.S., and are a significant cost to the healthcare system.¹ Drug-resistant bacteria have the potential to compromise our ability to perform procedures for which antibiotics are crucial.

"If this wave of antibiotic resistance gets over us, we will not be able to do organ transplants, hip replacements, cancer chemotherapy, intensive care and neonatal care for premature babies."

- Dominique Monnet, ECDC scientific advice unit¹

The dangers of antibiotic overuse extend further than infection alone – all drugs have side effects, and antibiotics are especially toxic, and their side-effects are significant. . Antibiotics kill bacteria indiscriminately – therefore they disrupt our microbial balance, killing the beneficial flora that aid in digestion and absorption of nutrients and keep other microbes at bay. Children who are prescribed more antibiotics in the first year of life are more likely to be diagnosed with asthma and allergies during childhood.³  Antibiotic use has even been linked to a higher incidence of breast cancer.⁴   

Antibiotics are one of the most common medications taken by pregnant women, and a new study has made connections between antibiotics use during pregnancy and incidence of birth defects. Sulfonamides and nitrofurantoins were each associated with several birth defects – women who took these classes of antibiotics while pregnant were 2-4 times as likely to give birth to a baby with a heart defect. The more commonly used penicillins, eythromycins, and cephalosporins were each associated with at least one birth defect.²  

Antibiotics are not harmless medications and should be reserved for severe (and carefully documented) bacterial infections - infections that would seriously threaten the health of the patient if left untreated. We have powerful immune systems which, when supported by excellent nutrition, will clear the more moderate infections without help from drugs. 

References:

1. http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE5A927820091110
2. Crider KS et al. Antibacterial medication use during pregnancy and risk of birth defects: National Birth Defects Prevention Study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009 Nov;163(11):978-85.
3. Foliaki S et al. Antibiotic use in infancy and symptoms of asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis, and eczema in children 6 and 7 years old: International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood Phase III. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009 Nov;124(5):982-9.
4. Velicer CM et al. Antibiotic Use in Relation to the Risk of Breast Cancer. JAMA. 2004;291:827-835.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If breast and prostate cancer were detected early, via mammograms and PSA tests, treatment could begin earlier, and lives would be saved – right?

Wrong, according to a recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that examined incidence and mortality rates for breast and prostate cancer over the past 20 years.¹

Why? The authors think that we are in a state of “overdiagnosis” – that many slow-growing, non-threatening tumors are being detected and treated; at the same time, the more dangerous and aggressive cancers may be missed because they can grow and become lethal in the time interval between screenings, and by then treatment will not work. Overall, the mortality rates of breast and prostate cancer have not decreased significantly in the past 20 years.

Still, are there sound reasons to skip these screenings altogether? You decide…

Mammograms: Following detection of a tumor, 80% of biopsies are negative, and the risk of false positives is very high in women under 50.² This equates to thousands and thousands of unnecessary surgical procedures are performed on women after they have had a suspicious mammogram result. In a recent review, it was estimated that for every 2000 women screened, one will benefit, more than 200 will have a false positive result, and 10 healthy women will be treated unnecessarily.³ And those women who are treated for cancers earn many chemotherapy-related deaths counterbalancing any life-span enhancements in those treated.⁴ PSA tests: About 70% of men who have elevated PSA levels do not actually have cancer.¹ And the side effects of the associated treatments include bowel, urinary, and sexual dysfunction.⁵ Additionally, a 9-year study in Sweden showed that men who had undergone endocrine treatment for prostate cancer were at a 20-30% increased risk of cardiovascular diseases and death from myocardial infarction.⁶ 

With both of these tests, detection of low-risk cancers also causes much undue emotional trauma to patients and their families.

(image credit: Samat Jain @Flickr)

The American Cancer Society now advises:

“There are some cancers for which we don’t currently recommend screening, such as prostate cancer, because the benefits are unclear or unproven.”⁷ 

The authors of the JAMA article offer strategies for the scientific and medical communities: to find specific biomarkers that can differentiate high-risk from low-risk cancers, and to target high-risk individuals with preventive treatments.

I offer a strategy to you: Be proactive – reduce your risk of breast and prostate cancer. Practice prevention by maintaining a healthy weight and eating an anti-cancer diet - a high-nutrient diet rich in protective phytochemicals from cruciferous vegetables, leafy greens, and berries, and minimizing or eliminating browned foods, animal products, and refined flour and sugar. Taking sufficient Vitamin D is also important. You can read more about the strong connections between diet and cancer in my article “Eat for Health – the Anti-Cancer Diet."

References:

1. Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I. JAMA. 2009 Oct 21;302(15):1685-92. Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer.

2. Wright CJ, Mueller CB. Screening mammography and public health policy: the need for perspective. Lancet 1995;346(8966(:29-32.

3. Gøtzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 7;(4):CD001877.

4. Rock E, De Michele. A Nutritional approaches to late toxicities of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer survivors. J Nutr 2003 Nov;133(11 Suppl 1):3785S-3793S.  

5. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2005;293 (17):2095-2101

6. M. Van Hemelrijck et al. 1BA Increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality following endocrine treatment for prostate cancer: an analysis in 30,642 men in PCBaSe Sweden. EJC Supplements - September 2009 (Vol. 7, Issue 3, Page 1, DOI: 10.1016/S1359-6349(09)72024-5)

7.http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_2_1x_A_Special_Message_from_CEO_John_Seffrin_PhD_on_Cancer_Screening.asp)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A diet high in walnuts may significantly decrease a person's risk of breast cancer, according to a study conducted by researchers from the Marshall University School of Medicine and presented at a conference of the American Association for Cancer Research.

A chemical analysis showed that omega-3 fatty acids, antioxidants and phytosterols contained in walnuts all contributed to the mice's tumor resistance.

"The omega-3 fatty acid, the phytosterols and antioxidants individually have been shown to prevent or delay cancers" Hardman said. "So if you add them all together, it looks like it may be really good."

In another study, Hardman found that feeding mice a diet enriched with the same omega-3 content as that contained in the walnut dose given in the current study was not as effective as eating the whole walnut.

"It did reduce cancer incidents," she said, "but not as dramatically as the walnut-containing diet did. So it's something else other than the omega-3 in the walnut that's contributing to the suppression of cancers."

Hardman noted that the effect of the whole food was probably greater than the sum of its parts.

With dietary interventions, you see multiple mechanisms when working with the whole food, she said.

For 20 years, I’ve been telling people to eat walnuts as a superfood; now we know it’s good for mice too.

Nuts and seeds contain plant sterols and other phytochemical compounds that we are just beginning to understand their benefits. Eating the whole food guarantees we are getting all of the known and unknown beneficial micronutrients contained in these superfoods.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A good half hour in the gym is a great way to blow off some steam and according to a new study in the journal Cancer, exercise also helps improve life after cancer, specifically breast, prostate and colorectal cancer.

They interviewed 753 men and women, all at least 65 years old, who had survived 5 or more years after a breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer diagnosis. All were overweight to some degree, but none was morbidly obese.

When the interviewers asked about exercise, diet, weight status, and quality of life, they found that half the group got no more than 10 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous exercise per week, and only 7% had healthful eating habits…

…However, those who exercised more and had better diet quality also had better physical quality of life outcomes (e.g., better vitality and physical functioning) than those who exercised less and ate poorly. Also, the greater the body weight, the poorer the physical quality of life.

In general, conclude [researchers], the results point to "the potential negative impact of obesity and the positive impact of physical activity and a healthy diet on physical quality of life in cancer survivors.

In related news, doing moderate to high-intensity exercise for 30 minutes a day cuts cancer risk in men by 50%. Regular exercise helps strengthen bones too.

Via Reuters.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I’m a guy. I forget things, little things, like birthdays, where I left my car keys, or to put on underwear. Luckily, some soy might fix that.

According to a new study, published in the British Journal of Nutrition, isoflavones in soy could help improve men’s mental function and memory.

Researchers recruited 34 healthy men and participants were given a daily dose of 116 milligrams of soy isoflavones. Then men were tested on memory, mental function and visual-spatial processing.

Data showed guys getting the soy isoflavones committed 23% fewer errors and needed 17% less time to complete tasks. So ladies, if your man is a big dummy. Go get him some soymilk.

Soy is a super food! Previous reports have found it lowers risk of breast cancer, improves heart health and helps build strong bones, but don’t go soy crazy. Dr. Fuhrman says no diet should be based on just one food, not even soy.

Via Nutra Ingredients.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

You hear it all the time. “A glass of red wine a day is good for you.” But many experts insist no study has ever proved a relationship between moderate drinking and lower risk of death. Instead, the association may occur because healthy people—with healthy habits—just don’t drink a lot. Even supporters of booze for health are quick to point out that alcohol has been linked to breast cancer, liver disease and stroke when abused; The New York Times reports.

Hooch might be a great social lubricate, but it’s risky. Dr. Fuhrman doesn’t condone alcohol for health, saying the negatives of alcohol outweigh the supposed positives. For example, a previous report found heavy drinking harms the heart, by stiffening arteries and raising blood pressure.

In related news, excessive drinking has been shown to shrink brain volume and a lot of boozing may be lead to erectile dysfunction. So, don’t drink. You’ll go limp and dumb!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Presented at the American College of Sports Medicine's annual meeting researchers say women older than 30 who exercise more than 1 hour a week may have a lower risk of breast cancer. Scientists asked over 4,000 women to recall their physical activity levels when they were 10 to 15 years old, ages 30 to 50 and ages 50 and up. Women exercising in the over 30 group significantly reduced their chances of getting breast cancer; Reuters reports.

Exercise is great, but in January a report showed women under 70 are less active than men. Not good ladies, especially since regular physical activity helps strengthen bones and prevent osteoporosis and exercise like Tai Chi fights arthritis and diabetes.

In related news, America’s unhealthy habit of driving everywhere, even to the corner store, means we’re walking less, contributing to obesity and illness, like heart disease.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Conducted by The George Institute for International Health, a new study suggests alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking drastically increase risk of bowel cancer. Data revealed drinking more than seven drinks a week is associated with a 60% higher risk of cancer, compared to non-drinkers, and smoking—along with obesity, diabetes and consumption of red and processed meat—was linked to a 20% greater risk of bowel cancer; via ScienceDaily.

Alcohol is tricky. Most of us equate it with a good time—I still do—but it’s not healthy. Reports have shown booze raises risk of breast cancer and hardens arteries. Dr. Fuhrman recommends avoiding alcohol, saying even moderate drinking is dangerous. Smoking is a bad too.

In 2008, California’s initiatives to stop smoking saved the state $86 billion in healthcare costs. In Pueblo, Colorado heart attacks have dropped 40% since smoking was banned in public places.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link