Hi Lindiloo, Interesting to read the e-mail from Tim Key and I’m not overly impressed with the findings as once again there are lots of unanswered questions and blurred answers! what on earth does a ‘conventional healthy diet’ mean? We could start another thread on this subject!!!
You said at the end of your message that there is absolutely no proof about the red meat-dairy, well perhaps not from his findings, but there are plenty of findings from many other sources that find links with red meat/dairy and increases in cancer. It really depends on who you read and how you interprete the studies.
Best wishes
Thanks so much for posting this email, a few points:
The only factors that definitely in crease the risk is obesity and alcohol. Nothing else is definitive and certainly not that red meat and dairy reduces the risk. There is ‘simply not enough info on vegan diets’, and the one study that was comprehensive about a very healthy vegan diet show very promising results. This study looked for very broad patterns and found none. It did not look at specific anti-cancer diets. It proves that a typical average diet of 5 a day is not good enough to reduce the cancer odds. It proves that the conventional wisdom of a ‘healthy’ diet is not adequate to alter someone’s odds of developing cancer. It does not prove that eating red meat and dairy has no impact.
It is entirely inconclusive about hormones in cows milk.
Tim’s reply says there are no known supplements in the bc fight yet vitamin d is widely accepted as being an important supplement for bc sufferers, particularly in a country like the UK where 5 months of the year the sun is not strong enough to allow our bodies to make vitamin d.
Raised IGF1 levels increase the risk of developing bc. Fact. The IGF1 is ingested from certain foods.
This can work as another piece in the puzzle that we all have to put together and come to our own conclusions.
Hi leadie,
I think the difference between EPIC and some of the other smaller studies is that human population studies must look at large numbers of people to provide the most meaningful results.
Many previous studies on diet and cancer have been flawed for the following reasons:
They were too small. Even thousands of people are not enough to detect links between cancer and diet.
They focus on one population with limited variation in diet. For example, if you only study a group of people who eat very little fibre, the study would miss out the beneficial effects of eating large amounts of fibre.
EPIC is a long-term study of more than 500,000 people in ten European countries. This includes around 90,000 British men and women, including about 30,000 vegetarians/vegans.
Unlike many other studies, it has the following important design features:
It’s huge. At over 500,000 participants, EPIC is the largest study of diet and health ever undertaken.
Only healthy people were recruited and their health was then followed for many years,Many other studies ask patients who already have cancer to recall their lifestyles before their diagnosis - a much less accurate approach.
It’s accurate. Each participant completed detailed diet and lifestyle questionnaires and also provided blood and urine samples so the researchers could analyse their nutrient levels.
EPIC participants are also followed for at least 10 years.
And the People from 10 EPIC countries had very varied diets. This has allowed the researchers to make more reliable assessments of the effects of different aspects of our diets.
A conventional healthy diet is a normal healthy balanced diet with everything in moderation .
Linda
Hi Cathy,
Its lovely to see you back on the forums i have realy missed your posts
on here, i miss a lot of the ladies who used to be on BCC ,i hope you will come back more often , its nice to be able to stay in touch with everyone.
Hope you are ok and are keeping well.
Hugs to you
Linda x
Thanks Linda for posting up the response from Prof Key. It is interesting that although they state their is no proof that dairy increases risk, it is an hypothesis that they are exploring. Likewise with IGF levels. Vegan diets have been so poorly explored over the years as we live in a meat/dairy eating society so I’m not surprised about the lack of data. The prostate cancer research is very promising though on this front.
Personally I’m not going to wait for strong proof - that could take years. There is enough data to make me want to reduce my IGF levels by reducing or cutting out meat, dairy and soya. We each of us have to make a decision about whether or not we’re looking for absolute proof. If they turn round in a few years and say that there is strong evidence that dairy poses no increased risk then I shall be delighted.
I would love to see greater comparisons of European diets and Asian diets. This to me is where the real interest is. All European countries, America and Brazil appear to have high levels of breast cancer in comparison to countries like China, Thailand, Japan etc.
Can you imagine the hue and cry if researchers said that women should reduce or eliminate dairy and meat from their diets? The media would go mad. No wonder researchers are going to want to be as sure as they can be before advising that.
^
^
Mel - I thought it might be helpful to post the info from Cancer research. The one you quote is 2006 and there is another from 2007:
info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/archive/cancernews/2006-11-16-red-meat-breast-cancer-increase-small
as you’ll see, the 2007 one states that research undertaken by University of Leeds did find a link between eating higher amounts of red meat and breast cancer in postmenopausal women. This confirms findings of Shanghai study for pre and postmenopausal women. Some researchers though think that this is because of higher body weight and therefore Cancer Research UK state that more research is required in larger groups.
^
I would go with what the Penny Brohn centre advice of not more than once or twice a week if you’re going to eat red meat. I stick to that and have organic meat only.
I don’t really see any contradiction in Linda’s links re the EPIC study, and the more detailed studies of smaller groups on more restrictive diets, because they were looking at entirely different things. The EPIC study looked at a large number of people on a “normal” diet, and found variations in consumption of certain foods didn’t make much difference. I wouldn’t disagree with that at all, and wouldn’t expect to see any differences in outcome with a few more or less vegetables, or meat or dairy. I think the smaller studies have shown that to stand any chance of improving a prognosis, the diet changes for most of us have to be very big ones.
When the EPIC study looked at a small group - the vegans - with a radically different diet - they found significant differences in the presence of cancer-promoting Insulin like Growth Hormone. Just as the prostate study of a radical diet showed dramatically different results for the vegan group. Unfortunately, as the vegan group in the EPIC study is so small, it is very unlikely that they will publish the long term outcomes for these people - in a group of 90 odd you would perhaps only expect one or two breast cancers in a ten year period - not nearly enough to get any statistically accurate figures.
So as someone up above noted, there isn’t time, for those of us that want to make changes, to wait for definitive proof. And there is no way, absent cast iron proof from numerous long term studies, that any govt organisation including the NHS is ever going to tell you not to eat meat or dairy, after the Edwina Currie eggs fiasco. Personally, I’m happy with a decision that means I will have much lower exposure to IGF’s in my diet - I really don’t like the idea of eating something that is promoting rapid cell division when I have active cancer cells in my body.
finty x
This is a little technical - but provides evidence that IGFs play a role in promoting cell division, but also that breast cancer cells are attracted to IGF’s, so they also promote breast cancer cells migrating towards sources of IGFs. I am wondering if this means that as animal protein results in higher levels of IGFs in the blood stream, it increases the chance of vascular invasion? It would seem to me that breast cancer cells moving is not a good thing in any circumstances. Would be interested to hear from anyone with more knowledge of this.
Journal of Endocrinology (2000) 165, 123–131
0022–0795
Introduction
The insulin-like growth factors (IGF)-1 and -II play a
key role in cell cycle progression, cell proliferation and
tumour progression (Humbel 1990, LeRoith et al. 1995a,
Resnicoff et al. 1995). Most of the effects of IGFs are
mediated by binding to type 1 IGF receptor, whereas type
2 IGF receptor is mainly involved in the clearance of
IGF-II (LeRoith et al. 1995b, Stewart & Rotwein 1996).
In all biological fluids, IGFs are bound to at least six
different high affinity binding proteins (termed IGFBP-1
to -6) which prolong IGF half-life, counteract the insulinlike
hypoglycaemic effect of IGFs, maintain a reservoir of
IGFs in the circulation, transport IGFs from the circulation
to peripheral tissues, modulate IGF action, and also exert
IGF-independent actions (Cianfarani & Holly 1989, Jones
& Clemmons 1995). The complexity of the IGF system is
further increased by the intervention of specific proteases
which, by fragmenting IGFBPs, reduce their affinity for
IGFs and eventually lead to augmented IGF bioavailability
(Hossenlopp et al. 1990, Giudice 1995).
There is increasing evidence that IGFs are also able to
stimulate cell motility. Many types of cells, such as
endothelial cells, keratinocytes, osteoblasts, rhabdomyosarcoma
cells, epithelial cells, trophoblasts, melanoma cells,
breast cancer cells, smooth muscle cells, and carcinoma
cells, migrate towards a source of IGFs or display increased
motility in the presence of these factors (Leventhal &
Feldman 1997). Type 1 IGF receptor has been implicated
as a mediator of IGF-stimulated cell motility (Stracke et al.
1989) and signalling mechanisms involving type 1 receptor
autophosphorylation, tyrosine phosphorylation of insulin
receptor substrate family (IRS-1 to IRS-4), activation of
phosphatidylinositol (PI)-3 kinase, integrin-dependent
adhesion, and tyrosine phosphorylation of the focal
adhesion proteins, such as paxillin and focal adhesionkinase
(FAK), are involved in IGF-stimulated cell migration
(Leventhal & Feldman 1997).
123
Very technical but might go some way to explaining the connection between IGF and cancer.
Found this on the internet detailing some studies, but I’ll see if I can find anything on the one quote in the Lancet of this year:
foodconsumer.org/newsite/2/Cancer/meat_dairy_products_sugar_up_breast_cancer_risk_3010100833.html
Had just read the exact same article!
stressy-messy
I am SO pleased you have decided to come back. I have sent you a PM.
Ann xxx
Hi Ladies,
I suppose in reality we could all go searching till Kingdom Come on the internet and find some small study somewhere which fits in with our own ways of thinking and our own personal beliefs ,the thing is it just doesnt prove anything does it?, all of the previous studies are just too small to even come close to being very meaningfull in relation to diet and BC , so thankfully these huge studies that are now underway are much more reliable and accurate as is pointed out by EPIC .
I think Tims response and answers to the questions i asked are very reliable and entirely accurate and i personaly want to Thank Tim Key for taking the time to answer some of the questions that continue to be a Hot Topic here on BCC over the last few years,
We all have to make our own choices at the end of the day ,but im very glad that at least now for a lot of people especialy those that are confused by their current normal diet and BC,or those that are Newly DX who may be finding this whole topic a little concerning that they can feel rest assured by the current up to date information and evidence and continue to enjoy their food without it causeing them unnecessary stress.
Linda
And by the same token, ladies who wish to experience wellness, who, after having tortured their bodies with toxic chemicals want to maximise not only their survival rates but maximise their enjoyment of the life they have, will continue to eat an ‘anti-cancer’ wellness diet. The wellness experienced is 'the proof in the (sugar free, dairy free, organic) pudding".
I personally do not have any guilt issues about food (Dominos pizza last Friday night!), and I am sure that there are many other women who eat a super healthy diet for enjoyment, and who can eat occasional junk food with no guilt or stress.
Good luck to everyone and their own, personal lifestyle decisions.
Lindiloo, I’m not at all reassured by Tim’s responses because he is not answering a lot of the questions! And as for accuracy one has to be very careful in using that word, as statistics and evidence can be manipulated into different results for different people. I really dont agree either that we can feel rest assured by the current up to date information…I’m certainly not and will continue following research,not just from main stream thinking ie the medical model, but from other sources such as alternative medicine.
Best wishes
^
Excellent! Laughter is a great stress-reliever.