Dear all
You may not have seen the latest from the above:
They state that things that affect the levels of hormones the most in postmenopausal women are: weight, alcohol and cigarettes. Elinda x
For those who would like to see the academic research paper here’s the link:
Interesting, thanks. The California Teachers Study found weight at diagnosis also had a significant affect on survival rates for some ER+ cancers - it all fits together. It’s good to have the alcohol/hormone relationship confirmed, although I suspect it’s not the only factor in alcohol contributing to increased cancer risk. Still, more incentive to carry on dieting.
i dont know enough about science, but did it not say alcohol increased hormones but reduced the hormaone binding factor, perhaps the hormones cant cause cancer without the binding factor.
I don’t know about the specific action in this case, but in other situations (eg IGF 1 and it’s binding protein)the binding factor neutralises the element it binds to - so for the binding factor to be lower is usually a double whammy.
This explains the role of the sex hormone binding factors discussed in this research - they prevent the hormones being bio available, so it’s desirable for them to be as high as possible:
and what about the post menopausal women who are not overweight dont drink or smoke. More c**p to scare you if you let it.
I think that study also underestimated the effect of alcohol on hormone levels - there’s a section near the end where it says most alcohol is consumed in the evening and has maximum impact on hormones 25 minutes later, but the blood tests to determine hormone levels were done in the morning when the effect of the alcohol has has largely dissipated.
Hatty - for anyone in that group it is very GOOD news, not cr*p - all other things being equal they will have a lower risk of recurrence than those that are overweight, drinkers or smokers.
Hi Elinda I was listening to this on the news this morning
Lets hope they get more of a grip on this sort of study for the pre menopausal women … AND the BC’s not affected by hormones like the TN I dont fit into those catergories ex smoker, always been tea total & as for being over weight Ive always been on the boarderline for being underweight 
? & struggle to keep to the weight I should be … I was peri-menopausal but now menopausal since surgery, shame this study only covers a minority of the BC cases diag each year but yes your right Finty for those in that ‘group’ its good to know
Finty, i meant in that case why did they get it in the first place. Im afraid i cant be doing with all this sort of stuff. Tomorrow it will be something else. It is c**p sorry but thats just my view the rest of you carry on and see it how you want to see it.
deleted
The problem isn’t with the research, but as usual with the reporters who report it who don’t have a scoobydoo what they’re talking about.
I simply don’t read this kind of thing in the media any more, it just gets me annoyed. Instead I think I’ll take a moment to read the CRUK report and the basis for their report.
And then I’ll STILL moan about the stupidity in the media!
Wow, I’m surprised at some of the strong negative reactions to this research. I didn’t read it that way at all.
I think it’s great if there are things we can do something about if we have a hormone receptive cancer. It is a massive incentive to me to lose weight, to stick to my no or very low alcohol lifestyle.
Of course those aren’t the only factors and plenty of people who are obese, drink and smoke don’t get BC and plenty who don’t do those things do get BC - sadly we also know that.
But personally, I really like to know if there are things we can do to reduce the circulating hormones that can affect breast cancer. Afterall, many of us are taking meds such as tamoxifen that give us terrible side effects. Why put up with all that only to increase our circulating hormones? Elinda x
Hatty that’s completely fine - but for those in the higher risk group it could be very useful information, because there is something they can do about it. I don’t drink or smoke but I do need to carry on losing weight, so this is very useful reinforcement for me. I don’t see why it’s interpreted as blaming anyone - it’s just information to be used - and I think it’s an entirely appropriate avenue of research. But each to their own! x
yup i fall into the catogory- and have to say i agree with Hatty 100%.
Post menopause, always under weight if anything, almost teetotal for 50 years.I am a smoker tho. Why do they not also mention,along with the naughty alcohol- the horrifically high hormone levels in milk for example. For what it’s worth (and likely not a lot!) I think so much is just the luck of the draw!
Here we go again. We just go round and round in circles.
Having been told that IVF and fertility treatments categorically do not elevate risk - we now have reports like this defining the key role played by circulating oestradiol - a hormone I used solidly (plus many others) in my IVF cycles for 3 years prior to diagnosis.
When are we going to get non-conflicting advice?
When are the cancer experts all going to sing from the same hymn sheet?
And when are we going to get some quantifiable definition of what is and what isn’t a genuine risk factor?
How much fat IS ok?
The difference in weight in my “healthy” BMI range is 3 stone for heavens sakes. The difference between me being a size 10 or a size 18/20.
What are breast cancer patients meant to do with this information?
I was size 8/10 with my first lump and size 16 (just after pregnancy) when I got the second one. What can we extrapolate from this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Actually the longer I live as a “breast cancer patient” the more I realise how very little headway is being made in defining the causes. And even less in regard to treatment.
For anyone who feels bullied by this whole issue of weight - and I do think some women are truly fed up with feeling blamed - just remember the celeb diagnoses of Martina Navratilova, Olivia Newton John, Linda McCartney, Sheryl Crowe, Kylie, Nancy Regan, Christina Applegate, Carly Simon … all of them are “more fat on a chip” brigade.
deleted
elinda, the problem isn’t with the research, but with the way in which it is reported. Reporters like to jump on some easy-to-repeat soundbite, and the word “blame” comes up in just about every report about the causes of cancer. I have been asked outright what I did that made me get cancer, and that’s as a direct result of the “it’s all your own fault” reporting that we so often see. So hatty, I know exactly where you’re coming from. And elinda, I know where YOU’re coming from too because the research does point out things we can do to reduce our risks.
Can someone please go and shoot the next reporter who uses the word “blame”? Thanks.