Gosh! Dont you just want the big wigs to read this forum and see what the reality is and how far away from apple chopping it actually is! All so much more accurate than what they portray on the news!
I’m 26, diagnosed at 25, never been too sporty, very rare binge drinker (birthdays!), I smoked for a while, went through various stages of being lazy then exercising, pretty average weight and pretty “normal” lifestyle me thinks…which leaves me wondering how I fit in to this new research!! As for cause, I’m bring BRAC tested and also participating in a research study for other genetic causes (I’m adopted so family history is a mystery)! Now, if they’re telling me that I’ve drunk too much and made it more likely that i would get bc I may have to bop someone in the nose with my hard expanded boobies lol!! it sets such a bad example and level of understanding to the public who don’t know what its like and groups us into a category where some element has been self-inflicted…purrrrlease!!! Yea, you can be a health freak and still get breast cancer, it does not discriminate! The focus needs to be on cause and promoting a good level of lifestyle for all without everyone going crazy vegan, wheat free, dairy free because really, how are we expected to get through this without a bit of chocolate and a glass of wine without the guilt that we should be cycling 30 miles beforehand!! (although I probably should having just signed up for a 130mile bike ride for the Coppafeel charity who raise awareness of breast self-exams in young women )!!!
I am over 60, my biggest risk factor, and have a history of cysts, another *possible* risk factor or indicator. I wasn’t overweight until menopause, when I suddenly put on nearly a stone–possibly my body trying to produce oestrogen. For that and other health reasons, I was put on HRT–risk factor–but I took myself off when the first reliable news of the risks of HRT came out. At that, I wasn’t on the older, even more dangerous ones. At that point I put the stone and more back on, putting me into the overweight category. I’ve always been a very modest drinker, averaging less than a unit a day, as best as I can calculate, and I have always tried to eat healthily, though as I said earlier, stress and overwork cause me to snack more.
Part of the problem is with the reporting. There must be a way of saying ‘Here is how you can improve your chances’ without saying ‘it’s your fault’. I do think that ‘your fault’ reporting is generally stronger with women’s health issues than with men’s.
I am over 60, my biggest risk factor, and have a history of cysts, another *possible* risk factor or indicator. I wasn’t overweight until menopause, when I suddenly put on nearly a stone–possibly my body trying to produce oestrogen. For that and other health reasons, I was put on HRT–risk factor–but I took myself off when the first reliable news of the risks of HRT came out. At that, I wasn’t on the older, even more dangerous ones. At that point I put the stone and more back on, putting me into the overweight category. I’ve always been a very modest drinker, averaging less than a unit a day, as best as I can calculate, and I have always tried to eat healthily, though as I said earlier, stress and overwork cause me to snack more.
Part of the problem is with the reporting. There must be a way of saying ‘Here is how you can improve your chances’ without saying ‘it’s your fault’. I do think that ‘your fault’ reporting is generally stronger with women’s health issues than with men’s.
Nottsgal it’s worse than that - this quote gives you some idea of the rate at which these figures are changing:
“Over the thirty year period 1979-2008 in Britain, the European age-standardised incidence rate (EASR) for women increased by more than half (65%) from 75 per 100,000 in 1979 to 124 per 100,000 in 2008. Over the same time period the annual number of new cases of breast cancer in women almost doubled from 23,876 to 46,537 in Britain”
So whilst clearly there is a genetic element to bc, it could not possibly account for such a dramatic increase in bc incidence over such a short time - 65% in 30 years. Our lifestyle in totality (weight, drinking, smoking, diet, exercise, exposure to chemicals) is undoubtedly a big factor - as well as other as yet undiscovered causes. And when I say lifestyle, I don’t mean that we are consciously making bad choices, rather I think there is a misunderstanding of how safe our current lifestyles are. I believe we take what we believe is a normal lifestyle, and assume it’s healthy - whereas I no longer think it is.
Finty-I think you need to start writing the news as it’s much better phrasing than what I have been listening to this morning!!! In this case it would appear the semantics really do matter as does educating people!
X
And, of course, if you are not positively battling & fighting through every day, it’s all your fault, too, that the outlook may be bleak, according to the BBC item this morning.
I think we need to look beyond the headlines and to the detail. The report I read said that 42% of cancers could be lifestyle related. That means that 58% aren’t - ie most of us. I for one fall into the 58%.
However from a public health point of view, there are about 45,000 cases of breast cancer in the UK each year, so 42% of that is 18,900. That is a huge number of cancers every year that could possibly be avoided by changes in lifestyle.
And with the obesity statistics just out - as a nation we are among the fattest in Europe - it is clear that some personal responsibility must be taken here. And if the tabloid headlines encourage just a few of those 18,900 to adopt a healthier lifestyle that’s got to be good.
Finty - Wow. Where did you get those figures from?!
The Million Women Study which is, as I am sure you know, analysis of 1.3 million women across Europe found that one glass of wine a day increases cases of BC by 11 for every 1000 women.
That is just over 1 EXTRA case of BC per 100.
Cancer Research say that risk increases from 8.8% to 10.1% for those who drink the equivalent of 2 glasses a day compared to those who don’t drink at all.
So drinking 2 glasses of wine a day increases the risk of being diagnosed with BC by 1.3% - which echoes the findings of MWS.
If you drink 6 glasses a day every day the risk increases from 8.8% to 13.3% - an increase of 4.5%. In other words - a person who drinks 6 glasses of wine a day has a 4.5% increased risk of developing BC compared to someone who doesn’t drink at all.
And this is what Cancer Research say about alcohol:
“It is important to remember that the impact of drinking alcohol on a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer is small compared to other factors. For example, giving birth to only 1 or 2 children and not breast feeding has a much bigger effect. And, alcohol in moderation can have some beneficial effects on the risk of heart attack or stroke.”
On the weight issue it is actually very complex.
According to CRUK studies have found that post menopausal women who are overweight prior to menopause actually have a REDUCED incidence of breast cancer.
So there we have it - according to CRUK themselves the effect of alcohol is relatively small in relation to other factors and the weight issue is not as cut and dried as is made out.
And yet I have just had to endure another TV bulletin about how this increase is all down to obesity and booze.
This is what I mean about needing more nuanced coverage of this disease and its risks and causes instead of this dumbed down nonsense.
Cheryl - I agree. Are we treated like idiots because this is perceived to be a middle aged woman’s disease?
More curiously, why are so many women so angry over something that they have no control over (media reporting), which in real terms makes no difference to their own lives or those around them. The only problem is a perceived sense of media blame, something that is not actually real.
Maybe we all have an ability to be outraged in common, and that is the true cause of cancer…lol!
Gretchen - You seriously don’t think media coverage affects people? You don’t think it can feed into Government policy? You don’t think it can affect how much money is earmarked for research and treatments in the NHS? You don’t think it can influence how the population perceives their health and well being?
I think media coverage is crucially important in educating women who are at risk of this disease.
Call me old fashioned - but personally I like truth.
I’m another one with a relatively healthy lifestyle, had children in mid-20s, breastfed, good diet, fairly fit and not overweight (I was for a couple of years but managed to lose it) and I turned 45 between having a mammo because I’d found a lump and receiving my DX (stage 3A) a week later (not the best birthday ever!), so I’m yet another anomaly. I was on the pill for years but only after having children, so not from being very young. It is true that those of us posting here are a very skewed sample though, as has already been pointed out.
Don’t forget that the figures quoted for 10 and 20 year survival rates will probably be for people who were DX 10 or 20 years ago and received the bulk of their treatment then, so I’d like to think that the rates for those of us more recently DX are higher.
A direct quote that I took from the news on the programme I was on: “Lifestyle factors, including drinking alcohol, are partly to blame.”
But to blame for WHAT? Actually, the answer is, those factors are “to blame” for THE STATISTICAL INCREASE, NOT for individuals getting cancer.
Gretchen’s explanation of risk is brilliant. Being a passenger in a car increases your risk of being a passenger in a car accident, it doesn’t CAUSE a car accident. (I called the radio station and passed that one on but don’t know if they used it.)
I printed out the summary from CRUK and found a couple of interesting bullet points.
“…the cumulative incidence of breast cancer in developed countries would be reduced by more than half, from 6.3 to 2.7 per 100, if woman had the average number of births(6.5 instead of 2.5 births)…” But they’re not telling people to have more babies and to have babies before they’re 20 - quite the opposite, teenage pregnancies are seen as the bane of our society!
“…Women currently taking HRT have a 66% increased risk of breast cancer compared to non-users…” Does this mean that our doctors are killing women by prescribing HRT?
“…obese pre-menopausal women have a 20% reduction in breast cancer risk…”
“There has been a lot of research into the effects of dietary factors on breast cancer risk, but findings are generally inconsistent and inconclusive.”
There are SO many factors, it can’t be distilled into a 30-second statement. It boils my blood to see news report writers (NOT the statisticians and researchers) trying to create sound-bites out of complicated research without understanding even the basics of how statistics work. GRRRR!!!
Msmolly-completely agree! I font blame myself, nor do I care if others blame me-what I care about is correct education and limiting stigma so the crux of the problem can be dealt with rather than sensationalist headlines! C
Mum had me at 19,brother 2 years later, breastfed, did not drink, slim and active.
Breast cancer 29 dead by 30.
I got it age 33, secondaries age 42.
Age at diagnosis has to be taken into account in their so called findings. Mostly old news, rehashed by media to shock and attribute blame.
How do we get that through to our young, impressionable children OR people who actually believe all they read in the daily mail.
Grrrr
I also like it would seem most here, don’t have any high risk factors,apart from couldn’t breastfeed 2 children,if that counts!
Re the high oestrogen element- it was once calculated there is far more exposure to it from our water supply than most any other sources,and it something no one can avoid.Causing problems for males too-giving them far too high a dosage daily of feminine hormones.But sideline all that,of no relevance, it’s all our own fault!!!