Surprising results (to me at least) from research comparing various diets and incidence of several cancers in 11,082 individuals in the Netherlands over a 20 year period. I expected the daily meat eaters to have higher rates of the 3 cancers studied, but no....
According to this study, looks like frequent meat consumption is OK when looking at lung, postmenopausal breast, and prostate cancer. Meat consumption did not increase the risk for these cancers.
Their main conclusion: vegetarians, pescatarians (eats fish, but no meat), and low-meat consumers did not have a reduced risk of lung, postmenopausal breast, and overall prostate cancer when compared with individuals consuming meat on a daily basis. This is after taking confounders such as smoking into account (because smokers have higher rates of cancers such as lung cancer).
The researchers do point out that some other similar studies had mixed results, but that perhaps those studies did not take confounders (variables that distort the results) such as smoking, physical activity levels, alcohol consumption, etc. into account.
From the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition: Vegetarianism, low meat consumption and the risk of lung, postmenopausal breast and prostate cancer in a population-based cohort study
The few prospective studies that examined lung, female breast and prostate cancer risk in vegetarians have yielded mixed results, whereas none have studied the effects of low meat diets. ... The Netherlands Cohort Study—Meat Investigation Cohort (NLCS-MIC)— is an analytical cohort of 11,082 individuals including 1133 self-reported vegetarians (aged 55–69 years at baseline). At baseline (1986), subjects completed a questionnaire on dietary habits and other risk factors for cancer and were classified into vegetarians (n=691), pescetarians (n=389), 1 day per week (n=1388), 2–5 days per week (n=2965) and 6–7 days per week meat consumers (n=5649).
After 20.3 years of follow-up, 279 lung, 312 postmenopausal breast and 399 prostate cancer cases (including 136 advanced) were available for analyses. After adjustment for confounding variables, we found no statistically significant association between meat consumption groups and the risk of lung cancer. As well, no significant associations were observed for postmenopausal breast and overall prostate cancer. After adjustment for confounders, individuals consuming meat 1 day per week were at a 75% increased risk of advanced prostate cancer compared with 6–7 days per week meat consumers.
Vegetarians, pescetarians and 1 day per week meat consumers did not have a reduced risk of lung, postmenopausal breast and overall prostate cancer compared with individuals consuming meat on a daily basis after taking confounders into account.
Although vegetarian diets are primarily defined by the absence of meat and fish, they are also shown to be associated with high intakes of fruits and vegetables and a favorable distribution of non-dietary factors.1, 2 Consequently, vegetarian diets may reduce the risk of different types of cancers through multiple mechanisms, depending on the etiology and preventability of the tumor.3, 4
We previously reported a nonsignificantly reduced risk of vegetarian and low meat diets on colorectal, and especially rectal, cancer5 and set out to study its effect on three other major cancers.
Although meat consumption has been hypothesized to be implicated in the etiology of lung, female breast and prostate cancer, data are not consistent across studies and meat subtypes.6, 7, 8However, on the basis of the existing body of literature, vegetarians may be at a lower risk of developing lung cancer (because of lower smoking rates) and to postmenopausal breast cancer (because of lower alcohol consumption, lower body mass index and higher physical activity levels).
Results from this prospective cohort study showed that, in age- and sex-adjusted models, vegetarians and pescetarians were at a reduced risk of lung cancer compared with individuals consuming meat on a daily basis. This effect disappeared after taking confounders, especially smoking, into account. We did not observe an association between the meat consumption group and the risk of post-menopausal breast and overall prostate cancer.
Our null findings regarding post-menopausal breast cancer risk are in line with other prospective studies comparing vegetarians with non-vegetarians and a pooled analysis of five cohort studies on breast cancer mortality. In contrast, the UK Women’s Cohort Study reported a lower post-menopausal breast cancer risk among non-meat consumers compared with high meat consumers,14 although this was not observed in their dietary pattern analyses.15 Vegetarian diets are rich in fiber and soy. Fiber was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer in a meta-analysis of prospective studies,19 and soy contains isoflavones, which have previously been associated with a significant reduced risk of postmenopausal breast cancer in Asian populations.20 However, compared with the average soy intake in four Asian countries (ranging from 38 to 134 g/day21), the soy product intake among vegetarians in our population was likely too low to exert an effect (~15 g per day).
Important new research was published in January 2016 about a fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) or "poop transplant". The research compared only one patient's gut microbes (thus a case study) to her fecal transplant donor's gut microbes, but it is important for looking at how gut microbes change long-term after a fecal microbiota transplant (poop transplant) and the actual length of time that it takes for the recipient's gut microbial community to become like the donor's gut microbiome. The patient was quickly "cured" of a serious recurrent Clostridium difficile infection after one fecal micriobiota transplant (FMT) from her sister, but there were ongoing long-term changes in the patient's gut microbes for 4.5 years, at which point the microbes (bacteria and viruses) were like the donor's (at the phylum, class, and order levels), and with similar bacterial diversity. At this point the researchers said that "full engraftment" of microbes had occurred.
Another community of microbes found in humans in areas once thought to be sterile (without bacteria) - the ovaries and fallopian tubes in the female upper reproductive tract. And the interesting thing is that once again we see differences in the bacterial communities of areas with and without cancer (here the ovaries). From Science Daily:
Some researchers are now testing to see if phage therapy could be a possible treatment for some conditions, such as chronic sinusitis and wound infections. Phage therapy, which uses
New research looked at people who "aged successfully" over a 10 year period compared with those who were "suboptimal agers" or had died. The successful agers were less likely to smoke, and have higher intakes of fiber from fruits, breads, and cereals (primarily from rolled oats and whole grain breads), but not from vegetables. Successful aging was defined as including an absence of disability, depressive symptoms, cognitive impairment, respiratory symptoms, and chronic diseases including cancer, coronary artery disease, and stroke.
An
Another piece of the puzzle on how the brain ages. Vitamin B12 is important for brain health, and higher levels are associated with slower rates of brain changes associated with aging. And the opposite is true with homocysteine levels - increased levels are associated with faster rates of brain changes that are associated with aging (such as higher rates of total brain tissue volume loss). Keep in mind that these effects were modest, but this also raises the question of whether long-term B12 supplementation would benefit everyone or only those with a deficiency? From Medscape:
Increasing fruit and fruit juice consumption during pregnancy leads to better cognitive development in babies?
We've all heard of immunotherapy as a possible future treatment for many cancers, but other possible treatments are also being tested. Two possibilities caught my eye.
Try to avoid triclosan. Read labels (especially soaps, personal care, and household cleaning products) and avoid anything that says it contains triclosan, or is anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, anti-microbial, or anti-odor. We easily absorb triclosan into our bodies, and it has been detected in our urine, blood, and breast milk. Among its many negative effects (e.g.,