Skip to content

Category: cancer

Published on Leave a comment on Sugar in Western Diet and Breast Cancer

This study was done in mice, but...it may apply to humans. The researchers found that sugar intake in mice comparable with levels in Western diets (in humans) led to increased breast tumor growth and metastasis.They specifically found that table sugar and high fructose corn syrup "was responsible for facilitating lung metastasis and 12-HETE production in breast tumors" in mice. So, at the very least, think about eliminating high fructose corn syrup from the diet - read labels and definitely eliminate soda (a huge source of added high fructose corn syrup).From Science Daily:

Sugars in Western diets increase risk for breast cancer tumors and metastasis

The high amounts of dietary sugar in the typical Western diet may increase the risk of breast cancer and metastasis to the lungs, according to a study at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.The findings, published in the Jan. 1, 2016 online issue of Cancer Research, demonstrated dietary sugar's effect on an enzymatic signaling pathway known as 12-LOX (12-lipoxygenase).

"We found that sucrose intake in mice comparable to levels of Western diets led to increased tumor growth and metastasis, when compared to a non-sugar starch diet," said Peiying Yang, Ph.D., assistant professor of Palliative, Rehabilitation, and Integrative Medicine. "This was due, in part, to increased expression of 12-LOX and a related fatty acid called 12-HETE." Previous epidemiological studies have shown that dietary sugar intake has an impact on breast cancer development, with inflammation thought to play a role.

"The current study investigated the impact of dietary sugar on mammary gland tumor development in multiple mouse models, along with mechanisms that may be involved," said co-author Lorenzo Cohen, Ph.D., professor of Palliative, Rehabilitation, and Integrative Medicine. "We determined that it was specifically fructose, in table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, ubiquitous within our food system, which was responsible for facilitating lung metastasis and 12-HETE production in breast tumors." Cohen added that the data suggested that dietary sugar induces 12-LOX signaling to increase risks for breast cancer development and metastasis.

Identifying risk factors for breast cancer is a public health priority, say the authors. The researchers state that moderate sugar consumption is critical, given that the per capita consumption of sugar in the U.S. has surged to over 100 lbs. per year and an increase in consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages has been identified as a significant contributor to an epidemic of obesity, heart disease and cancer worldwide.

The MD Anderson team conducted four different studies in which mice were randomized to different diet groups and fed one of four diets. At six months of age, 30 percent of mice on a starch-control diet had measurable tumors, whereas 50 to 58 percent of the mice on sucrose-enriched diets had developed mammary tumors. The study also showed that numbers of lung metastases were significantly higher in mice on a sucrose- or a fructose-enriched diet, versus mice on a starch-control diet.

Published on Leave a comment on Most Cancers Are Not Due to Bad Luck

After the nonsense of the study published earlier in the year and the resulting media coverage stating that most "cancer is due to bad luck", it is great to read this recent research disputing the earlier study's conclusions.  The new study concludes that bad luck accounts for only a small portion of cancers (10% to 30%), and that "external factors", such as environmental toxins, behaviors, and infections, account for the vast majority (90% to 70%) of cancers. Of course. From Medscape:

Most Cancers Are Not Due to 'Bad Luck'

This year began with the media buzzing over a study that suggested many cancer types can be chalked up to "bad luck." As the year draws to a close, a new study that reanalyzed some of the previous data concludes that bad luck accounts for only a small portion ― up to a third ― of cancers, and that external factors, such as environmental toxins and behaviors, account for the vast majority (90% to 70%).

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, researchers from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, reported that in about two thirds (22 of the 31) of cancer tissue types that they had investigated, the development of cancer could be largely explained by the bad luck of random mutations that arise during DNA replication in normal nonmalignant stem cells. The new study, published in Nature, challenges those findings and instead states that there is much more at stake than just a bout of bad luck.

A team led by Yusuf Hannun, MD, director of the Stony Brook University Cancer Center, in New York, found that intrinsic or internal risk factors contribute only modestly ― less than approximately 10% to 30% of lifetime risk ― to cancer development. Their research concluded that instead, cancer risk is heavily influenced by extrinsic or external factors, such as environmental toxins, behaviors, and infections.

"We used four distinct analytic approaches to assess cancer risk," Dr Hannun told Medscape Medical News. "Interestingly, each of the approaches used different datasets, and all of them came up with similar conclusions — that 70% to 90% of cancer risk seems to be attributed to extrinsic factors, and this is more in line with what we've seen with epidemiologic studies.

The original study on bad luck was published in Science on January 2 and immediately generated quite a bit of discussion, scrutiny, and opinion pieces, as well as many questions regarding the methods and calculations used in the study. Even the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organization's specialized cancer agency, issued a press release saying that it "strongly disagrees with the conclusion" and warned that the message could harm cancer research and public health.

However, the authors found that this pattern was rare, and they determined that intrinsic factors played a vital role in only about 10% of cancers. In support of this finding are epidemiologic data, such as those that show that immigrants who move from countries with lower cancer incidence to countries with higher rates generally acquire the higher risk as they become more assimilated into their new country.

Second, the authors analyzed recent studies on mutational signatures in cancer and found that the majority of cancers, including colorectal, lung, bladder, and thyroid cancer, express mutations that are likely caused by extrinsic factors.Third, analysis of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program showed that for many cancers, incidence and mortality have been increasing, suggesting that external factors contribute heavily.

Published on Leave a comment on Can Cruciferous Vegetables Fight Cancer?

Reading this recent study, I was struck by how the results are evidence for eating sulforaphane containing foods, such as kale, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, broccoli, and cabbage for health and preventing cancer (due to anti-tumor activity). It is debatable whether it is support for taking supplements (here a sulforaphane supplement called BSE), even though the researchers were testing the supplement. Seven days of taking a supplement without "serious adverse events" (but they did have minor ones such as "mild abdominal discomfort") is too short a length of time for any support for a product. The real test would be seeing what health effects, both positive and negative, are after a year or two of taking the supplement.

Numerous other studies have found that eating foods are linked to good health, while taking supplements are linked to various health problems. Some scientists speculate that it's because the doses in supplements are too high - that they're much higher than what is found in foods. Also, supplements may be missing important nutrients that are found in foods. Bottom line: eat real foods for health and and cancer prevention, including several servings a week of cruciferous vegetables (cauliflower, cabbage, garden cress,bok choy, broccoli, brussels sprouts and similar green leaf vegetables). From Futurity:

Can A Broccoli Sprout Pill Fight Cancer?

A compound in broccoli sprouts may not only help prevent cancer but also treat it. Sulforaphane is found in vegetables such as kale, cauliflower, and cabbage—and in particularly high concentrations in young broccoli sprouts. Sulforaphane also is available as a dietary supplement called BSE.

Researchers at the Texas A&M Health Science Center Institute of Biosciences and Technology, along with collaborators in Oregon, had previously found that sulforaphane could inhibit colon and prostate cancer cells in the laboratory. They’ve now shown that it seems to help humans as well. A paper published in the journal Clinical Epigenetics hints at the biological pathways involved and suggests BSE is generally safe.

“We have not seen any serious adverse events in healthy volunteers who consumed BSE pills for seven days,” says Praveen Rajendran, an assistant professor at Texas A&M University, although some people did experience mild abdominal discomfort.

In a separate clinical study, 28 human volunteers over the age of 50, who were undergoing routine colonoscopies, were surveyed for their cruciferous vegetable-eating habits. When their colon biopsies were examined, those who ate more servings were found to have higher levels of expression of the tumor suppressor gene p16 than those who ate few or no cruciferous vegetables.

This effect on p16 held even for people who didn’t eat these vegetables every single day, which may seem strange, as a single serving of sulforaphane is generally cleared from the body in less than 24 hours. “This hints at the possibility that epigenetic mechanisms are initially triggered by sulforaphane and its metabolites, and downstream mechanisms could be sustained, at least in the short-term, even after compounds are eliminated from the body.” In other words, eating vegetables containing sulforaphane may change your genes and help your body fight tumor growth.

However, it’s not all good news. In animal models, sulforaphane was shown to generally inhibit the development of colon cancer, but it’s a bit of a two-edged sword. Sulforaphane induces a protein called Nrf2, which has beneficial antioxidant and detoxifying effects—and is obviously good for fighting cancer. Later in the development of cancer, though, Nrf2 can also have a role in tumor growth and can even enhance the buildup of plaque in the arteries.

Published on Leave a comment on Lifestyle Habits That May Protect Men From Lethal Prostate Cancer

Data from 2 huge studies was analyzed and found that vigorous exercise and other healthy habits seems to cut the chance of developing aggressive and lethal prostate cancer up to 68 percent in men over 60. The beneficial lifestyle habits are: weekly vigorous exercise or activity to the point of sweating, at least 7 servings of tomatoes a week, at least one serving of fatty fish per week, reduced intake of processed meat, and being a long-term non-smoker.

Interestingly, vigorous activity or exercise to sweating - ideally up to 3 hours a week - showed the biggest association with a 34 % reduced risk of aggressive prostate cancer.

From Science Daily: Working up a sweat may protect men from lethal prostate cancer

A study that tracked tens of thousands of midlife and older men for more than 20 years has found that vigorous exercise and other healthy lifestyle habits may cut their chances of developing a lethal type of prostate cancer by up to 68 percent.

While most prostate cancers are "clinically indolent," meaning they do not metastasize and are nonlife-threatening, a minority of patients are diagnosed with aggressive disease that invades the bone and other organs, and is ultimately fatal. Lead author Stacey Kenfield, ScD, of UCSF, and a team of researchers at UCSF and Harvard, focused on this variant of prostate cancer to determine if exercise, diet and smoke-free status might have life-saving benefits.

In the study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the researchers analyzed data from two U.S. studies: the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study that tracked more than 42,000 males ages 40 to 75, from 1986 to 2010; and a second, the Physicians' Health Study that followed more than 20,000 males ages 40 to 84, from 1982 to 2010.

To gage the effects of lifestyle habits, the researchers developed a score based on the results of the health professionals survey, then applied it to the physicians' study. They assigned one point for each affirmative response to questions about regular intense exercise that induced sweating, body mass index (BMI) under 30, tobacco-free status for a minimum of 10 years, high intake of fatty fish, high intake of tomatoes and low intake of processed meat.

The researchers identified 576 cases of lethal prostate cancer in the health professionals' group and 337 cases in the physicians' group. Participants with 5 to 6 points in the health professionals' group had a 68 percent decreased risk of lethal prostate cancer and a 38 percent decreased risk was observed in the physicians' group for the same comparison.

"We estimated that 47 percent of lethal prostate cancer cases would be prevented in the United States if men over 60 had five or more of these healthy habits," said Kenfield, assistant professor in the Department of Urology at UCSF Medical Center, and formerly of the Department of Medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, where the study was initiated.

"It's interesting that vigorous activity had the highest potential impact on prevention of lethal prostate cancer. We calculated the population-attributable risk for American men over 60 and estimated that 34 percent of lethal prostate cancer would be reduced if all men exercised to the point of sweating for at least three hours a week," Kenfield said.

The researchers also calculated that lethal prostate cancer among American men over 60 would be cut by 15 percent if they consumed at least seven servings of tomatoes per week and that 17 percent would be spared this diagnosis if they consumed at least one serving of fatty fish per week. Reducing intake of processed meats would cut the risk by 12 percent, they reported. In contrast, the population-attributed risk for smoking was 3 percent, largely because the majority of older American men are long-term nonsmokers.

Published on Leave a comment on Report Says Mammograms Haven’t Reduced Rate Of Metastatic Cancer

A report by 3 prominent specialists (including Gilbert Welch - who has been discussed in earlier posts) about trends in metastatic breast and prostate cancer came out today in the New England Journal of Medicine. The biggest finding was that mammograms have not cut the rate of metastatic breast cancer. Mammography screening is based on the hope that cancer that is detected in an early, localized phase can then be treated more easily and that it would reduce the numbers of metastastic cancers (that spread to lymph nodes and to more distant organs) that eventually kill. However, this has not happened.The incidence of metastatic breast cancer has been stable since 1975, and the average age of diagnosis among women older than 40 is still 63.7 years . The authors theorize that "breast cancer is a systemic disease by the time it's detectable". From Medical Xpress:

Study: Mammograms haven't cut rate of advanced breast cancer

A new report raises fresh questions about the value of mammograms. The rate of cancers that have already spread far beyond the breast when they are discovered has stayed stable for decades, suggesting that screening and early detection are not preventing the most dangerous forms of the disease. The report, in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, is by three prominent cancer specialists and is based on federal statistics going back to the 1970s.

"We're undergoing what I think for the public is a very confusing debate" about screening, but it's really "a course correction" prompted by more awareness of its risks and benefits to various groups of women, said Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, a health policy expert at Dartmouth Medical School. "All they heard for years was, 'there are only benefits.'" He is the lead author of the report, co-written with Dr. David Gorski of Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and Dr. Peter Albertsen of the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington.

"Screening offers hope that cancer can be detected in an early, localized phase when it's more amenable to treatment," they write, but that assumes that cancer starts in one place, grows and then spreads. If that was always true, screening would reduce the rate of advanced cancers. And that has not happened. The rate of breast cancers detected at an advanced stage has been stable since 1975, despite wide use of mammography since the 1980s. The average age of women diagnosed with cancer also has remained around 63, another sign cancers are not being found sooner.

The trends suggest that some breast cancers are already "systemic" or widely spread from the start, and that finding them sooner has limited impact. "Screening mammography has been unable to identify those bad cancers, destined to become metastatic, at an earlier stage. That doesn't say mammography doesn't help less aggressive cancers," but those are less likely to prove deadly, Welch said.

Dr. Barnett Kramer, a screening expert at the National Cancer Institute, said the report shows the limitations of mammography. "I wouldn't want to say it has had no effect but it certainly has not lived up to the anticipated effect," he said. For every tumor detected early because of mammography, "you would hope to see ... an equal reduction in metastatic disease, and that has not occurred."

The situation is very different with prostate cancer. The rate of advanced cases of that disease has been cut in half since screening with PSA blood tests came into wide use around 1988, and the average age at which men are diagnosed has fallen—from 72 to 70, the authors write. However, this does not prove PSA testing is good. Shifting the stage at which a disease is diagnosed is "only the first step for successful screening," which also has to save lives to be worthwhile, Welch said. "Just because you find something earlier doesn't mean you can change its course."

Again, Kramer agreed. Prostate screening, "when put to a definitive test, did not show a clear reduction in prostate cancer mortality" in large, rigorously done trials, he said. The government task force recommends against PSA testing, and says its risks outweigh its benefits for most men.

"Screening is a close call," Welch said. "My guess is few people are helped" by prostate or breast cancer screening while many are harmed by false alarms that trigger unnecessary tests and treatments, he said.

The original report, which also includes a discussion on prostate cancer and the PSA test, in the New England Journal of Medicine:  Trends in Metastatic Breast and Prostate Cancer — Lessons in Cancer Dynamics

Published on Leave a comment on Chemicals Remain On New Clothes

Research for a doctoral thesis found that thousands of chemicals (from manufacturing the textiles and clothes) remain on finished clothes, and many of these remain after washing. Bottom line: wash new clothes before wearing! From Science Daily:

Toxins remain in your clothes

Thousands of chemicals are used in clothes manufacturing. Researchers at Stockholm University have examined if there are chemicals in the clothes we buy as well. Several substances related to health risks were identified and not even organic cotton was a guarantee for non-toxic textiles. In a new thesis 60 garments from Swedish and international clothing chains have been tested. An initial analysis found thousands of chemicals in the clothes and around a hundred chemicals were preliminary identified. Several of the substances were not on the producers' lists and are suspected to be by-products, residues or chemicals added during transport.

"Exposure to these chemicals increases the risk of allergic dermatitis, but more severe health effect for humans as well as the environment could possibly be related to these chemicals. Some of them are suspected or proved carcinogens and some have aquatic toxicity," says Giovanna Luongo, PhD in Analytical Chemistry at Stockholm University.

Depending on occurrence, quantity, toxicity and how easily they may penetrate the skin, four groups of substances were chosen for further analysis. The highest concentrations of two of these, quinolines and aromatic amines, were found in polyester. Cotton contained high concentrations of benzothiazoles, even clothes made from organic cotton.

The researchers washed the clothes and then measured the levels of chemicals. Some of the substances were washed off, with a risk of ending up in aquatic environments. Others remained to a high degree in the clothes, becoming a potential source of long-term dermal exposure. It is difficult to know if the levels of these harmful substances are hazardous, and what effects chemicals in our clothes can have in the long run.

Published on Leave a comment on Should Pesticides Be Next to the Food?

Why are huge (42+ pound) bags of lawn chemicals being sold with foods in stores? Should stacked bags of pesticides ever be placed next to foods in stores? Is this legal? Why is this happening in warehouse stores that call themselves environmentally conscious and brag about carrying organic foods?

Apparently the store does not recognize that the stacked bags of lawn chemicals (pesticides) are dangerous, that the bags can tear and spill pesticides, or that they always give off an awful chemical odor that can be smelled many aisles away. (This means we are breathing in those chemicals)

Why is it OK to place foods and enormous bags of pesticides in the same shopping cart, perhaps with children next to and handling the bags? (Note: I have personally seen this!) The pesticides should be sold in a separate area (like in Home Depot or Lowe's) or perhaps only in garden center. These pesticide products all say "Keep out of reach of children", to "avoid skin contact", and to "avoid inhaling". They are dangerous and do not belong in food stores.

The following photos were taken by me over the course of several years (2012 to 2015) in two Costco stores in NJ. The bags of "Turf Builder Winterguard Plus Weed Control" contain both fertilizer and pesticides and are commonly known as "Weed and Feed". Pesticides that kill weeds are also known as herbicides, and here the 2 pesticides (the active ingredients) are 2,4-D and mecoprop-p.

The first pesticide (2,4-D) was one of the the two pesticides found in Agent Orange used during the Vietnam War, and is linked to many serious health problems, including cancer in both people and dogs. (Note: scroll down for more information on these 2 pesticides).

Pesticides get into the body through the skin (dermal exposure) or eyes, through the mouth (ingesting it, including residues on foods), or through inhalation. Note that all odors represent an exposure to a chemical.

Pesticide products contain a number of ingredients – the “active ingredients” that targets the pest (weed or insect), and other ingredients that are just labeled "inert ingredients" or "other ingredients". Any one of them may produce a sickening odor. Odors also may be related to a breakdown product, a warning agent (a smelly substance added to make otherwise odorless products easier to detect), or a chemical added to the formula to hide a bad odor.

Currently, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), pesticide manufacturers are only required to list the active ingredients in a pesticide, leaving consumers and applicators unaware of the possible toxics present in the inert or "other" ingredients of pesticide products. Pesticide manufacturers argue they cannot release information on inert ingredients because they are trade secrets, and if released, their products could be duplicated. Quite often inert ingredients constitute over 95% of the pesticide product, and can be as toxic as the active ingredients. 

So.... what this means is that just by being able to smell the pesticide-fertilizers, we are being exposed to some chemicals through inhalation. And when this product is placed by foods, one doesn't smell food but instead inhales chemicals, perhaps the pesticides. These huge bags easily leak and spill (unlike small metal containers or cans). Leaking bags also result in shopping carts being contaminated with pesticides, as well as the store floor.

By placing the bags of pesticides next to foods, Costco is also sending the message to customers that the product is "safe", but that is incorrect. Pesticides that are dangerous (toxic) must be registered with the EPA. Harmless things don't have to be registered - toxic chemicals do.

And yes, a few years ago I contacted Costco management about this issue, but their response was to pooh-pooh my concerns, and that I must "be sensitive". And they continued as before. The following are some photos from 2012 to 2015 at 2 Costco warehouse stores.

Next to refrigerated foods

Contains 2,4-D and Mecoprop-p

Next to bakery goods

By the meat

2,4-D (or 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid is a systemic herbicide (broadleaf weed-killer). It is linked to several cancers, especially non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and soft tissue sarcoma, and can have other serious health effects including endocrine disruption (disruption of hormones), thyroid effects, neurotoxicity (nervous system damage), and developmental and reproductive effects.

As the post of Oct.19, 2015 indicated, a person's exposure to 2,4-D can be measured in a person's urine. There is much still unknown about what constant low-level exposure to 2,4-D does to a fetus, developing child, or adult of any age.

Of big concern is that the use of 2,4-D is increasing in the USA because of the development of new genetically modified soybean and corn strains that are resistant to 2,4-D. Thus farmers are using increasingly large amounts of 2,4-D on these corn and soybean crops in an attempt to control weeds. And yes, this means consumers are eating more foods with 2,4-D residues. (Note: long-term effects unknown.)

Mecoprop-p is a chlorophenoxy herbicide that is used to control a variety of weeds. It is not as toxic as 2,4-D, but it also has various health effects.

Go to the excellent Beyond Pesticides site  http://www.beyondpesticides.org/ for more information about all sorts of pesticides, resources, up-to-date information on pesticide laws, and more.

Published on Leave a comment on Could a Big Weight Loss Prevent Some Cancers?

 The important thing learned from this study is that 10% of the obese women had precancerous uterine growths (remember that obesity results in inflammation which can lead to cancer) that regressed and disappeared after the weight loss. Along with weight loss (mean loss was over 100 pounds), there was an alteration of the their gut bacteria. It was a small group of women, but very, very interesting that precancerous growths could disappear simply with reducing weight. From Medical Xpress:

Preventing cancer: Study finds dramatic benefits of weight-loss surgery

A study evaluating the effects of bariatric surgery on obese women most at risk for cancer has found that the weight-loss surgery slashed participants' weight by a third and eliminated precancerous uterine growths in those that had them. Other effects included improving patients' physical quality of life, improving their insulin levels and ability to use glucose - which may reduce their risk for diabetes - and even altering the composition of their gut bacteria.

The study speaks both to the benefits of bariatric surgery and to the tremendous toll obesity takes on health. "If you look at cancers in women, about a fifth of all cancer deaths would be prevented if we had women at normal body weight in the U.S.," said Susan C. Modesitt, MD, of the University of Virginia Cancer Center. "When you're looking at obesity-related cancers, the biggest one is endometrial cancer, but also colon cancer, breast cancer, renal cancer and gall bladder cancer. We think about 40 [percent] to 50 percent of all endometrial cancer, which is in the lining of the uterus, is caused by obesity."

The study looked at 71 women with a mean age of 44.2 years and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 50.9. Women are considered obese at a BMI of 30 and morbidly obese at 40 (which is typically about 100 pounds over a woman's ideal body weight). The study looked at the effects of bariatric surgery in a relatively short time frame, one to three years after surgery. A total of 68 participants underwent the procedure; two opted out of the surgery, and another died of a heart condition prior to surgery. The effects of surgery on body weight were dramatic: Mean weight loss was more than 100 pounds.

Ten percent of study participants who had not had a hysterectomy showed precancerous changes in the lining of the uterus, and all of those resolved with weight loss. "We're talking about small numbers, really tiny numbers" of study participants, Modesitt said, noting one limitation of the study. "So I could never say that effect is definitive, but it is suggestive, given that we know already the incredibly strong link between endometrial cancer and obesity."

Modesitt, of the UVA's Division of Gynecologic Oncology in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, was most surprised by the dramatic changes seen in the patients' metabolic profiles derived from the gut microbiome, the population of microorganisms living inside us. "The study results demonstrate that there is a huge alteration, but I don't even know what to say about that, except it is really new and intriguing area to look at in the link between obesity and cancer.

1

Published on 1 Comment on To Drink Some Alcohol Or Not?

Lately the studies and articles about whether some alcohol consumption has health benefits (or not) have been mixed. But I am seeing patterns. Every one agrees that heavy alcohol consumption is unhealthy on many levels, but whether lower amounts are beneficial is disputed.  Some of the studies show a J-shaped curve: regular consumption of low to moderate levels of wine (e.g., up to one to 2 glasses of wine, esp. red wine) seems best for health and is associated with low prevalence of various diseases (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, stroke, heart failure) and death, while total abstainers have a higher rate of health problems and mortality, and high levels of consumption (heavy drinkers) is linked to even higher levels of serious disease (heart disease, cancer) and death. Studies world-wide also find an alcohol dose-related link to cancer (the more one drinks, the higher the rates of various cancers). Earlier posts on alcohol consumption health effects are here and also here.

Adding to the complexity of this issue, low to moderate levels of wine consumption, especially red wine (up to 1 to 2 glasses of wine per day or several times a week), are part of the Mediterranean diet (linked to many health benefits, including longevity, lower rates of cancer and heart disease), and part of the diet of communities with many healthy centenarians ("Blue Zones"), according to The Blue Zones author Dan Buettner.

Perhaps part of the problem with reviews of the studies is that what is "light to moderate drinking" varies from study to study - is it 1/2 glass or 1 glass daily or several times a week, or 2 or 3 glasses daily, or even more? People tend to underestimate what they drink when asked. There also is the issue of hard liquor/spirits (which recent studies find to have more negative health effects such as higher cancer mortality) vs wine or beer, and also if one drinks a little each day or engages in binge or episodic drinking  - all have different health effects. The CDC posts on its web-site: that moderate alcohol consumption is defined as having up to 1 drink per day for women and up to 2 drinks per day for men (this means no more than 7 drinks a week for a woman, and 14 for men). The Mayo Clinic defines a drink as one 12 oz. beer, 5 oz. of wine or  1.5 oz. of 80-proof spirits. I'm posting some of the studies and articles gathering recent headlines.

This was interesting in that 2 studies compared drinking low levels (1 daily wine glass) of white wine vs red wine. In the second study both wine groups also had significantly improved triglyceride levels, and the white wine group had significantly decreased fasting plasma glucose levels (better glucose control). From Washington Post: White wines may be just as good for you as red (in some ways, at least)

The short answer is that the evidence supporting white wine's health benefits, while still limited, is growing. While previous studies on the elixir have been mostly focused on testing in animals or on testing the components of the drink itself, scientists have recently reported on two randomized clinical trials that found good news for white wine enthusiasts.

The first study, called In Vino Veritas (In Wine, Truth) involved tracking 146 subjects half of whom drank pinot noir, and half of whom drank a white chardonnay-pinot over a year. The researchers reported at a European Society of Cardiology meeting last year that those who worked out twice per week and drank wine — either kind — saw a significant improvement in cholesterol levels.

The second, published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, had a similar design. Researchers in Israel recruited 224 volunteers with diabetes 2 to drink 150 mL of either white wine, red wine or mineral water (the control) with dinner every day for two years. They were encouraged to eat a Mediterranean diet, which includes mostly plant-based foods and replaces butter with olive oil, but their caloric intake was not restricted.

The results were compelling: Drinking a glass of red wine (but not white wine) every day appeared to improve cardiac health and cholesterol management. But both red and white wine seemed to improve glucose control in some patients. Full of the same plant flavonoids in red wine that are thought to have a protective effect, white wine has been studied significantly less despite some promising initial findings. White wine has been shown by researchers at the University of Barcelona to be higher in antioxidants and has been associated with weight loss and anti-aging effects. Interestingly, researchers say no material differences were identified in blood pressure, adiposity, liver function, drug therapy, symptoms or quality of life among those who drank red wine, white wine or mineral water except for one thing. Sleep quality, it seems, improved in both wine groups.

A more detailed discussion of the above study (diabetics consuming either red wine, white wine, or mineral water). From Medscape:  Red Wine, White Wine Improve Cardiometabolic Risk Markers in Diabetics, Says 2-Year Trial

These results don't match up with all the other studies showing cardiovascular benefits from small to moderate levels of alcohol consumption. From Washington Post:  Surprising finding from heart study: Moderate drinking may have ‘cardiotoxic’ effects in elderly hearts

In a study of 4,466 people between the ages of 71 and 81, researchers found that even a limited alcohol intake of two or more servings a day for men and one or more for women was associated with subtle alterations in cardiac structure and function. Of those affected, the men experienced enlarged left ventricle walls while the women saw a small reduction in heart function.....elderly women appeared to be more susceptible to the cardiotoxic effects of alcohol.

The study appears to contradict or at least provide a new perspective on previous research. According to the Harvard School of Public Health, more than 100 prospective studies show that moderate drinking is associated with a lower risk of heart attack and other cardiovascular issues. "The effect is fairly consistent, corresponding to a 25 percent to 40 percent reduction in risk," according to a summary of literature its researchers put together.

More support for low levels/moderate alcohol intake, but not for smoking and heavy alcohol use, or even for totally abstaining from alcohol. from Science Daily:  Smoking, heavy alcohol use are associated with epigenetic signs of aging

Cigarette smoking and heavy alcohol use cause epigenetic changes to DNA that reflect accelerated biological aging in distinct, measurable ways, according to research....They found that all levels of exposure to smoke were associated with significantly premature aging. Interestingly, moderate alcohol use -- about one to two drinks per day -- was correlated with the healthiest aging, while very low and high consumption were linked to accelerated aging.

From Science Daily:  Women with moderate beer consumption run lower risk of heart attack

Women who drink beer at most once or twice per week run a 30 percent lower risk of heart attack, compared with both heavy drinkers and women who never drink beer. These are the findings of a Swedish study which has followed 1,500 women over a period of almost 40 years....High spirits consumption was associated with increased risk of cancer mortality. (NOTE: The original study is in the Scandinavian Journal of Health Care - In addition, they found that women who sometimes drank wine had a lower risk of developing diabetes compared with the other two groups. Also: a tendency for increased mortality was found in women who had never drunk alcohol.)

However, a September 2015 Medscape article said that the picture is complex (some alcohol linked to better cardiovascular health, but that alcohol consumption is linked to cancer). They found the greatest negative effects in low income countries where there are higher rates of heavy alcohol use. Alcohol Ups Mortality and Cancer Risk; No Net Benefit

Last year Medscape published an article pointing out the conclusions of the 2014 World Cancer Report (WCR), issued by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The main conclusion: the rate of cancer from alcohol consumption is dose dependent - the more alcohol a person drinks, the higher the risk of cancer. Back in 1988 , the IARC labeled alcohol a carcinogen. However, what is "light to moderate drinking" varies from study to study, and perhaps light and moderate levels need to be separated out. From Medscape: No Amount of Alcohol Is Safe

The more alcohol that a person drinks, the higher the risk. The alcohol/cancer link has been strengthened by the finding of a dose/response relationship between alcohol consumption and certain cancers. A causal relationship exists between alcohol consumption and cancers of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, colon-rectum, liver, and female breast; a significant relationship also exists between alcohol consumption and pancreatic cancer.

But surely, light drinking doesn't cause or contribute to cancer? Apparently, it does. In a meta-analysis of 222 studies comprising 92,000 light drinkers and 60,000 nondrinkers with cancer, light drinking was associated with risk for oropharyngeal cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and female breast cancer.From this meta-analysis, it was estimated that in 2004 worldwide, 5000 deaths from oropharyngeal cancer, 24,000 from esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and 5000 from breast cancer were attributable to light drinking. Light drinking was not associated with cancer of the colon-rectum, liver, or larynx.

However, a caveat is in order here. When alcohol use is self-reported, respondents might underestimate, or underreport, their actual alcohol intake. This can result in finding associations between cancer and light to moderate drinking, when in reality, alcohol intake is much higher.

Published on Leave a comment on Don’t Feed Melanoma

This study, even though done on mice, reinforces previous research that taking antioxidant supplements are linked to higher rates of cancer or the spread of cancer (metastases). Here it is linked to the spread of metastatic skin cancer. The researchers say that the overall conclusion from the various studies is that antioxidants protect healthy cells from free radicals that can turn them into malignancies, but may also protect a tumor once it has developed. They also suggest that suntan lotions and skin lotions containing vitamin E and beta-carotene may have the same negative effect and are now studying that possibility. However, note that many, many studies find that eating foods does NOT find negative effects, but only beneficial ones for health. The October 5, 2015 post also discussed why supplements containing large doses of antioxidants (such as beta-carotene) don't work, and can even cause harm. Bottom line: Eat fruits and vegetables daily for numerous health benefits, but skip the antioxidant supplements. From Science Daily:

Antioxidants cause malignant melanoma to metastasize faster

Antioxidants can double the rate of melanoma metastasis in mice, new research shows. The results reinforce previous findings that antioxidants hasten the progression of lung cancer. People with cancer or an elevated risk of developing the disease should avoid nutritional supplements that contain antioxidants, the researchers say.

Researchers at Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, demonstrated in January 2014 that antioxidants hastened and aggravated the progression of lung cancer. Mice that were given antioxidants developed additional and more aggressive tumors. Experiments on human lung cancer cells confirmed the results. Given well-established evidence that free radicals can cause cancer, the research community had simply assumed that antioxidants, which destroy them, provide protection against the disease. Found in many nutritional supplements, antioxidants are widely marketed as a means of preventing cancer. Because the lung cancer studies called the collective wisdom into question, they attracted a great deal of attention.

The follow-up studies at Sahlgrenska Academy have now found that antioxidants double the rate of metastasis in malignant melanoma, the most perilous type of skin cancer. Science Translational Medicine published the findings on October 7. "As opposed to the lung cancer studies, the primary melanoma tumor was not affected," Professor Bergö says. "But the antioxidant boosted the ability of the tumor cells to metastasize, an even more serious problem because metastasis is the cause of death in the case of melanoma. The primary tumor is not dangerous per se and is usually removed."

Experiments on cell cultures from patients with malignant melanoma confirmed the new results. "We have demonstrated that antioxidants promote the progression of cancer in at least two different ways," Professor Bergö says. The overall conclusion from the various studies is that antioxidants protect healthy cells from free radicals that can turn them into malignancies but may also protect a tumor once it has developed.

Avoid supplements: Taking nutritional supplements containing antioxidants may unintentionally hasten the progression of a small tumor or premalignant lesion, neither of which is possible to detect. "Previous research at Sahlgrenska Academy has indicated that cancer patients are particularly prone to take supplements containing antioxidants," Dr. Bergö says. Our current research combined with information from large clinical trials with antioxidants suggests that people who have been recently diagnosed with cancer should avoid such supplements."

The role of antioxidants is particularly relevant in the case of melanoma, not only because melanoma cells are known to be sensitive to free radicals but because the cells can be exposed to antioxidants by non-dietary means as well. "Skin and suntan lotions sometimes contain beta carotene or vitamin E, both of which could potentially affect malignant melanoma cells in the same way as antioxidants in nutritional supplements," Professor Bergö says. How antioxidants in lotions affect the course of malignant melanoma is currently being explored. "We are testing whether antioxidants applied directly to malignant melanoma cells in mice hasten the progression of cancer in the same way as their dietary counterparts," Professor Bergö says.