A low carb high protein and moderate fat diet is clearly very beneficial in
1) slowing tumor progression
2) tumor penetration/initiation of new tumors.
In addition, mice on a low carbohydrate diet maintained normal body weight and exceeded normal life span.
Since cancer cells depend on glucose more than normal cells, we compared the effects of low carbohydrate (CHO) diets to a Western diet on the growth rate of tumors in mice. To avoid caloric restriction–induced effects, we designed the low CHO diets isocaloric with the Western diet by increasing protein rather than fat levels because of the reported tumor-promoting effects of high fat and the immune-stimulating effects of high protein. We found that both murine and human carcinomas grew slower in mice on diets containing low amylose CHO and high protein compared with a Western diet characterized by relatively high CHO and low protein. There was no weight difference between the tumor-bearing mice on the low CHO or Western diets.
Additionally, the low CHO-fed mice exhibited lower blood glucose, insulin, and lactate levels. Additive antitumor effects with the low CHO diets were observed with the mTOR inhibitor CCI-779 and especially with the COX-2 inhibitor Celebrex, a potent anti-inflammatory drug. Strikingly, in a genetically engineered mouse model of HER-2/neu–induced mammary cancer, tumor penetrance in mice on a Western diet was nearly 50% by the age of 1 year whereas no tumors were detected in mice on the low CHO diet. This difference was associated with weight gains in mice on the Western diet not observed in mice on the low CHO diet. Moreover, whereas only 1 mouse on the Western diet achieved a normal life span, due to cancer-associated deaths, more than 50% of the mice on the low CHO diet reached or exceeded the normal life span. Taken together, our findings offer a compelling preclinical illustration of the ability of a low CHO diet in not only restricting weight gain but also cancer development and progression. Cancer Res; 71(13); 4484–93. ©2011 AACR.
A beloved beverage throughout the USA and the world at large, coffee is often blamed for various health woes. While coffee is not appropriate for everyone, and there is such a thing as “too much” for even the most tolerant of sippers, research has shown a vast array of health benefits.
The abundant phytochemicals found in coffee beans are responsible for the various benefits, including potential prevention of diseases such as Diabetes mellitus type II, Alzheimer’s disease and even cancer. Of course, we cannot overlook the well-loved stimulant effect of coffee that reliably provides us with increased stamina during exercise, and temporarily improves our cognitive function. Moreover, coffee simply makes mornings tastier.
Following is a brief overview discussing a few of the benefits to coffee consumption. These are presented in defense of coffee and as a thank you to its many active phytochemicals, including caffeine, caffeic acid, hydroxyhydroquine, chlorogenic acid, cafestol and kahweol.
Coffee consumption has been linked with a lower risk for Diabetes Type II.
The leading theory is that active compounds from the roasted coffee bean, including caffeine and caffeic acid, help to decrease the low-level inflammation associated with diabetes mellitus through anti-oxidant action. Coffee may not directly alter how your body metabolizes blood sugar throughout the day, but it does decrease your risk by lowering inflammation!
Coffee may increase total cholesterol, but it improves the LDL to HDL ratio.
A 2010 study found that regular coffee consumption increased total cholesterol, but much of this rise in blood lipids was due to an increase in the “good” cholesterol, HDL. The LDL (“bad” cholesterol) to HDL ratio actually improved. This suggests that coffee intake may offer cardiovascular protection in those with low to normal total cholesterol, and low HDL. Cafestol and kahweol, the coffee compounds believed to cause these effects, are highest in unfiltered coffee.
Six cups a days may prevent colorectal cancer.
A study published 2012 suggested that 4 daily cups of coffee can decrease your risk of developing colorectal cancer by 15%, while 6 daily cups may decrease your risk by as much as 40%. The study looked at nearly 500,000 middle-aged Americans, comparing their reported coffee intake to cancer outcomes over a 10 year period. Sadly, 3 cups or less per day did not significantly decrease risks of colorectal cancer.
Coffee can lift your mood, thanks to caffeine and possibly chlorogenic acid.
Caffeine is already established as a reliable, short term enhancer for cognitive function and mood. Recent findings suggest that chlorogenic acid, a component found in both regular and decaf coffee, may be involved in the mood-lifting effects of coffee. Caffeine or no caffeine, coffee may brighten your day.
Stamina, mood enhancement, and cholesterol aside, there are individuals who should limit or avoid coffee. This includes:
1. Individuals with hypertension, especially uncontrolled hypertension
2. Women who are pregnant, suffering from infertility, or symptoms of menopause
3. Individuals with high cholesterol
4. Children and adolescents
5. Individuals with known coffee allergy or food sensitivity
For those limiting their intake, most studies suggest health-altering side effects (both negative and positive) are not experienced with 3 or fewer cups of caffeinated coffee per day.
Dr. Kaley Bourgeois
1. Butts, MS, et al. “Coffee and its consumption: benefits and risks.” Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 51.4 (2011): 363-73. Print.
2. Cropley, V. “Does coffee enriched with chlorogenic acids improve mood and cognition after acute administration in healthy elderly? A pilot study.” Psychopharmacology (Berl). 219.3 (2012): 737-49. Print.
3. Higdon, JF, et al. “Coffee and health: a review of recent human research.” Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 46.2 (2006): 101-23. Print.
4. Johnson-Kozlow, M, et al. “Coffee consumption and cognitive function among older adults.” Am J Epidemiol. 156.9 (2002): 842-50. Print.
5. Kempf, K, et al. “Effects of coffee consumption on subclinical inflammation and other risk factors for type 2 diabetes: a clinical trial.” Am J Clin Nutr. 91.4 (2009): 950-7. Print.
6. Sinha R, et al. Caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee and tea intakes and risk of colorectal cancer in a large prospective study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Published online June 13 2012
“This article confirms 2 things we’ve been aware of for a long time:
Estrogen, a natural hormone is safe to use in sensible amounts – yes Estrogen/estradiol is a proliferative agent, but is also a differentiating agent that tells the cells to mature to a steady stable state and not grow out of control the way cancer does.
Progestins are toxic – so much so that this is the drug used in hormonal contraceptives and PlanB emergency contraceptives. Progesterone, is short for pro-gestational-hormone, is a natural hormone that balances estrogen out physiologically and also makes BHRT much safer. It is the Progestins that cause cancer.”
Estrogen-Only Therapy May Reduce Breast Cancer Risk
Some women who take estrogen-only hormone replacement therapy to stave off hot flashes, night sweats and other symptoms of menopause may be at lower risk for developing breast cancer down the road, a news study says.
Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) fell from grace rather dramatically after a large government-run trial, the U.S. Women’s Health Initiative, was stopped early in 2002 because HRT was shown to increase the risk of strokes and breast and ovarian cancer. Since that time, however, some subtleties have emerged as researchers parsed the evidence further. For example, short-term use of HRT is now deemed fairly safe for some women who have severe menopausal symptoms.
The new study shows that longer-term use of estrogen-only therapy may actually lower a woman’s odds of developing breast cancer. Estrogen-only therapy is reserved for women who have had a hysterectomy; women with an intact uterus who use HRT must take the hormone progestin with estrogen to prevent uterine cancer.
“Women who have had a hysterectomy may be reassured that taking estrogen by itself, short term, to relieve menopausal symptoms will not increase their risk of breast cancer,” said study author Garnet Anderson of the Women’s Health Initiative Clinical Coordinating Center at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. Women should not take estrogen to prevent breast cancer, she stressed.
The new findings were published in the March 7 online edition of The Lancet Oncology.
The North American Menopause Society recently released a position statement that backs up these findings. The group said starting combination hormone therapy (both estrogen and progestin) around the time of menopause to treat symptoms and stave off the brittle-bone disease osteoporosis is safe for some women for three to five years. Estrogen alone can be used for longer than the combination HRT, according to the society.
The new study, which was partially funded by drug manufacturer Wyeth, included more than 7,500 women from the Women’s Health Initiative who took estrogen for about six years. Roughly five years after stopping treatment, the women were 23 percent less likely to develop breast cancer when compared to their counterparts who never used HRT.
Women in the estrogen group who did develop breast cancer were 63 percent less likely to die from the disease, compared to women who never took it. The lower risk of breast cancer was seen only among women without risk factors for breast cancer, such as a history of benign breast disease or a strong family history of breast cancer, the study showed.
“The story is pretty clear about estrogen plus progestin — no matter the age of the women, estrogen plus progestin increases [the risk of] breast cancer, heart disease, stroke and blood clots,” Anderson said. “These risks outweigh the benefits for all age groups.”
Why estrogen alone may lower breast cancer risk while adding progestin seems to increase the risk is the million dollar question.
“There are hypotheses about the role of estrogen in breasts after a woman has gone through menopause,” Anderson said. For example, “her breast tissue, including any precancerous cells, may go through changes as a result of menopause that make them susceptible to estrogen in a way that discourages cell growth.”
Estrogen-only therapy is not without risks, however. For estrogen alone, the Women’s Health Initiative data showed no overall effect of estrogen on heart disease, but an increased risk of strokes and blood clots.
Women are understandably confused about whether they should take hormones to treat their menopausal symptoms, and for how long they can safely use the therapy.
“The best use of estrogen-alone is in women with a hysterectomy who need relief of hot flashes and night sweats and related menopausal symptoms,” Anderson said. These benefits need to be weighed against a woman’s risk of stroke or developing blood clots.
Dr. Lila Nachtigall, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City, agreed that, when used on its own, estrogen can still be safe and effective in treating the symptoms of menopause in women who do not have a uterus.
“It looks very definite that the bad guy is progestin, not estrogen,” Nachtigall said. Her advice is to use the lowest effective dose for the shortest amount of time. If more women took estrogen, she said, there would be a dent made in the epidemic of osteoporosis. “Millions of women who never went on estrogen, even for a few years, are really losing bone,” she said.
That said, estrogen does increase the risk of blood clots. “Women with blood-clotting disorders should not take it,” Nachtigall said.
Commenting on the study, Dr. Stephanie Bernik, chief of surgical oncology at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, said, “If you are looking to reduce menopausal symptoms and don’t have an intact uterus, [estrogen] is an option.” But estrogen-only therapy should not be prescribed indiscriminately, she added.
“This applies only to women who have severe menopausal symptoms. We are not saying that we should give women estrogen to reduce the risk of breast cancer,” Bernik added.
Lila Nachtigall, M.D., professor, obstetrics and gynecology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York City; Garnet Anderson, Ph.D., principal investigator, Women’s Health Initiative Clinical Coordinating Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle; Stephanie Bernik, M.D., chief, surgical oncology, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York City; March 7, 2012, The Lancet Oncology, online