MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The Scientific Debate Forum.Contains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Disclaimer: Read this page first.  
  Links  
  Messages  
  General  
  Nutrition  
  "Mission Statement."  
  Why the "germ theory" is not science.  
  The Underlying Cause of "Disease."  
  The Scientific Method.  
  How dangerous are bacteria and viruses?  
  The Contributions of Hans Selye and others.  
  How direct effects are often ignored, and indirect markers used  
  Understanding "disease" at the molecular level.  
  Understanding disease at the molecular level, part II.  
  What the "common cold" can teach us about illness.  
  The AA connection to today's common "diseases."  
  How easy the key experiments would be to do.  
  The best practical diet and the explanation for it.  
  Fish oil quotes you might want to read  
  Where the "immune system" fits into this view of "disease."  
  How many 'scientific studies' violate the scientific method  
  Why you have to be careful with antioxidants.  
  Why Cancers today are more aggressive than those of the past.  
  The Latest Evidence.  
  Some studies worthy of note.  
  HSWC "in action."  
  How language can impede science.  
  How language impedes science, part II.  
  More on why "germs" don't cause "disease."  
  How a latent virus actually causes "disease."  
  A new report that "says it all."  
  The science "show" must go on?  
  Odds and ends  
  Some thoughts on a book by Robert Gallo.  
  Saturated fatty acids are the solution, not the problem.  
  It's stress, not "germs" that causes disease.  
  Epidemiology: Facts versus "factoids."  
  It's stress, not germs, part II.  
  The latest on "inflammation."  
  Why many nutritional claims make no sense  
  The use of hypotheticals in science.  
  What "viral infections" really do to the body.  
  What determines longevity?  
  An example of an anti-"saturated fat" study that is flawed.  
  A Rough Guide to a Gentle Diet.  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV."  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV." Part II.  
  Okay, so when is this diet going to kill me?  
  Scientific Debate Forum Pictures  
  The EFA Claim Was Refuted Long Ago  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : Why the "war on cancer" can't be won now.
Choose another message board
View All Messages
  Prev Message  Next Message       
Reply
 Message 40 of 47 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknametaka00381  in response to Message 39Sent: 1/31/2008 5:37 AM
It's 2005 and the experts are still not sure which dietary factors induce carcinogenesis or blaim it on the genes at best ...

Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005 Dec 1;123(2):139-49.

Nutrition and primary prevention of breast cancer: foods, nutrients and breast cancer risk.Hanf V, Gonder U.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Street 40, 37099 Göttingen, Germany.

Worldwide, each year approximately one million women are newly diagnosed with breast cancer (BC), in Germany 65 new cases per 100,000 inhabitants are registered, yearly. The fact that incidence has been rising in parallel with economic development indicates that environmental factors might play a role in the causation of BC. Migrational data have pointed to nutrition as one of the more relevant external factors involved. Preventive dietary advice often includes a reduction of alcohol, red meat and animal fat and increasing the intake of vegetables, fruit and fibre and lately, phyto-estrogens from various sources. Clearly, the scientific basis for these recommendations appears sparse. The available prospective data from epidemiological studies and interventional trials do not support the overall hypothesis that higher fat-intakes are a relevant risk factor for BC development, more important seems the relative distribution of various fatty acids. A non-vegetarian eating habit (consumption of animal products) per se does not elevate BC risk, while consumption of broiled or deep fried meats cannot be ruled out as a risk factor in genetically susceptible individuals. It appears prudent to abstain from regular and increased alcohol consumption. This should be particularly true for pubescent girls, in whom glandular breast tissue is particularly vulnerable. In general, if alcohol is consumed on a regular basis, a sufficient supply of fresh vegetables and fruit is essential. While there is no overall protective effect of a high fruit and vegetable consumption speculation remains over possible beneficial effects of certain subcategories, especially brassica vegetables like broccoli, cauliflower and cabbage. In essence, regional differences in BC incidence are probably partially attributable to life long dietary habits. There is no need to adopt a foreign dietary plan in order to protect oneself against BC. Traditional western diets also have their beneficial ingredients that should be regular constituents in our meals. Lignans from traditionally made sourdough rye bread, linseed/flaxseed and berries are local sources of potentially canceroprotective phyto-estrogens. Furthermore, indole-3-carbinol rich cabbage species might contribute to BC protection by diet. Nevertheless, clear cut recommendations for or against single nutrients or secondary plant metabolites are not yet possible, lacking sufficient data on individual bioavailability, safety and long term outcome. BC prevention by dietary means therefore relies on an individually tailored mixed diet, rich in basic foods and traditional manufacturing and cooking methods.
PMID: 16316809


Replies to This Message The number of members that recommended this message.    
     re: Why the "war on cancer" can't be won now.   MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrect  2/3/2008 6:55 AM