Take broccoli for example, that green and crunchy vegetable loathed by children throughout the ages. My kids would flatly refuse to eat this nutritional goldmine when they were little. Brocoli is a rich source of a phytonutrient called d-glucarate, with proven powerful anti-cancer qualities, by enhancing the liver’s ability to detoxify toxins and pollutants. Regular intake of broccoli is associated with a reduced risk of lung, gastrointestinal and breast cancers. Another superfood cancer fighter found in this humble green vegetable is sulforaphane. This compound blocks the formation of tumours caused by chemical carcinogens, and actually causes cancer cells to die off. Sulforaphane also supports the important phase II liver detoxification enzyme systems. An even more potent way of receiving these broccoli health benefits is to add broccoli sprouts to your salads daily, as they contain 30 – 50 times more of these protective chemicals compared with broccoli itself.

As we’re talking green things and cancer prevention, we cant go past mentioning the powerfully antioxidant rich green tea as a vital addition to your healthy diet. This traditional dietary staple of the orient is bursting with antioxidant compounds, the most important of which is a polyphenol called EGCG. Test tube studies show that these compounds potently cause cancer cells to self destruct, while leaving healthy cells unaffected. Studies with animals show these same compounds inhibit the formation of cancerous tumours in the skin, lungs, liver, stomach, breasts and colon. That cup of steaming hot green liquid is not only working in the fight against cancer. Green tea is also an ally for your cardiovascular health, as EGCG helps to reduce the oxidation of “bad” LDL cholesterol, and it is this oxidation that increases the likelihood of LDL cholesterol actually sticking to artery walls and causing clogging. The more green tea you sup, the lower your risk of cardiovascular disease, including high blood pressure. If you’re worried about your gradually increasing blood glucose levels, start drinking 4 cups of strong green tea a day and you could well see blood sugar begin to drop.

If I’ve convinced you about the merits of green tea, invest in a tea pot and some quality green tea leaves. Don’t use the decaffeinated green tea as it is lower in naturally occurring antioxidants. Make the tea in the pot, ensuring the water is hot, but not boiling. Boiling water will make your tea taste bitter and unpalatable. Pour on your water, pop on the tea cozy and leave to steep for ten minutes before drinking, for maximum health benefits.

In 2002 a Cancer Research UK study looked in detail at a group of 50,000 women with breast cancer, and another group of 100,000 women without breast cancer. They were especially interested in whether or not women had breast fed their infants. What they found was that the longer a woman had breast fed, the less likely they were to develop breast cancer. For every year of breast feeding a woman’s risk of breast cancer decreased by 4.3%. There was also a 7% reduction in risk of breast cancer for each child born.

You’re probably thinking that 4.3% is not much of a risk reduction for a whole year of breast feeding? Because breast cancer is such a common cancer, in a country like Britain, if every new mum chose to breast feed for an extra six months, it would mean 1000 fewer breast cancer diagnoses each year.

When you look at the global pattern of breast cancer, the western world has by far the highest incidence. Countries in which breast feeding for long periods of time is standard practice (like China and Japan) have much lower rates of breast cancer. Based on global study, researchers have concluded that the incidence of breast cancer in developed countries could be reduced by more than half, if women had the number of births, and duration of breast feeding common in undeveloped countries

It’s still not fully understood exactly how breast feeding protects breasts, but we do know that breastfeeding lowers the levels of some cancer related hormones in a mother’s body. Also, when breast feeding comes to an end the body rids itself of any cells in the breasts that may have DNA damage, and this reduces the risk of breast cancer developing in the future.

If you’re still not convinced that breast feeding is the way to go, here’s another amazing health benefit for your breast fed baby. Breast fed female infants have a 25% lower risk of eventual breast cancer, compared with women who were bottle fed.

In October 2007 the World Cancer Research Fund published one of the most comprehensive reports ever on the link between cancer and lifestyle. One of its ten key recommendations was that mother breastfeed exclusively for six months before adding other foods to an infants diet…. To lower breast cancer risk for both the mum and the baby.

So if you or someone you know is about to become a mum, give them the ultimate mothers day gift… tell them about the amazing health benefits for them and their baby, from choosing breast over bottle.

If you are interested in finding out proactive ways of optimizing your breast health, read “Wellbeing”, by Lynda Wharton, published by Harper Collins. Available in book stores, and online at www.lyndawharton.com

It’s been an interesting week in the world of woman’s health… and in my clinic.  Most of my woman patients take a high quality multivitamin/mineral and antioxidant formula every day, as part of their nutritional wellness regime.  Just like me, they swallow their tablet alongside their porridge and fruit, secure in the knowledge that this daily ritual is an investment in good health.

Imagine the questions I have fielded this week, with the internet and newspapers abuzz with the news that their daily multivitamin actually INCREASES their likelihood of developing breast cancer.  I’ve read the reports… and have I stopped taking my multi?  No!  Here’s why….

The research causing all the fuss hails from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden.  Back in 1997 they recruited just over 35,000 women, between the ages of 49 and 83, to fill in a self assessment questionnaire.  Included, were questions relating to some (but not ALL) known risk factors for breast cancer, as well as questions relating to the use of a daily multivitamin.  Recently, the women were followed up to see how many of them had developed breast cancer in the intervening 10 years.  9,000 women claimed they were taking a multi, and of them 293 developed breast cancer, leaving 96.7% of the multi users not having developed breast cancer.  In the group of 26,000 non multi users, 681 women developed breast cancer.

Ok, so at first glance it all looks a bit of a worry doesn’t it?  Someone who actually understands the intricacies and fallibilities of experimental design is Professor of Epidemiology, Rod Jackson from the University of Auckland.  His take on the research?  “The study is non-randomised, so I wouldn’t take too much from it.  Cohort studies like this trial are just too prone to biases to be very helpful”.

Remember that the latest study found only an association between women using multi’s and breast cancer, not a CAUSE and EFFECT.  Of the women who eventually developed breast cancer, one common denominator was that they took multi’s, but from that, one can’t claim that the multis CAUSED the cancer.    All of the women taking a multi were lumped into one entity, and nowhere did the study look at the data of each woman individually.  Consequently it is impossible to surmise how taking a multivitamin may increase breast cancer risk in any individual woman.

As a  prescriber of clinical nutritional therapy for almost 25 years, I’m also concerned about use of the generic term “multivitamins” in this study.  What the heck does that mean? I know from clinical experience that not all multi’s are born equal.  Quite frankly, some of them are nothing more than a synthetic, poorly balanced recipe for expensive and smelly urine.  I would have been much more interested in the outcome of this study if individual women were examined in terms of the type of multivitamins they were taking.  Did these multi’s contain only vitamins?  Were there minerals in some, any or all of them?  Were they synthetic or organic forms? Did they contain added antioxidants? Did they contain selenium?  Were they iron free or containing iron?  Did they contain vitamin E and was it synthetic, or a complex of different tocopherols?… Blah, blah, blah, I could go on and on, but you get the gist of what I’m saying don’t you?    We have no idea what these women were taking as a “multi” each day, and whether a study in which they each took the same standardized high quality formula daily, would have produced the same results, or would have actually demonstrated a protective effect against breast cancer.

It’s worth noting that this latest warning about the dangers of multi’s flies in the face of some very well respected, large and well designed studies showing no increased risk of disease with multivitamin use in women.  One of the biggest and most respected of these, was the Woman’s Health Initiative study involving over 161,000 women, and running for 8 years.  Robustly constructed, this study failed to show any harm to women taking a multivitamin daily, over an 8 year period.  

Media hysteria aside, I will happily continue to take my multi with breakfast each day, and will prescribe the same high quality nutritional product to my patients, without concern.  I’ll wait for some more reliable research to come along before I’m convinced that my daily multi is a risk to my breast health.

If you are interested in finding out proactive ways of optimizing your breast health, read “Wellbeing”, by Lynda Wharton, published by Harper Collins.  Available in book stores, and online at www.lyndawharton.com

In New Zealand the typical rad exposure during a mammogram is considerably less than that surmised by Epstein, with a typical mammogram (2 shots per breast) exposing a woman to a cumulative total of just over 0.2 cGY.   Two yearly mammograms over a decade would give a cumulative exposure of 3.6cGy (rads) per decade.  New Zealand code of practice states that a dose of 0.15cGy per single view should not be exceeded in a mammogram.  The more your breasts are squashed between the X-ray plates, the lower will be the dose of radiation!

Taking all the factors into consideration, experts still conclude that the low risk of radiation exposure from mammograms is outweighed by increased likelihood of early cancer detection.  However, common sense suggests that this equation is altered by age, with premenopausal women being at greatest relative risk from radiation exposure, and also having lowest projected benefit from mammograms (due to their lower absolute risk of developing breast cancer, combined with the increased rate of false negative results due to denser breast tissue).  The combined effect of these two variables are a significant reason for women to seriously consider questioning the widespread recommendation of beginning mammograms at the age of 40.  (that’s a whole new blog in itself)

Reducing radiation exposure

• Question the necessity of X-rays and CT-scans on any given occasion.  Are they absolutely vital?
• Always request that your chest, breasts and abdomen be covered with a lead apron during X-rays – even dental X-rays.
• Resist the dentists suggestion of a dental X-ray at each visit, and save them for when they are absolutely necessary.
• Ask what dosage of radiation you will be exposed to.  Be very concerned by radiographers who either wont tell you or tell you they don’t know.  Cancel the procedure and go elsewhere!
• Go to specialist radiography centres for procedures involving radiation.  They are most likely to have regular and accurate calibration of radiation emitting equipment.

Measuring Radiation

1 Seivert = 100 rads

1 milliSeivert (mSv) = 0.1rad

1 Grey = 1 seivert

1 centriGrey (cGy) = 1 rad

Background radiation          0.5cGy/year (depending on location)

Chest X-ray (1 view)             0.025cGy

Mammogram (4 views)         0.5cGy

Fully body CT (breasts         6+ cGy

exposure)

In terms of breast tissue exposure from mammograms, 1 Grey equals 1 Seivert

To Your Wellbeing…

Lynda Wharton

lynda@lyndawharton.com
www.lyndawharton.com

In 1993 the Journal of the National Cancer Institute concluded that “total dose, age at first exposure, and time since first exposure are all determinants of the incidence rate ratio of breast cancer after exposure of the breast to ionizing radiation”. Time of exposure to radiation influences how great a negative impact there will be on breast tissue. Radiation exposure during childhood is thought to impart the greatest cancer risk, with exposure after the age of 40 having much less of an impact. Adolescent girls undergoing rapid breast tissue development are at the most risk of radiation damage to breast tissue

A fact sheet from Cornell University states “age at exposure is one of the most important determinants of future risk of developing breast cancer due to radiation later in life. Young girls are at highest risk and women irradiated around the menopausal ages are at low risk”. Before menopause, breast tissue has an increased sensitivity to radiation, possibly due to higher estrogen levels, so cumulative exposure to radiation prior to menopause poses a greater risk than the same cumulative exposure after the menopause.

While one exposure to radiation may not significantly increase our risk of breast cancer, cumulative exposures almost certainly do. Modern X-rays and mammograms deliver about ten times fewer rads than their earlier ancestors, but their cumulative impact is still of concern. When it comes to X-rays it is X-rays of the chest and coronary X-rays which pose the greatest risk to the breasts. However, radiation can scatter from X-rays anywhere in the body, including dental X-rays, to effect the breasts (Always request a lead apron be used for dental X-rays).

CT scans are now widely used in medical diagnosis, despite the fact that the radiation exposure from CT scans is many times greater than from an X-ray. The American National Cancer Institute says “CT scans comprise about 10% of diagnostic radiological procedures in US hospitals, but contribute an estimated 65% of effective radiation dose to the public from all medical X ray equipment”. Professor Eric Hall, from Columbia University, New York, says that a modern CT scan will expose a patient to the same amount of radiation as the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were exposed to!

(CONTINUED IN PART 2)

To Your Wellbeing…

Lynda Wharton

lynda@lyndawharton.com
www.lyndawharton.com

There is significant evidence that abnormal thyroid function (especially under functioning) may increase our risk of breast cancer. Iodine is the trace element vital for a healthy thyroid. Breast cancer patients are much more likely to also suffer from an enlarged thyroid (goitre) than women without breast cancer, and this condition is often caused by iodine deficiency. Iodine levels in the breast tissue of breast cancer patients are very low compared with levels in healthy breasts. While a definitive causal link between breast cancer and thyroid disease (and iodine deficiency) is yet to be proven, there is evidence to suggest such a link may exist.

Lab rats are fed a carcinogenic chemical to induce breast cancer. This is almost 100% effective at inducing breast tumours. Interestingly, when these rats are fed iodine rich lugols solution, before they are exposed to the carcinogen, many of the rats fail to develop breast cancer; and those that do take much longer to develop breast tumours.

Japanese women have one of the lowest breast cancer rates in the world, and yet when they move to western countries they assume the much higher risk of their new country within a generation. One possible explanation is the change in their dietary iodine intake.

Seaweed is a Japanese dietary staple, supplying the average Japanese woman with a high iodine count of around 12mg a day. Contrast this with the pitiful 240mcg a day consumed by the average american woman, and 150mcg or less for Australian and New Zealand women. (1000mcg equates to one mg).

In our corner of the world, iodine deficiency is a widespread and growing health concern. Much of the soil in both Australia and new Zealand is lacking in the trace element iodine, and so the fruits, vegetables and grains grown on the land are also lacking in iodine.

Until the 1980′s iodine was literally a part of our daily bread, as it was used as a dough conditioner. From the 80′s bakers stopped using iodine, replacing it with the dough conditioner bromide, which actually competes for absorption with iodine in the thyroid gland.

Our milk used to contain significant amounts of iodine as a result of the iodine disinfectants used in the milk vats. Iodine disinfectants have now been replaced with chlorine, and dairy content of this iodine has also plummeted.

Iodised salt used to be found on every dinner table. With the health message that salt increases blood pressure, many of us having stopped salting our food. Even those of us who still “salt” often buy uniodised salt and thus miss out this source of iodine.

Even with a balanced diet it is difficult to get enough dietary iodine without supplementing, or making a special effort to include seaweed in your diet. Richest dietary sources of iodine are eggs, fish, shellfish, seaweed (including kelp and nori) and iodised salt. The Recommended Daily Allowance of iodine for adults is 150mcg a day, which many consider to be far too low when you consider that the Japanese women with a very low breast cancer incidence routinely eat 12mg of iodine in their daily diet. It is not advisable to supplement with iodine without the guidance of a health professional.

Lynda Wharton is a health researcher, writer and natural health practitioner with a special interest in women’s health.  She is the author of three women’s health books including “Wellbeing” by Harper Collins.

More at www.lyndawharton.com