General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums5 things we get wrong about breast cancer
1. Using Deodorant Causes Breast Cancer
2. Wearing an Underwire Bra or Any Bra Causes Cancer
3. If I Have Cancer in One Breast, A Double Mastectomy Will Save My Life
4. Exposing Cancer to Air Will Cause it to Spread
5. I Cant Do Anything To Reduce My Risk
http://www.today.com/health/5-things-we-get-wrong-about-breast-cancer-2D80183659
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)How they are correlating "skirt size" (waist measurement) with an increased risk of breast cancer? Ok, being overweight is not healthy for many reasons, but breast cancer? How does your waist measurement affect your breasts?
I am 65, and actually do weigh the same (100 lbs.) as in my 20s. My skirt size is smaller (Vanity Sizing) now than 40 years ago. HOWEVER, my BRA size has gone from 32C to 32DD. This is not because of weight gain, but pregnancies, breastfeeding, and menopause. This means more FAT deposits in the precise place where breast cancer occurs.
So this isn't a factor, but waist measurement IS?
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)is fed by estrogen, as mine was, being overweight definitely increases one's risk, even if post-menopausal. Personally, I think heredity is the greatest factor determining who comes down with the disease, but other things can definitely tip the balance.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)being the greatest risk factor. I have personally known three women who died from breast cancer. Every one of them had grandmothers, mothers, and sisters who also died from breast cancer. That is very frightening. One of women had only sons and I remember her saying she was very happy she just had boys because of her history. Yes, I know men can get it also, but much more rare.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Thankfully, we all were early stage and, except for my grandmother who died from a heart attack, alive and kicking.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)susceptible to an aggressive form of breast cancer. The cure rate is pretty high for the general population, but for those who get aggressive forms of breast cancer getting past the five year mark and avoiding recurrences and new cancers can be more difficult. And for those of us who do get inherited breast cancer getting a double mastectomy does save our lives. I do not have cancer but I do have one of the gene mutations that puts me at greater risk.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)I was tested after my diagnosis, but it came back negative. If it had come back positive, I not only would have had a double mastectomy, but had my ovaries removed. Instead, I got a lumpectomy and radiation.
Researchers now believe there are many gene mutations we are not currently aware of. That's not too reassuring considering my family history. I have daughters.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)removed because they saw something suspicious, but it turned out not to be cancer. I do plan on having the other one removed. I'm just a little more hesitant about removing my ovaries more so than my breasts. Ovaries have a more complex affect on the body than breasts do. I'm sorry that you have to wonder if your family has a gene that just hasn't been discovered yet. That must be very unnerving.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)meaning yearly mammos when they are old enough to start. Mammos certainly aren't fool proof, by a long shot, but they are the best screening measure insurance currently allows. MRIs are much better at detecting cancer, imo, but will never be routinely prescribed due to cost.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)I assume with their family history, my daughters will also.
phylny
(8,353 posts)I was diagnosed with breast cancer in January (all is well now, after lumpectomy & radiation), and met with a genetic counselor. I don't have any of the identified genes for breast cancer, but running through my family history was another thing altogether. Yes, cancer is the disease of choice for my maternal side
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)But all who were killed by cancer were quite old.
Happy to hear you have finished treatment and doing well! Did you have the Oncotype DX test. I did and it saved me from chemo.
phylny
(8,353 posts)I was tested for the 2 BRACA genes and four others, all negative, so no chemo for me, either
Glad you are well as well!
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Truly only those of us who have "been there" really understand.
kcr
(15,300 posts)Not an expert, but I heard it was estrogen being stored in body fat, so the more of that you have, the higher the risk.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Being fat is a big risk factor, but doesn't necessarily lead to bc.
Also, want to add that not all bc is fed by estrogen. There is a type called "triple negative" which tends to be much more aggressive and deadly. So, being estrogen positive is usually a good thing.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)I love to see my sisters embracing NED!!
Response to HockeyMom (Reply #1)
meaculpa2011 This message was self-deleted by its author.
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)health consequences for men and women.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-definition/abdominal-obesity/
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)It doesn't necessarily equate to belly fat. I worked with a woman who was all of 90 lbs. She did not have a belly at all. Her "problem" was that she had very small hips, so her 26 inch waist and 32 inch hips made her what they considered "apple" shaped. Huh? She was built more like a "celery". They went by these charts and not EYESIGHT.
flamingdem
(39,304 posts)preventative food. Yummy too once used to it.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Healthy eating is always beneficial, but I don't know of any foods proven to prevent breast cancer.
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)herding cats
(19,549 posts)Watercress may 'turn off' breast cancer signal
New scientific research from the University of Southampton has revealed that a plant compound in watercress may have the ability to suppress breast cancer cell development by 'turning off' a signal in the body and thereby starving the growing tumour of essential blood and oxygen.
The research, unveiled at a press conference Sept. 14, 2010, shows that the watercress compound is able to interfere with the function of a protein which plays a critical role in cancer development.
As tumours develop they rapidly outgrow their existing blood supply so they send out signals which make surrounding normal tissues grow new blood vessels into the tumour which feed them oxygen and nutrients.
The research, led by Professor Graham Packham of the University of Southampton, shows that the plant compound (called phenylethyl isothiocyanate) found in watercress can block this process, by interfering with and 'turning off' in the function of a protein called Hypoxia Inducible Factor (HIF).
Professor Packham, a molecular oncologist at the University of Southampton, comments: "The research takes an important step towards understanding the potential health benefits of this crop since it shows that eating watercress may interfere with a pathway that has already been tightly linked to cancer development.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100914115240.htm
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)herding cats
(19,549 posts)I know I don't eat that much daily, but I do try and eat some watercress most days. It can't hurt and it may be good for me is how I look at it.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Like you said, can't hurt.
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Especifically the cruciferous veggies like Brussel sprouts, broccoli, califlower, etc...