HealthBeat News

Category: Cancer

  • Bogus Breast Cancer Research

    Bogus Breast Cancer Research

     

    (Why the Little Pink Ribbon Has Me Seeing Red)

     

    By Dr. Dana Myatt

     

    October is “Breast Cancer Awareness Month,” and little pink ribbons are as plentiful as Halloween candy.

    Have you ever given money to breast cancer research or purchased a “little pink ribbon” to show your support and solidarity? If you have, I believe you’ve been duped by Big Pharma’s and Big Government’s bogus “research projects,” and thrown good money toward a losing game.

    Before you shoot the messenger, let me explain why the “little pink ribbon” has me seeing red.

    Problems with breast cancer fund-raising and research:

    1.) Money often doesn’t go to actual research.

    As much as 90% of revenues can be spent on “administrative” and “fundraising” costs. Depending on which charity your money goes to, the actual money generated for gifting can be less than 10%. That’s ugly.

    To find out which charities retain most of their revenues for genuine research contribution, check out your favorite charity at http://www.charitynavigator.org/

    For example, the Coalition Against Breast Cancer spends 78% of it’s budget hiring for-profit fundraisers:

    The American Breast Cancer Foundation spends 50% of it’s income on administrative and fund-raising costs:

    The United Breast Cancer Foundation spends 59% of revenues on admin and fundraising:

    And “Think Before You Pink,” a service of Breast Cancer Action, offers some additional tips and insider information about donating to breast cancer research:

    When you “give to the cure,” you might want to verify where your money is going and how much of it is actually being spent on breast cancer research.

    2.) Money funds more conventional cancer research, but conventional research, diagnosis and treatments are not improving cancer mortality rates significantly.

    I.) Conventional breast cancer treatments don’t work. At least not very well. Cancer research organizations that put money into Big Pharma are betting on the wrong horse.

    Despite press releases and proclamations which tell us that we’re “winning the war on breast cancer” (thanks, of course, to all of our collective millions of giving), the truth is that conventional cancer diagnosis and treatment have gotten us next to nowhere.

    According to statistics published by the National Cancer Institute, the breast cancer rate has declined 1.7% between 1998 and 2007. That, they say, is a “significant” change.(1)

    Of course, we are led to believe that this 1.7% drop is due to improvements in diagnosis (mammograms) and conventional treatment. But the statistics show otherwise.

    Instead, the single biggest drop in breast cancer rates of all time occurred in 2002-2003 when women flocked away from conventional hormone replacement therapy (HRT) after news “broke” that it increased breast cancer risk. According to the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates fell 6.7% — a heck of bigger drop than the 1.7% being touted —- when over 40 million women stopped taking conventional hormone prescriptions. (2) Actually, the association between HRT and breast cancer was known as early as the 1960’s. (3) For shame.

    In Canada, a 9.6% drop in breast cancer rates was noted when hormone replacement therapy use declined.(4)

    Whether it be a 6.7% or a 9.6% drop, that’s a much bigger improvement that our 1.7% “statistically significant” decrease claimed in the US as a result of millions of dollars of mammogram screenings and expensive chemotherapies.

    The single biggest drop we’ve seen in recent years in breast CA is when women flocked away from conventional hormone therapy in droves. In other words, the best thing that conventional medicine has done to stem the tide of breast cancer is to have women “just say no” to a breast-cancer causing conventional hormone treatment!

    So, the “significant” 1.7% decrease in breast cancer rates in over a decade includes the 6.7% drop in breast cancer due to women discontinuing conventional hormone replacement therapy. Instead of a new drug or surgical treatment being responsible for this modest decline in breast cancer rates, the decline is actually due to women avoiding a dangerous conventional drug.

    This also begs the question — if we are to believe that a 1.7% drop in cancer incidence is “significant,” how come the 2.7 increase between 1995-1998 was not also “significant”? And how come the 6.7% drop when millions of women stopped conventional HRT isn’t WAY significant? (1) Are we perhaps over-selling the “winning the war” statistics in order to give people a warm fuzzy and encourage them to keep contributing?

    II.) Much more is known about how to prevent cancer than how to cure it.

    Of the millions of dollars raised and donated to conventional cancer research, how come none of this money — nay, not even a little bit of it — is spent educating women on prevention? After all, an ounce of prevention really IS worth a pound of cure.

    Forget the measly 1.7% decline in breast cancer rates over the past 9 years, let’s talk about what is known about prevention. The preventive aspects of breast cancer, and how much the risks can be lowered, make the “statistically significant 1.7%” look even more ridiculous. Consider the truly huge improvements in breast cancer rates that could be achieved with known preventive measures.

    Overweight/obesity. Fat cells manufacture estrogen. We already know about the estrogen/breast cancer connection. The fatter a woman, the more breast cancer risk, at least for post-menopausal females. How big is this risk?

    Women who gain 55 pounds or more after age 18 have a 50% greater risk of breast cancer compared with those who maintained their weight. A gain of 22 pounds or more after menopause was associated with an increased risk of 18%, whereas losing at least 22 pounds after menopause and maintaining the weight loss was associated with 57% lower breast cancer risk. In case you missed this, let me repeat, a whopping FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT DECREASED RISK by losing 22 pounds. (5)

    This is incredible news. Instead of putting pink ribbons on buckets of fast-food chicken, why aren’t these “concerned” cancer organizations telling women to back away from the fried chicken, shed a few pounds and drop their risk of breast cancer like a rock?

    Exercise. Invasive, estrogen-receptor negative cancers (less common, more deadly) can be reduced 55 percent by long-term, strenuous physical activity or 47% by long-term moderate physical activity. This amounts to 5 hours of exercise per week. (6) Let’s see…. a 47% drop compared to a 1.7% drop? “Long-term means you start exercising when you are a young woman and continue weekly exercise throughout life. Shouldn’t some of the “little pink ribbon” money be spent educating young women about the profound reduction in cancer risk from a modest amount of exercise, instead of just selling annual mammogram screening?

    Even if you didn’t start exercising as a younger woman, it’s never too late to benefit. In one study from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) as little as 1.25 to 2.5 hours per week of brisk walking reduced a woman’s risk by 18%. (7) Let’s see…. 18% vs. 1.7%. Did you hear any of this from the “little pink ribbon” sponsors?

    Alcohol contributes a small additional risk. Women who drink 2-5 drinks per day have 1 1/2 times the risk as non-drinkers. The effect is magnified in women who use conventional hormone replacement therapy. (8) This amounts to a small increase in risk, but remember — all the millions of dollars of “little pink ribbon” money have amounted to only a small decrease in risk.

    3.) Why should you and I fund Big Pharma’s search for newer, deadlier, ineffective drugs that they are going to profit from? Fund your own darned drug studies I say …

    Alrighty, so you run your butt off in a “race for the cure,” to raise money to assist drug companies in researching more drugs. Some of these drugs cost upwards of $10,000/month to the patient (while costing the drug companies a pittance).

    And then YOU get breast cancer. Do you get a discount because you helped Big Pharma fund a drug that might increase your survival by 8 weeks? NO. You, or more likely your insurer, will be paying full price for your treatment.

    Mike Adams sums this warped situation up succinctly:

    “For most diseases, the race for the cure is really just a way for drug companies to shift R&D costs to suckers. You fund the R&D, and then you get to pay full price for the drug they drummed up thanks to your generous donation. “ – Mike Adams

     

    Dr. Myatt’s Summary: millions of dollars spent over the last 3 decades and what do we have? A 1.7% reduction in breast cancer mortality. And most if not ALL of this decrease is due to declining use of conventional hormone therapy.

    On the other hand, we already know simple ways to slash breast cancer risk by up to 50%

    Until some of the “little pink ribbon” money goes toward public education about how to reduce risks, and some of the money goes to research non-toxic treatments, and until the “little pink ribbon” folks don’t whore their honor by allowing their icons on junk food, I’m keeping my money closer to home.

    _________________

    Find out more about the politics of breast cancer (and how Big Pharma and Big Government gain the most from our “fundraising efforts) here:

    http://bcaction.org/index.php?page=politics-faq#Funding%20for%20Breast%20Cancer%20Research

    _______________________________
    References

    1.) Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, Ruhl J, Howlader N, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, Mariotto A, Eisner MP, Lewis DR, Cronin K, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Stinchcomb DG, Edwards BK (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2007, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2007/, based on November 2009 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2010. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html#incidence-mortality

    The joinpoint trend in SEER cancer incidence with associated APC(%) for cancer of the breast between 1975-2007, All Races Female

    Trend Period

    -0.5 1975-1980

    3.9* 1980-1987

    -0.1 1987-1995

    2.7 1995-1998

    -1.7* 1998-2007

    If there is a negative sign before the number, the trend is a decrease; otherwise it is an increase. If there is an asterisk after the APC then the trend was significant, that is, one believes that it is beyond chance, i.e. 95% sure,

    2.) NCI website accessed 10-26-10:

    http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/2007/breastincidencedrop

    3.) McCarthy JD. Influence of two contraceptives on induction of mammary cancer in rats. Am J Surg. 1965 Nov;110(5):720-3.

    4.) Breast Cancer , accessed 10-26-10: http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/new_research/20100924.jsp

    5.) Morimoto LM, White E, Chen Z, et al. Obesity, body size, and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer: the Women’s Health Initiative (United States). Cancer Causes Control. Oct 2002;13(8):741-751.

    6.) NCI website accessed 10-26-10:

    Ref: http://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/ncicancerbulletin/archive/2008/102108/page8

    7.) http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/DetailedGuide/breast-cancer-risk-factors

    8.) http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/DetailedGuide/breast-cancer-risk-factors

  • Natural Cancer killer — 10,000 times stronger than Chemo

    A New Cure For Cancer?

     

    By Nurse Mark

     

    Hard on the heels of our most recent HealthBeat News article Dr. Myatt, Have You Heard About… a reader wrote to us about an email he had received that talked about a “Natural Cancer killer — 10,000 times stronger than Chemo” and went on to accuse: “Billion-dollar drug company hides astounding discovery of a natural cancer killer.”

    Our reader was rightly skeptical and wanted to know what the real story was in all this hoop-la.

    Graviola, also known as paw-paw – is the latest marketing poster-child for some very big internet marketers and these hyperbole-filled advertisements have been making the rounds – offering everything from the substance itself to “free reports” that just happen to tell you how to buy graviola. (Hint: you can buy it from the same outfit offering the “free report” of course…)

    Doesn’t this sound like a wonderful, even miraculous substance? After all, other websites (and advertising emails) claim that it not only “cures all cancers” but that it kills intestinal parasites, calms nerves, reduces blood pressure and helps arthritis, heart and liver and boosts the immune system. Wow – what great stuff!

    So what’s the truth?

    The truth, sorry to say, is that while graviola, or more correctly some very specific isolated compounds found in graviola may show some promise that could be realized with further research and work, it is not the cure-all that the marketers are so breathlessly touting it to be.

    I’ve said it before and I’m saying it again – THERE IS NO ONE-PILL MAGIC BULLET, natural or otherwise, that will allow you to ignore the basic principles of good health and still avoid or beat disease. Without a proper diet and good basic nutrition including a full compliment of vitamins, minerals and trace minerals, without proper rest, exercise, fresh air and clean water, you can take all the magical, miraculous herbs you like – you will be deluding yourself if you think that any one herb will make up for the lack of a solid health foundation.

    Why is it that the very people who are so rightly distrustful of Big Pharma’s one-pill drug solutions to disease are so quick to believe the advertising hype of a one-pill herbal solution to disease?

    For more information on the graviola story you may want to read a very interesting article written back in in 2003 by the highly respected medical writer Ralph W. Moss, PhD – it can be found here: A Friendly Skeptic Looks at Graviola

    Graviola may prove to be a useful part of a carefully considered natural supplementation plan – but it is NOT a one-herb cure-all.

    For more information about herbal treatments for cancer please see Dr. Myatt’s Medical White Paper Nutritional and Botanical Considerations in the Systemic Treatment of Cancer – it’s fully referenced, and free.

  • The Deadly Poison in Soda Pop

    The Deadly Poison in Soda Pop

     

    By Dr. Dana Myatt

     

    Soda pop is slop. Regular and diet – both are poisonous. File this under “more good reasons to avoid soda pop.”

     

    Tooth decay, overweight, diabetes and osteoporosis are the lesser problems associated with soda pop consumption. But there is an even more sinister side to America’s favorite beverage. Benzene, a highly toxic compound that can cause liver cirrhosis, Parkinson’s disease and accelerated aging — is found in many sodas. In my opinion, soda pop is one of the most harmful beverages a person can drink. Let’s review the evidence.

    Each 12-ounce can of soda pop contains between 10 and 12 teaspoons of sugar. The increase in soda pop consumption parallels our current epidemic of obesity, overweight and diabetes.

    Soda pop rots teeth, but it is not the sugar alone that causes this. The acidity of soda pop combined with high sugar levels form a tooth-destroying combination.

    Phosphates in soda pop, combined with the fact that soda often replaces calcium-containing drinks like milk, are associated with an increased risk of bone loss. Further, a recent study suggests that these high levels of phosphates may accelerate the aging process and even shorten lifespan.

    “Diet” pop comes with it’s own dangers – all of the above, plus the synthetic sweeteners that the drinks are filled with.

    • Cyclamates were popular sweeteners for a time but have been banned in the U.S. for their ability to cause cancer.
    • Aspartame, perhaps the most popular artificial sweetener in use today, has a long list of reported ill effects – not the least of which are neurological. In addition to headaches, various neuropsychiatric disorders including panic attacks, mood changes, visual hallucinations, manic episodes, and dizziness have been ascribed to it’s consumption.
    • Saccharine is less frequently used these days, and is suspected to be a carcinogen by some authorities.
    • Splenda (aka sucralose), a chlorocarbon or “chlorinated sugar” is becoming popular in diet soda formulations. The FDA insists that it is safe, but a number of experts disagree claiming that it has been found to shrink thymus glands (important for immunity) and produce liver inflammation in rats and mice. One researcher even likens this molecule to it’s chemical cousin DDT for it’s ability to damage cells.
    • Acesulfame potassium or Ace K is another new kid on the artificial sweetener block, and again the makers and the FDA insist that it is perfectly safe. Some critics are not so sure though, citing concerns over possible increased rates of cancer. A study by The National Toxicology Program showed no increased cancer risks in rats fed very large amounts of the sweetener. There is also concern that Ace K causes increased insulin secretion which could lead to blood sugar dysregulations.

    There is even research that suggests that diet sodas can actually cause an increase in obesity and overweight.

    There are a very few diet sodas sweetened with safer xylitol (a sugar alcohol) or stevia (an herb with a long history of safe use) but these are relatively rare and even though their sweeteners are thought to be safe, they may still contain phosphates and sodium benzoate.

    Most soda contains the chemical preservative sodium benzoate. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is another common additive. When sodium benzoate and ascorbic acid interact, the highly toxic chemical benzene is formed. Benzene is an aggressive carcinogen, even in minute amounts. And drink which contains both sodium benzoate and ascorbic acid can contain benzene.

    But now there is more evidence which suggests that sodium benzoate by itself can cause DNA damage. Research from Sheffield University in Britain shows that sodium benzoate, a common preservative in soda pop, pickles, sauces, and many other “food stuffs,” has the ability to shut off vital parts of DNA known as the “mitochondria.”

    Mitochondria are the “power stations” inside the cell. According to lead researcher Piper, “These chemicals have the ability to cause severe damage to DNA in the mitochondria to the point that they totally inactivate it: They knock it out altogether.”

    When the mitochondria are damaged, the cell begins to malfunction in a serious way. Conditions such as Parkinson’s, cirrhosis of the liver, and accelerated aging, can be linked to this type of cellular damage.

    Here’s the bottom line. We have no idea how many of these “harmless” artificial ingredients and chemical preservatives in our food can cause disease. Short-term effects are studied in the lab but long-term effects are unknown until the public acts as “guinea pigs” by consuming these chemicals for many years.

    To protect yourself, avoid soda pop, period. Eat more “real” (unprocessed) food. Look for “sodium benzoate” on food labels and when you see it (as they say on the TV “Cop Shows”), set the product down and back away slowly, and no one gets hurt.

    Soda Pop destroys teeth with it’s high acid content:

    Product Acid (Low=BAD) Sugar per 12 oz
    Pure Water 7.00 (neutral) 0.0
    Barq’s 4.61 10.7 tsp.
    Diet Coke 3.39 0.0
    Mountain Dew 3.22 11.0 tsp.
    Gatorade 2.95 3.3 tsp
    Coke Classic 2.63 9.3 tsp.
    Pepsi 2.49 9.8 tsp.
    Sprite 3.42 9.0
    Diet 7-Up 3.67 0.0
    Diet Dr. Pepper 3.41 0.0
    Surge 3.02 10.0
    Gatorade 2.95 3.3
    Hawaiian Fruit Punch 2.82 10.2
    Orange Minute Maid 2.80 11.2
    Dr. Pepper 2.92 9.5
    BATTERY ACID 1.00 0.0
    Source: Minnesota
    Dental Association*    		    

    The threshold pH for tooth enamel dissolution is 5.5.

    Nurse Mark Adds: You may be interested to know that our mighty, ever-vigilant, and ever-protective FDA (which we think really stands for “Fleece and Dope Americans”) sets no limits to benzene in any beverages sold in America except bottled water – this according to the FDA’s own website! Unbelievable, but true – the FDA is happy to let the soda pop industry “develop guidance” that it claims will “minimize” (not eliminate, just “minimize“) benzene in it’s products.

    References:

    1.) Relation between consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood obesity: a prospective, observational analysis. Lancet 2001;357:505–8.
    2.) Soft drink consumption among US children and adolescents: nutritional consequences. J Am Diet Assoc 1999;99:436–41.
    3.) Carbonated beverages, dietary calcium, the dietary calcium/phosphorus ratio, and bone fractures in girls and boys. J Adolescent Health 1994;15:210–5.
    4.) Consumption of soft drinks with phosphoric acid as a risk factor for the development of hypocalcemia in children: a case-control study. J Pediatr 1995;126:940–2.
    5.) Phosphates and caries. Lancet 1968;i:1431.[letter]
    6.) Beverage ingredients can form carcinogen. Consum Rep. 2006 Oct;71(10):7.
    7.) Benzene in beverages. FDA Consum. 2006 Sep-Oct;40(5):9-10.
    8.) Caution: Some soft drinks may seriously harm your health: Expert links additive to cell damage. The Independent, Sunday, 27 May 2007
    9.)  James Bowen, M.D. The Lethal Science of Splenda
    10.) Olney, J. (1994). “Excitotoxins in Foods”. Neurotoxicology 15 (3): 535–544.
    11.) Olney JW, Ho OL (August 1970). “Brain damage in infant mice following oral intake of glutamate, aspartate or cysteine”. Nature 227 (5258): 609–11.
    12.) Ferland A, Brassard P, Poirier P. (2007). “Is aspartame really safer in reducing the risk of hypoglycemia during exercise in patients with type 2 diabetes?”. Diabetes Care. 30 (7): e59
    13.) Mutsuko Ohnishi, M Shawkat Razzaque. “Dietary and genetic evidence for phosphate toxicity accelerating mammalian aging”. FASEB J. 2010 Apr 23. [Epub ahead of print]
    14.) DeNoon, Daniel J. Reviewed by Charlotte Grayson Mathis MD. “Drink More Diet Soda, Gain More Weight? Overweight Risk Soars 41% With Each Daily Can of Diet Soft Drink”, WebMD Medical News (2005).
    15.) Swithers SE, Davidson TL (2008). “A role for sweet taste: calorie predictive relations in energy regulation by rats”. Behav Neurosci 122 (1): 161–73.
    16.) Public Health Service. “Toxicity Studies of Acesulfame Potassium”. Retrieved 30 March 2008.     

  • Have we ever heard of the "Asparagus Cure"?

    Have we ever heard of the “Asparagus Cure”?

    By Nurse Mark

    We receive helpful emails from folks daily, wanting to let us know about some “new development” or some “newly discovered” cure for this or that. Others just want to know what we think of the claims that arrive in their email inboxes.

    Such was the case for an email touting the “Asparagus Cure” that is enjoying yet another trip ’round  the internet as it has done many times over the last several years. In case you haven’t received this particular email at least once (lucky you!) it extols the wonders and virtues of asparagus as a cure for almost everything and offers instructions for making a rather unappetizing paste of this otherwise delicious vegetable, to be administered to a “patient” four times daily. Yuk!

    As you might have suspected, this is not a “cure” that we here would place much faith in.

    Here are some of the ways that you can tell an article in your mailbox is suspect:

    The “references” mentioned doesn’t exist or they refer to non-peer-reviewed studies or to “studies” performed by or for the company marketing the product or there are none mentioned at all. In the case of the “Asparagus for cancer” article, the “Cancer News Journal” cannot be found. A quick internet search of the term “Cancer News Journal, December 1979” produces just over 5000 results – and it looks like all of them refer to this one Asparagus email. None that I could find referred to any “real” journal or to any other article attributed to this journal. My guess: this is an imaginary article in a made-up “journal” – but it sure sounds impressive, doesn’t it!

    The original author or “researcher” mentioned in the article cannot be found. In this case the person mentioned in the “Asparagus” article cannot be found in any search except in relation to this emailed article. One might think that “Richard R. Vensal, D.D.S.” might have published something else or might be otherwise locatable – but there’s nothing – not not even an obituary or a claim to be in hiding from “those who are suppressing this miraculous cure”…

    The purported “biochemist” in this email also is not identified – odd, since says this is such an important work.

    “Proof” is offered in the form of testimonials or anecdotes. The “proof” of the effectiveness of asparagus in this email comes entirely from anecdotes – and those anecdotes are all of unidentified persons. That in itself might not be so alarming (in order to preserve patient confidentiality), but there is no way to contact any of the doctors mentioned for verification that they did indeed do the tests that are claimed to “prove” the miraculous curative effects of asparagus. The purported author – claiming to be a biochemist – offers his personal testimonial and claims to have lab results to back up his reports – but he fails to offer either his name or a look at his labs…

    Finally, there is the urging that this email be forwarded to “please spread the news” – or alternately “email this to 10 (or 50, or 100) of your friends”… folks, this makes this not only junk mail, but in my opinion a form of internet virus – that is being spread willingly by humans who are duped into choking the internet by sending this sort of thing off to everyone in their address book!

    Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day…

    And for every scheme or outlandish protocol or bizarre cure that is out there you can find at least one person who will swear on a stack of bibles that this, and this alone, is responsible for curing his or her (or aunt Effie’s or grandpa Grump’s) illness. Never mind that we have no proof that there ever was an illness, or that if there was an illness that there might have been something else (or several things) responsible for the cure, or even that there might have been a spontaneous remission or cure.

    So:

    Is it possible that asparagus cured these people? Yes, it is.

    Is it possible that asparagus will cure whatever ails you? Yes, it is – and so might green apples or coral calcium or standing on your head.

    Does asparagus contain some valuable nutrients? Yes, of course it does.

    Is it likely that asparagus, and asparagus alone, is a miracle cure? Nope.

    Is there any scientific, verifiable evidence that asparagus possesses magical curative properties? Nope, none.

    Why am I so down on asparagus? I’m not! Asparagus is a wonderful, delightfully tasty treat that is high in several important nutrients. I enjoy asparagus every chance I get – lightly steamed with stems in boiling water, smothered in Hollandaise sauce or butter… Mmmm! But I don’t delude myself that it is a cure-all!

    Now, having said all that, here is the note that started all this:

    Hi Dr. Dana,
    What’s your take on this ? 
    be well,
    Bill

    Fwd: Fwd: Asparagus…..whether U believe it or not…

    Just take a few minutes and its worth reading…..whether U believe it or not…..

    Pls. read the contents below & pass to your friends

    [The email can be found at Snopes.com along with their take on it’s validity]

     

    And here is Dr. Myatt’s reply:

    Hi Bill:

    Here is an article that sums up asparagus: Are You a Deer In The Headlights?

    There must be 1,279 herbs and supplements that people tout as being a “cure for cancer.” The problem is that most of these “results” are not generally reproducible for most people. Asparagus doesn’t make my “top ten list” of well-proven substances for cancer.

    My ten cents worth, for free!

    In Health,
    Dr. Dana

  • Do You Get Enough Of This Health-Improving "Non-Nutrient"?

    Fiber: Twenty-Five Surprising Benefits of  a Dietary “Non-Nutrient”

     

    By Dr. Myatt

     

    It’s not a “sexy supplement” or a “new breakthrough.” In fact, it’s not even officially classified as a nutrient. But Americans get only 10% of the amount we consumed 100 years ago, and our health may be seriously suffering as a result.

    That is this important “non nutrient” that we’re missing? Dietary fiber.

    “Fiber” refers to a number of indigestible carbohydrates found in the outer layers of plants. Humans lack enzymes to break down most types of fiber, so they pass through the digestive system relatively unchanged and do not provide nutrients or significant calories.

    In spite of this indigestibility, fiber has a surprising number of health benefits. In fact, consuming adequate daily fiber may be one of the most important health measures anyone can take.

    Twenty-Five Health Benefits of Fiber — Who Knew?

    There are numerous “sub-classes” of fiber, but the two main types are I.) soluble and II.) insoluble fiber. Both types are beneficial to health and both typically occur together in nature. They each offer independent health benefits. Here are twenty-five known health benefits that fiber provides.

    Bowel Benefits:

    1.) Relieves constipation. Insoluble fiber absorbs large amounts of water in the colon. This makes stools softer and easier to pass. Most people who increase fiber intake will notice improved bowel function in 31-39 hours.

    2.) Relieves diarrhea. It may seem paradoxical that a substance which helps constipation also helps diarrhea, but that’s just what fiber does. Insoluble fiber binds watery stool in the colon, helping turn “watery” into “formed.” Fiber is known to offer significant improvement to those with diarrhea.

    3.) Helps prevent hemorrhoids. Constipation is a leading cause of hemorrhoids. Because fiber-rich stools are easier to pass, less straining is necessary. Diets high in fiber have been shown to prevent and relieve hemorrhoids.

    4.) Reduces risk of diverticular disease. In cultures that consume high-fiber diets, diverticular disease is relatively unknown. That’s because high fiber intake “exercises” the colon, prevents excess bowel gas and absorbs toxins, all of which lead to the “bowel herniation” disease known as diverticulitis. Increased fiber intake is currently recommended in Western medicine as primary prevention for the disease.

    5.) Helps Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). IBS is characterized by constipation, diarrhea, or alternating constipation/diarrhea. Regardless of type, increased fiber intake has been shown to improve IBS symptoms.

    6.) Improves bowel flora. “Flora” refers to the “good bugs” (healthy bacteria) that colonize the large intestine (colon). Antibiotics, drugs, food allergies, high sugar diets and junk food alter this “bowel garden” in favor of the “bad bugs.” Certain types of fiber are rich in substances the “feed” bowel flora and help keep the balance of good bacteria in the colon at a normal level.

    7.) Helps prevent colon cancer. Although research has been controversial, observational studies in the 1970s showed that African natives consuming high-fiber diets had a much lower incidence of colorectal carcinoma. Since the “risk” of increased fiber consumption is so small, the “US Pharmacist,” states…

    “…with no clearly negative data about fiber, it makes sense to increase fiber intake just in case the positive studies did reveal an actual link. The patient will also experience the ancillary benefits of fiber consumption, such as reduction in cholesterol (with psyllium), prevention of constipation, and reducing risk of hemorrhoids.”

    8.) Appendicitis: studies show a correlation between the development of appendicitis and low fiber intake. A diet high in fiber may help prevent appendicitis.

    Whew… that’s just the bowel benefits! Fiber also helps prevent heart disease in multiple ways.

    9.) Lowers Total cholesterol. According to the FDA, soluble fiber meets the standard for reduction of risk from coronary heart disease. Psyllium husk is also able to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease as it contains a soluble fiber similar to beta-glucan.

    10.) Lowers triglycerides. Higher dietary fiber is associated with lower triglyceride levels.

    11.) Raises HDL. Fiber may even raise HDL — the “good cholesterol” — levels.

    12.) Lowers LDL Cholesterol. In addition to total cholesterol, increased fiber lowers LDL — the “bad cholesterol” — levels.

    13.) Aids Weight loss. Fiber helps prevent weight gain and assists weight loss several ways. The “bulking action” of fiber leads to an earlier feeling of satiety, meaning that one feels satisfied with less high-calorie food when the meal contains a lot of fiber. Fiber helps bind and absorb dietary fat, making it less available for assimilation. This means that some fat may be “lost” through the digestive tract when the meal is high in insoluble fiber.

    14.) Lowers Overall risk of Coronary Artery Disease. Perhaps because of a combination of the above-listed lipid-normalizing factors, some studies have shown an overall protective effect of higher fiber intake against coronary heart disease.

    Fiber also benefits blood sugar levels and diabetes…

    15.) Helps Type I Diabetes. Eaten with meals, high-fiber supplements like guar gum reduced the rise in blood sugar following meals in people with type 1 diabetes. In one trial, a low-glycemic-index diet containing 50 grams of daily fiber improved blood sugar control and helped prevent hypoglycemic episodes in people with type 1 diabetes taking two or more insulin injections per day.

    16.) Improves Type II Diabetes. High-fiber diets have been shown to work better in controlling diabetes than the American Diabetic Association (ADA)-recommended diet, and may control blood sugar levels as well as oral diabetic drugs.

    One study compared participants eating the the ADA diet (supplying 24 grams of daily fiber) or a high-fiber diet (containing 50 grams daily fiber) for six weeks. Those eating the high-fiber diet for six weeks had an average 10% lower glucose level than people eating the ADA diet. Insulin levels were 12% lower in the high-fiber group compared to those in the ADA diet group. The high fiber group also had decreased  glycosylated hemoglobin levels, a measure of long-term blood glucose regulation.

    High-fiber supplements such as psyllium, guar gum and pectin have shown improved glucose tolerance.

    More systemic benefits of fiber:

    17.) Gallstone prevention. Rapid digestion of carbohydrates leads to fast release of glucose (sugar) into the bloodstream. In response, the body releases large amounts of insulin. High insulin levels contribute to gallstone formation. Because dietary fiber slows the release of carbohydrates (and corresponding insulin), fiber helps prevent gallstone formation.

    18.) Kidney stone prevention. Low intakes of dietary fiber have been found to correlate with increased kidney stone formation, and higher intakes of fiber appear to be protective against stone formation.

    19.) Varicose veins. “Straining at stool” caused by fiber-deficiency constipation, has been found in some studies to cause varicose veins. Populations with lower fiber intakes have higher rates of varicosities.

    Fiber may even be important in prevention of certain types of cancer…

    20.) Colon Cancer Prevention. Diets higher in fiber have been shown in some studies to reduce the risk of colon cancer.

    21.) Breast cancer prevention. Higher fiber diets are associated with lower breast cancer risk. Some studies have shown up to a 50% decreased risk with higher fiber intakes. After diagnosis, a high fiber diet may decrease the risk of  breast cancer reoccurrence.

    22.) Pancreatic cancer prevention. High fiber diets are associated with lower risk of pancreatic cancer.

    23.) Endometrial cancer prevention. Higher fiber has been shown in some studies to protect against endometrial cancer.

    24.) Prostate cancer prevention. Diets higher in fiber may be associated with lower risk of prostate cancer. After diagnosis, a high fiber diet may decrease the risk of  prostate cancer reoccurrence.

    25.) Cancer prevention in general. Some studies have found that high fiber diets help prevent cancer in general, regardless of type.

    Recommendations vs. Reality

    The average daily American fiber intake is estimated at 14 to 15 g, significantly less than the American Dietetic Association recommendation of 20 to 35 g for adults, 25 g daily for girls ages 9 through 18 years and 31 to 38 g for boys ages 9 through 18. The American Heart Association recommends 25 to 30 g daily.

    Based on dietary intakes of long-lived populations (who typically consume 40-60 grams or more of fiber per day), many holistic physicians recommend aiming for a minimum of 30 grams of daily fiber.

    In my clinical experience, I find that most people over-estimate their fiber intake because they are unaware of the fiber content of many of the foods they eat (see http://www.drmyattswellnessclub.com/rate_your_plate.htm).

    Since fiber has proven itself to be such an important “non nutrient” for good health, increased dietary consumption and/or supplementation can be considered a wise choice for optimal health and disease prevention.

     

    Dr. Myatt has formulated an excellent fiber supplement – check out EZ Fiber!

    A fully referenced version of this article can be found here