Showing posts with label breast cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label breast cancer. Show all posts

Saturday, January 3, 2015

Food is Medicine: Each 10g Fiber Reduce Mortality Risk by up to 34%! Phenols Battle Alzheimer's & Breast Cancer & Two Dozen Dietary GLUT4 Boosters Prevent Diabetes

Hippocrates says: "Let food be thy medicine!" And he was right. Tons of food contain substances that would make pharmacologist proud and filthy rich if he invented and patented them.
"Let food be thy medicine" Who said that... ha? Right. Hippocrates. He also said "... and let medicine be thy food." Well, he said it in Greek, but that doesn't make the last part less questionable. I do after all often get emails with "supplement lists" that look as if people would be eating nothing else but medicine. Since this would be a topic for another article, though I will postpone the scolding and get straight to the former part of the Hippocrates quote: "Let food be thy medicine!"

If you subscribe to the old Greek's principle, you should also subscribe to the scientific journal Molecular Nutrition & Food Research a journal "devoted to health, safety and all aspects of molecular nutrition such as nutritional biochemistry, nutrigenomics and metabolomics aiming to link the information arising from related disciplines" (from the journal homepage) - quite an interesting journal as you are about to see in a minute or two.
Read more short news at the SuppVersity

Exercise Research Uptake Nov '14 1/2

Exercise Research Uptake Nov '14 2/2

Weight Loss Supplements Exposed

Exercise Supplementation Quickie

Skipping Break- fast & More to Control Weight

HIIT, Caffeine & Other Success Boosters
Why? Well, all the "food is medicine" news in today's installments of the short news come from the latest issue of said journal:
  • The beneficial properties of marine polysaccharides in alleviation of allergic responses (Vo. 2014) - Recently, several marine polysaccharides such alginate, porphyran, fucoidan, and chitin and its derivatives have been evidenced as downregulators of allergic responses due to enhancement of innate immune system, alteration of Th1/Th2 balance forward to Th1 cells, inhibition of IgE production, and suppression of mast cell degranulation.

    In their recent review, the scientist from the Pukyong National University in Korea thus focus on the antiallergic properties of marine polysaccharides and emphasizes their potential application as bioactive food ingredients as well as nutraceuticals for prevention of allergic disorders.
    Table 1: Marine polysaccharides for downregulation of allergic responses (Vo .2014).
    What they came up with is the above tabular overview of "marine polysaccharides for downregulation of allergic responses" and the conclusion that it should be possible to produce "a variety of chemically modified derivatives" of the previously mentioned agents that are even more versatile biomaterials which can be used in "almost all fields of biomedical interest" (Vo. 2014).
  • Fiber consumption and all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortalities: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies (Liu. 2014) -  Scientist from the Chinese PLA General Hospital conducted a meta-analysis aimed to investigate fiber consumption and all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality.

    What they found, when they scanned MEDLINE and web of science database for cohort studies published from inception to August 2014 was a that, compared with those who consumed lowest fiber, for individuals who ate highest fiber,...
    • mortality rate was lower by 23% (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.72–0.81) for CVD,
    • by 17% (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74–0.91) for cancer, and
    • by 23% (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73–0.81) for all-cause mortality.
    Furthermore, for each 10 g/day increase in fiber intake, the pooled hazard ratio was estimated to be 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86–0.93) for all-cause mortality, 0.80 (95% CI, 0.72–0.88) for CHD mortality, and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.40–0.92) for IHD mortality, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88–0.94) for cancer.
    Figure 1: Reduction in mortality risks with every 10g of extra fiber you eat per day (Liu. 2014).
    In plain English: If you eat an extra 10g of fiber per day this will lead to a 11%, 20% and 34% reduction in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular heart disease and ischemic heart disease mortality. Impressed? Rightly so. I mean, as the scientists point out, it's ovious that "fiber consumption is inversely associated with all-cause mortality and CVD, IHD, cancer mortality" (Liu. 2014). What? No, the type of fiber did not appear to materially modify the inverse association between fiber intake and mortality. So you don't have to gobble down allegedly healthy wheat bran ;-)
  • The perspective on cholesterol lowering mechanisms of probiotics (Ishimwe. 2014) - The use of probiotics as food components combats not only cardiovascular diseases but also many gastrointestinal tract disorders.

    Figure 2: Enterohepatic circulation of cholesterol and its regulation (Ishimwe. 2014).
    Their health benefits along with their increased global market have interested scientists for better formulation and appropriate administration to the consumers. However, the lack of clear elucidation of their cholesterol-lowering mechanisms has complicated their proper dosage and administration to the beneficiaries. In their recent review, researchers from the Jiangnan University in China propose a mechanisms that would explain why probiotics can reduce the levels of cholesterol in your blood.

    Said mechanism involves the deconjugation of bile via bile salt hydrolase activity, binding of cholesterol to probiotic cellular surface and the incorporation into their cell membrane, as well as the production of SCFAs from oligosaccharides, coprecipitation of cholesterol with deconjugated bile, and cholesterol conversion to coprostanol (see Figure 2 | if you are not interested in how it works, check out Table 2 for what happens ;-).
    Table 2: Interventional human trials of probiotics with effect on serum TC and LDL-C (Ishimwe. 2014).
    And the list of scientifically proven probiotics with cholesterol lowering properties is long. Longer than the list of human trials above (Table 2) and long enough to assume that you can hardly pick one that does not have lipid lowering effect: Lactobacillus Acidophilus (Reuteri, Helveticus, Casei, Bulgaricus, Plantarum, Paracasei, Rhamnosus, Jugurti, Delbrueckii, Sporogenes, Fermentum, Gasseri) , Bifidobacterium Lactis (Longum, Bifidum, Animalis, Breve, Animalis, Infentis) , Streptococcus Thermophilus (Lactis, Salivarius) , Enterococcus Faecium, Propionibacterium Freudenreichii, Lactococcus Lactis.
Overall changes in polyphenol content according to types of food processing in Phenol-Explorer (Rothwell. 2014).
Note: Food remains medicine, only if it is not overtly processed. The table on the left hand side is from a recent review of the of the effects of food processing on polyphenol contents. The data is based on a systematic analysis using Phenol-Explorer data and indicates that even domestic cooking of common plant foods causes considerable losses (median RF = 0.45–0.70) of polyphenols.Compared to processing, food storage causes fewer losses, regardless of food or polyphenol (median RF = 0.88, 0.95, 0.92 for ambient, refrigerated, and frozen storage, respectively). For both processing and storage, though, the food under study is often a more important determinant of retention than the process applied.
  • Natural polyphenols binding to amyloid - Phenols as Anti-Alzheimer's drugs (Ngoungoure. 2014) - Polyphenols are a large group of phytonutrients found in herbal beverages and foods. They have manifold biological activities, including antioxidative, antimicrobial, and anti-inflammatory properties. Interestingly, some polyphenols bind to amyloid and substantially ameliorate amyloid diseases.
    "Misfolding, aggregation, and accumulation of amyloid fibrils in tissues or organs leads to a group of disorders, called amyloidoses. Prominent diseases are Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Huntington's disease, but there are other, less well-known diseases wherein accumulation of misfolded protein is a prominent feature. Amyloidoses are a major burden to public health. In particular, Alzheimer's disease shows a strong increase in patient numbers. Accelerated development of effective therapies for amyloidoses is a necessity. A viable strategy can be the prevention or reduction of protein misfolding, thus reducing amyloid build-up by restoring the cellular aggretome" (Ngoungoure. 2014).
    Amyloid-binding polyphenols affect amyloid formation on various levels, e.g. by inhibiting fibril formation or steering oligomer formation into unstructured, nontoxic pathways. Consequently, preclinical studies demonstrate reduction of amyloid-formation by polyphenols - polypenols you all know very well, curcumin from tumeric, baicalein from the roots of Baikal skullcap, EGCG from green tea, ferulic acid from, among others, coffee, apple, artichoke, peanut, and oranges, and, last but not least, silibinin from milk thistle (see Table 3).
    Table 3: Preclinicals studies with some amyloid-binding polyphenols (Ngoungoure. 2014).
    As the researchers point out, these studies clearly suggest that the "[i]ntake of dietary polyphenols might be relevant to the prevention of amyloidoses" and that "[n]utraceutical strategies might be a way to reduce amyloid diseases" (Ngoungoure. 2014).
  • Breast cancer chemoprevention by dietary natural phenolic compounds (Pan. 2014) - The scientists summarized the misery with breast cancer so perfectly that I will just cite what Pan et al. wrote about breast cancer being "a systemic malignant disease that is a major cause of cancer-related death among women worldwide."
    "Recently, multiple lines of evidence from epidemiologic studies have suggested that epigenetic and genetic changes are involved in breast cancer development. In breast cancer patients, hormone receptor status, breast cancer stem-like cell population, and tumor microenvironment are reflective of breast cancer progression, drug resistance, and tumor recurrence. Strong relationships between a phytochemical-rich diet and a reversal of epigenetic alterations and/or modulated signaling pathways of carcinogenesis (initiation, promotion, and progression) suggest a potential approach for preventing breast cancer" (Pan. 2014).
    Next to simply eating healthy and getting all those beneficial phenolic compounds from the diets, there is obviously the potential of supplementing which compounds containing phytoestrogen properties of which we suspect that they will have beneficial effects in breast cancer chemoprevention.
    Figure 3: . Schematic representation of chemopreventive molecular targets and efficiency of dietary natural phenolic compounds during multiple stages of breast carcinogenesis (Pan. 2014).
    In their review, the researchers from the National Taiwan University summarize the specific chemopreventive targets of representative phenolic compounds with an emphasis on their efficacy at interfering with epigenetic event related hormonal and nonhormonal signaling cascades that are responsible for multistage breast carcinogenesis.

    The list they came up with is extensive and includes among others Apigenin from Parsley Celery, Luteolin Spinach Kale, Chrysin Passion flower Honeycomb, Flavonols from Sources, Quercetin from Apple Onion, Kaempferol from Broccoli Tea, Flavanones from Sources, Hesperetin from Orange peel, Naringenin from Orange peel, Flavan-3-ols from Sources, EGCG from Green tea, TF-1 & TF-2 from Black tea, Anthocyanidins from Sources, Delphinidin from Black currants Bilberries, Cyanidin from Cherries, Peonidin from Bilberries, Pelargonidin from Strawberries, Malvidin from Blueberries, Petunidin from Cowpeas, Isoflavones from Sources, Genistein from Soybeans Psoralea, Equol from Soybeans Stinky tofu, Biochanin A from Alfalfa sprouts, Formononetin from Red clover, and Calycosin from Radix Astragali, as well as the following non-flavenoid compounds: Coumestrol from Soy, Curcumin from Turmeric, Garcinol from Garcinia indica, Resveratrol from Grapes Red wine, Pterostilbene from Blueberries, and 6-Shogaol from Ginger.

    Needless to say that you don't have to eat / supplement with all of them, but maybe you keep one of the other food source in mind and check how often you are eating (or drinking) it in the months to come ;-)
  • Dietary stimulators of GLUT4 expression and translocation in skeletal muscle (Gannon. 2014) - As a SuppVersity reader you know that agents like alpha lipoic acid can increase the expression of glucose receptors (GLUT-4) and thus increase the transport of glucose from the blood into the cells.

    In their latest review of the literature, researchers from the University of New Mexico compiled a list of these dietary chemicals of which the researchers say that they may serve "as potential adjuvant therapies in the maintenance of diabetes and insulin resistance" (Gannon. 2014).
    • Fucoxanthin
    • Ferulic acid
    • Gingerol
    • Lipoic acid
    • Naringenin
    • Nitric oxide and precursors
    • PPAG
    • PQQ
    • Propolis
    • Quercetin
    • Resveratrol
    • Safranal
    • Synephrine
    • Vanillic acid
    • Agmatine
    • Arecoline
    • Arginine
    • Angelica keiskei extract
    • Astaxanthin
    • Caffeine
    • Chlorogenic acid
    • Cinnamon and extracts
    • Anacardium occidentale nut extract
    • Curcumin
    • Daidzein
    • 10-Hydroxy-2-decenoic acid
    • EGCG
    • EPA/DHA
    • Eugenol
    The above list , which ranges from the purported pump supplement agmatine to vanillic acid, the main active ingredient in the root of Angelica sinensis, has yet to be regarded with caution. Most of the agents have been studies in in vitro studies; and whether the oral consumption of reasonable amounts of the respective agents will have similar beneficial effects remains to be elucidated.
You want even more natural medicine? What about the natural food color betanine? Studies suggest that betanin is a scavenger of reactive oxygen species and exhibits gene-regulatory activity. It may also prevent LDL oxidation and DNA damage and has potential blood pressure lowering effects. That's at least what scientists from the University of Kiel in Germany write in their latest paper (Esatbeyoglu. 2014).

SuppVersity Suggested Read on the Ergogenic and thus the Good Effects of Nitrates: The Beat Your Personal Bests W/ Beets 101: How Much? 8.4 mmol Nitrate ~400-1300g Beets! When? 2.5h Pre Workout | read more
Speaking of food colors or rather additives, one of the most controversial of these are nitrates and nitrites, from which potentially carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds (NOC) can be formed in humans. That's bad news. On the other hand, the consumption of nitrate (which forms nitrate in the gut) and nitrate have been associated with a plethora of health benefits including reductions in blood pressure and heart disease risk (Clifton. 2014; Kapil. 2014; Zamani. 2014).

In a recent review scientists from the University of Kaiserslautern and other German institutions try to identify gaps in our knowledge about the beneficial and ill health effects of dietary nitrate/nitrite intake and come to the conclusion that the existing epidemiological evidence regarding the role of endogenous NOC formation for human cancer risk is inconsistent.

The beneficial effects of the consumption of nitrate-rich fruits and vegetables, on the other hand, are indisputable | Comment on Facebook!
References:
  • Clifton, Peter M., et al. "How do fruit and vegetables prevent heart disease and type 2 diabetes?." Current opinion in lipidology 25.2 (2014): 155-156.
  • Esatbeyoglu, Tuba, et al. "Betanin—A food colorant with biological activity." Molecular nutrition & food research (2014). 
  • Gannon, Nicholas P., Carole A. Conn, and Roger A. Vaughan. "Dietary stimulators of GLUT4 expression and translocation in skeletal muscle: A mini‐review." Molecular nutrition & food research (2014).
  • Habermeyer, Michael, et al. "Nitrate and nitrite in the diet: How to assess their benefit and risk for human health." Molecular nutrition & food research (2014).
  • Ishimwe, Nestor, et al. "The perspective on cholesterol lowering mechanisms of probiotics." Molecular nutrition & food research (2014). 
  • Kapil, Vikas, et al. "Dietary Nitrate Provides Sustained Blood Pressure Lowering in Hypertensive Patients A Randomized, Phase 2, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study." Hypertension (2014): HYPERTENSIONAHA-114.
  • Liu, Lihua, Shan Wang, and Jianchao Liu. "Fiber consumption and all‐cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortalities: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of cohort studies." Molecular nutrition & food research (2014). 
  • Ngoungoure, Viviane L. Ndam, et al. "Natural polyphenols binding to amyloid: A broad class of compounds to treat different human amyloid diseases." Molecular nutrition & food research (2014). 
  • Pan, Min‐Hsiung, et al. "Breast cancer chemoprevention by dietary natural phenolic compounds: Specific epigenetic related molecular targets." Molecular nutrition & food research (2014).
  • Rothwell, Joseph A., et al. "Effects of food processing on polyphenol contents: A systematic analysis using Phenol‐Explorer data." Molecular nutrition & food research (2014).
  • Vo, Thanh‐Sang, et al. "The beneficial properties of marine polysaccharides in alleviation of allergic responses." Molecular nutrition & food research (2014). 
  • Zamani, Payman, et al. "The Effect of Inorganic Nitrate on Exercise Capacity in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction." Circulation (2014): CIRCULATIONAHA-114.

Saturday, June 21, 2014

Melatonin As Potent as Letrozole in Inhibiting Aromatization of Testosterone to Estrogen - This Raises the Question: Is a Lack of / Bad Sleep to Blame for Breast Cancer?!

Sleeping for 7-8h w/out interruption in a pitch black room to max. your melatonin is the best breast cancer prevention.
It may sound hilarious to the next best average Joe, but the study results Suthat Chottanap and colleagues from the Chulabhorn Graduate Institute are about to present in one of the next issues of Toxicology in Vitro confirm what SuppVersity readers already knew: It's more than likely that there is a direct link between a lack of quality sleep as people who are working shift works have it and the risk of breast cancer.

The latter increases in women who do not sleep during the period of the night when melatonin levels are typically at their highest by ~14% (Davis. 2011), an observation that appears only logical in view of what I am about to tell you today.
You can learn more about sleep and the circadian rhythm at the SuppVersity

Sunlight, Bluelight, Backlight and Your Clock

Sunlight a La Carte: "Hack" Your Rhythm
Breaking the Fast to Synchronize the Clock

Fasting (Re-)Sets the Peripheral Clock

Vitamin A & Caffeine Set the Clock

Pre-Workout Supps Could Ruin Your Sleep
Among various naturally occurring, biologically active compounds, resveratrol and melatonin have been suggested to act as aromatase inhibitors, which make them potential candi-dates in hormonal treatment of breast cancer.

These previous observations were the actual reason why Suthat Chottanap and colleages set up a handful of petri-dishes in which they a co-culture model primary human breast adipose fibroblasts (BAFs) with testosterone and melatonin or resveratrol. It has long been known that these fat cells from the breast tissue can convert testosterone to estradiol, and do thus contribute to the estrogen receptor-mediated growth and proliferation of of breast cancer T47D cell proliferation.
Figure 1: Anti-aromatase effect of resveratrol vs. melatonin (1000x lower dosage; left) and anti-proliferative (=anti-growth) effects of melatonin in breast cancer cells (Chottanapund. 2014)
As the data in Figure 1 shows, this nasty side effect of the presence of testosterone and the fat aromatase factories, the BAFs, was countered by both melatonin and resveratrol, albeit at different levels of the "drug".
  • for resvertrol the scientists needed a concentration of 20µM, i.e. 20 microMol = 0.000002 Mol and thus 1000x more(!) than for melatonin
  • for meltonin a concentration of 20nM, i.e. 20 nanoMol = 0.000000002 Mol was sufficient
Now that alone is pretty astonishing. In the end, you could argue, however, that it would only confirm what we already knew: Resveratrol is a much less potent "wonderdrug" than the hype in mainstream media makes it look like.

What really makes the results outstanding, though, is that melatonin was as potent as letrozole, the most potent antiaromatase inhibitor the publicly available pharmaceutical arsenal knows in suppressing cell proliferation, estradiol (E2) production and gene expression of CYP19A1, pS2andKi-67. No wonder that the Thai authors of the paper at hand are convinced that "melatonin clearly offers potential advantages for breast cancer treatment". And this assumption is supported by both the often-reported association between increased breast cancer risk and shift work and the inverse correlation between the risk of breast cancer and urinary melatonin levels Eva S. Schernhammer and Susan E. Hankinson report in a 2005 paper - a correlation, which remained significant even when the women who had a history of night-shift were excluded!
Learn how light synchronizes your circadian rhythm and protects you against breast cancer & obesity.
Bottom line: It's too early to tell anyone to consume melatonin supplements as an effective means to counter the development of breast cancer. The results of the study at hand do yet confirm that sleep and in that sleep during a time of maximal melatonin production, which is at night or in a pitch black room is of paramount importance to your health.

While we are waiting for the first rodent and human studies to confirm a systemic anti-aromatase effect of melatonin, I would thus suggest that you take another look at the SuppVersity Circadian Rhythm Series, all the articles of which you can find @ http://suppversity.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/summary/-/crs/?max-results=9999 if you are using an RSS compatbile browser or a plugin for chrome.
References:
  • Chottanapund, Suthat, et al. "Anti-aromatase effect of resveratrol and melatonin on hormonal positive breast cancer cells co-cultured with breast adipose fibroblasts." Toxicology in Vitro (2014).
  • Davis, Scott, Dana K. Mirick, and Richard G. Stevens. "Night shift work, light at night, and risk of breast cancer." Journal of the national cancer institute 93.20 (2001): 1557-1562.
  • Schernhammer, Eva S., and Susan E. Hankinson. "Urinary melatonin levels and breast cancer risk." Journal of the National Cancer Institute 97.14 (2005): 1084-1087.

Monday, June 9, 2014

Red Meat & Breast Cancer: Dietary Protein Sources in Early Adulthood and Breast Cancer Incidence | 22% Risk Increase for Red Meat Eaters, Substituting Poultry Normalizes Risk

Red (meat) breast cancer alert!
It's not the first study and I am pretty sure it's not going to be the last study to link red meat and cancer, but in view of the fact that I am pretty sure that the results Maryam S Farvid and colleagues present in their latest paper in the British Journal of Medicine are going to be all over the place this week, I feel that it's worth to give you an unbiased overview of the results before you are confronted with the sensational press release celebrating the newest "Harvard science" - a source people trust, one that "propagates the truth" and one that is (ab-)used by press release writers to generate the impression that each and every word they write is true.

Well the truth is that we are dealing with yet another prospective epidemiological study which does not have the power to reveal causal links between parameter (a), in this case the dietary protein sources in early adulthood and parameter (b), which is the incidence of breast cancer.
Learn more about meat at the SuppVersity

Meat-Love: You May Eat Pork, too!

You Eat What You Feed!

Meat & Prostate Cancer?

Meat - Is cooking the problem

Meat Packaging = Problem?

Grass-Fed Pork? Is it Worth it?
The average ignoramus will still read the headlines as "red meat" causes cancer and think of poultry, fish, eggs, legumes, and nuts as "the cure". In contrast to the red meat intake which was associated with a 22% risk increase in the 2830 documented cases of breast cancer the scientists had been collecting and following for 20 years, the a higher intake of poultry, fish, eggs, legumes, and nuts was
not just unrelated to breast cancer, in postmenopausal women, a high poultry intake was even associated with a -27% reduced breast cancer risk.
Energy intake and cancer risk expressed relative to lowest intake quintile for red meat (Farvid. 2014)
The latter observation gives rise to one of the (imho) hilarious substitute this for that equations, where the "estimating the effects of exchanging different protein sources, substituting one serving/day of legumes for one serving/day of red meat was associated with a 15% lower risk of breast cancer among all women (0.85, 0.73 to 0.98) and a 19% lower risk among premenopausal women (0.81, 0.66 to 0.99). Substituting poultry for red meat was even associated with 17% and 24% lower breast cancer risk in all and postmenopausal women.

Unlike the fooled readers of the press release, the researchers are obviously aware of the weaknesses of the study, in the discussion of the results, Farvid et al. point out that "potential limitations need to be considered":
  • participants were predominantly white, educated US adults, they cannot determine whether our findings are generalizable to other race or ethnic groups
  • dietary intake was assessed by food frequency questionnaires, some degree of measurement error is inevitably present, and thus to reduce measurement error they used the cumulative average of
    multiple measurements in a sensitivity analysis
  • residual confounders are always of concern in any observational studies; although they adjusted for a wide range of potential confounders for breast cancer, they still could not rule out the possibility that other unmeasured or inadequately measured factors have confounded the true association
  • they only estimated the effects of substitution of legumes, poultry, and other protein sources for red meat on risk of breast cancer, when trials on dietary modification would be ideal to support these substitutions
In addition, the scientists made multiple comparisons (different food groups and nutrients, premenopausal and postmenopausal subgroups, and subtype of tumors) in this analysis, and can thus not exclude the possibility of type I errors. But (sarcasm) this is not so much of concern, "the central finding of an association with red meat was [after all] a prior hypothesis." (Farvid. 2014) - In other words: What do you want people, we've just made sure we confirm our hypothesis.
Page from the original questionnaire | What? You don't know the margarine brand you have been using, when you were in highschool? Must be Alzeimer's due to all the red meat!
So, here you have it: All you've got to do is to consume tons of poultry. That's probably even going to cure breast cancer... right?  I am obviously sarcastic, but with data that's based on a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire with approximately 130 items in 1991, 1995, 1999, 2003, and 2007 about usual dietary intake and alcohol consumption during the past year - the same that was already used in the Nurses Health study, by the way (download it here), the results are about as reliable as your ability to tell me which brand of margarine your family has been using, when you were in high school (I am not kidding, this was one of the questions).

So instead of panicking, it would be wise to file this study next to the other "pizza salami is meat and meat is bad" studies I've written about in the past (read more) - and remember: The "Harvard" label may stand for excellent research, but it also stands for the support of lobbyists and interests groups.
Reference:
  • Farvid, et al. "Dietary protein sources in early adulthood and breast cancer incidence: prospective cohort study." BMJ 2014;348:g3437 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3437

Friday, April 4, 2014

Aluminum More of a Threat Than Thought? German "Feds" Say: Stay Away From Antitranspirants and Beware of the Dozen of Other Aluminum Containing Junk in Your Life

Cancer, Alzheimer's - The X* effect?
*Most deodorants don't contain aluminum.
I have to admit that I missed the original publication of the inconspicious statement of the Bundesintitut für Risikobewertung (BfR. 2014). I am not sure if there is a US or UK equivalent to the BfR, but if there was an US counterpart, those would be the guys that would tell the FDA what they should do, if the industry, the FDA is actually supposed to control had not already taken their job ;-)

All (sadly true) jokes aside, basically the short paper is a re-evaluation of the safety of aluminum - not aluminum in general, but the amount of aluminum in our immediate surrounding. Sources like the particularly nasty Aluminum from antitranspirants
Table 1: Overview of the "worst offenders" among foods and bakery products scientists from the University of Kentucky (Saiyed. 2005)
Processed foods provide the toxic baseline: Antitranspirants are part of the problem, but as usual it's processed food that supplies the baseline of yet another hazardous substance. If you take a look at the list of "worst offenders" Saiyed et al. identified in a 2005 study in a random selection of food from US supermarkets, it's obvious that all of them belong to the processed, convenient or as some of the enlightened people would say "junk" food category.
The BfR assessed the aluminum absorption from antitranspirants based on experimental data on the its dermal obsorption in healthy individuals and found that the systemic absorption for people with intact skin health is 10.5µg. That's ~2µg more than the EFSA says, the contemporary available evidence would suggest to be safe for a healthy 60kg human being.

This means that the uptake of aluminium from antitranspirants is above the maximal tolerable daily exposure levels. For people with skin problems or someone who uses the antitranspirants after damaging the protective layer of the skin while shaving the systemic aluminum uptake is several magnitudes larger. Consequently someone who shaves and applies his antitranspirant afterwards may exceed his total weekly limit (1mg per week) within the first hour of the day!
Figure 1: Tabular overview of the risk profile the BfR released for aluminum containing transpirants; I have translated the relevant parts of the overview, if you want to, you can download the original here.
As the scientists point out, antitranspirants are yet by far not the only potential aluminum sources in our life. Foods like tomatoes, kitchenware and - above all - other cosmetic products like shampoo, lipsticks, cremes (esp. anti-wrinkle and -aging - funny, eh?), toothpaste, and sunscreen all contain significant amounts of aluminum that can make it through our skin or digestive tract right into our blood.

It is thus no wonder that the following tabular overview (I deliberately use the German original) with translated captions) informs us that it is well possible that the aluminum in antitransparent is a health-hazard for the general population. Luckily, "keine unmittelbare Beeinträchtigung" means that you do not have to expect immediate serious adverse health effects - great, ha?

Much ado about nothing and all is good, right?

In view of the fact that the significance of the currently available data is also still insufficient, one could thus assume that you would be overreacting if you threw your aluminum containing antitranspirants away. If you take a closer look at the last row in tabular overview in Figure 1, though, you see the words "kontrollierbar durch Vorsichtsmaßnahmen" = "manageable by safety measures", though. Now what kind of safety measures could you possibly take?
Figure 2: Auluminum has been linked to all sorts of pathologies. The only decently convincing does yet exist for breast cancer (mechanism | left; cf. Darbre. 2013) and Alzheimer's where the negative effect on cognitive abilities has even been confirmed in controlled animal studies (right | exposure to increasing amounts of aluminum leads to corresponding increases in the rates of cognitive decline; cf. Walton. 2013)
Personally I know only two, though: Never apply aluminum-containing antitranspirants to damaged skin parts - A rule that applies for freshly shaved skin, as well! Or, even better stop using aluminum containing antitranspirants altogether.  I know that this is not feasible for some people, but many of us are just so used to it that we do not realize that the stench from puberty is no longer around.

In the end, the message of the statement that provides additional information about the potential involvement of chronic aluminum exposure in the etiology of breast cancer and Alzheimer's, as well as the more recent publication of a similar warning about aluminum containing cometics in general (BfR. 2014) would yet still suggest that you better replace the shampoo, creme, tooth paste, lipstick, sunscreen and antitranspirant of your choice, if they contain aluminum.
What the wise FDA says: It's funny, that the FDA documents say about thee "GRAS" additives, i.e. substances that are generally recognized as safe, such as the aluminum based food additives that "ingested in excessive amounts, their [sic!] appears to be associated with interference in phosphorus metabolism resulting in rachitic or osteomalacic effects, kidney damage, and interference with glucose metabolism, apparently due to interference with phospho- rylating enzymes." Now, this is obviously no reason to be concerned, because "[t]he high intake of phosphorus in the American diet may provide a protective effects"... hmm, great! So the high amount of phosphor of which scientists long say that it's making people sick "protects" you, my American friend from something the FDA is supposed to protect you from - glorious!
Bottom line: Start with the cosmetics! Unlike the aluminum that leaches into the food from its packaging, the aluminum that makes it from the soil into conventional and organic produce, the aluminum that makes it from the feed into the animals and animal products you eat and the good damn aluminum the f*** up "food" industry adds to their products in form of colorings E 173, stabilizers E 520 (aluminum-sulfate), E 521 (aluminum-sodiumsulfate), E 522 (aluminum-potassiumsulfate), E 523 (aluminum-ammoniumsulfate) and as the leavening agent 541 (acid sodium-aluminumphosphate) in all sorts of baked goods, the "alu lipsticks" are comparatively easy to avoid - to find alternatives that last for a similarly long time and survive kissing and making out, on the other hand, is not going to be easy, I suppose.

If you are no "processed junk junky", ditching antitranspirant & co you cut your intake back to a tolerable 14–35 mg aluminum per week - at least this is what the EFSA estimates a 70kg human being will be exposed to withing 7 days. With a limit of max. 70 mg, you would thus reside in a "green zone" of which no one probably knows how "green" it actually is... in view of an estimated half-life of seven years (Yokel. 1989), I could understand, though, if you say that this is not 100% comforting.
Reference:
  • BFR. "Aluminiumhaltige Antitranspirantien tragen zur Aufnahme von Aluminium bei" Position Statement 007/2014 issued by the BFR on February 26, 2014.
  • BFR. "Fragen und Antworten zu Aluminium in Lebensmitteln und verbrauchernahen Produkten" FAQ issued by the BFR on February 26, 2014.
  • BFR. "Fragen und Antworten zur Risikobewertung von kosmetischen Mitteln" Updated FAQ  issued by the BFR on March 3, 2014.
  • Cashman, Allison L., and Erin M. Warshaw. "Parabens: a review of epidemiology, structure, allergenicity, and hormonal properties." Dermatitis 16.2 (2005): 57-66.
  • Darbre, Philippa D., Ferdinando Mannello, and Christopher Exley. "Aluminium and breast cancer: Sources of exposure, tissue measurements and mechanisms of toxicological actions on breast biology." Journal of inorganic biochemistry 128 (2013): 257-261.
  • FDA. "Aluminum hydroxide." SCOGS-Report 43 (1975). ID Code: 21645-51-2. CFR Section: 184.1139
  • Walton, J. R. "Aluminum’s Involvement in the Progression of Alzheimer’s Disease." Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 35 (2013): 875.
  • Yokel, Robert A., and Patrick J. McNamara. "Elevated aluminum persists in serum and tissues of rabbits after a six-hour infusion." Toxicology and applied pharmacology 99.1 (1989): 133-138.

Thursday, January 2, 2014

True or False: Dairy Is a Toxic ☣ Hormone Cocktail That's a Threat to Your Testosterone Levels & Fertility and Promotes Breast, Prostate & Other Forms of Cancer!

Are the hormonal side effects of dairy and its cancerous consequences even worse than they're painted by the steadily growing anti-dairy lobby?
I have to admit that I expanded Artur Vladimirovich's original question, whether I would believe that the results of a 2010 study by Maruyama K, Oshima T, Ohyama K. were a reason for concern to make it relevant for all of us - including the female SuppVersity readers. It goes without saying that we will thus have to go beyond the results of the said paper that was published in the February issue of Pediatrics international, the official journal of the Japan Pediatric Society (Maruyama. 2010) to be able to answer whether the statement "Dairy Is a Serious Threat to His Fertility and a Promoter of Her Cancer Risk!" from the headline is true, false or neither one or the other.
"[E]strogens in milk were absorbed, and gonadotropin secretion was suppressed, followed by a decrease in testosterone secretion" (Maryama. 2010) - Don't worry it looks worse than it is.
The above was the non-literal "bone of contention" Artur stumbled across on Pubmed. It's a literal quote from the conclusion of the previously mentioned Maryama paper in Pedriatrics Internatial and it is, as Artur rightly points out "a little concerting".
I have to admit. At first sight the data in Figure 1 does look disconcerting, but if you knew something about the postprandial changes in testosterone concentration you wouldn't conduct a stupid study like this, where you measure the testosterone levels fasted, 1h before the ingestion of the meal and four times every hour after the intake. And if you did that, you would realize that you've just confirmed previous research, when you realize that, both, ...
  • What about the kids: Maruyama et al. analyzed only the urinary hormone levels of the kids. This is at best evidence that some of the hormones are absorbed..., and excreted, again and thus not really relevant.
    the gradual decrease in serum LH and FSH concentration in six out of seven men that reached a nadir 60–120 min after the milk meal, as well as 
  • the decrease in serum testosterone concentrations which reached their minimal values ~ 120 min after the consumption of the milk in all subjects.
... are pretty much identical to what other scientists have observed before. Jeff Volek et al. (2001), vor example recorded a highly significant ~25% drop of testosterone in response to the ingestion of an allegedly significantly larger milk-free meal (1,300 kcal) that contained 11% carbohydrate, 3% protein, 86% fat and was thus considerably "fattier" than whole milk with a carbohydrate / protein / fat ratio of 33% / 19% / 49% (calculated on a per-total-energy basis).
Figure 2: Macronutrient content (in g) of the test meals and corresponding postprandial reduction (% of baseline) of serum total tesosterone (Volek. 2001; Habito. 2001; Maruyama. 2010)
If you take a look at the data in Figure 2 you will see that the results of the Maruyama study are not really extraordinary if you compare them to the findings Volek (2001) and Habito (2001) present in their papers. If you also take into consideration that
  • And what about the women: I have to apologize, but the researchers didn't find any abnormalities in the female study participants that would be of serious concern. I will still discuss the issue of possible increases in breast cancer risk due to a high dairy intake later in this article - promise!
    ... the diarunal rhythm, i.e. the natural ups and downs in the course of the day allow for deviations of up to 38% (in some cases more; cf. Leymarie. 1974) in serum testosterone levels over a 24h period, and
  • ... we usually don't drink milk that comes exclusively from pregnant cows, because the commercially available milk is a mix of milk from 100s if not 1000s of cows, so that the actual hormone levels in the raw milk mix are not going to be 10x higher than in pasture-fed cows who are milked only through the first three months of a new pregnancy (Shaw. 2007) 
and compare the theories researchers like Ganmaa Davaasambuu base on the assumption that the modern milking / impregnation practice would have us consume 115-1,000pg/mL of estrone sulfate from the milk of pregnant cows instead of the regular is about 30 pg/mL that are present in the whey fraction of milk from non-pregnant cows (Ganmaa. 2001) is not supported by empirical evidence. According to Farlow, Xu & Venstra, the amount of estrone in commercially available milk:
Figure 3: Estrone (E1) content in commercial milk, left; estrogen content in raw milk from non-pregant and pregnant cows in different tirmesters of the pregnancy (Farlow 2006; Malekinejad. 2009)
As you can see in figure 3, the actual values are somewhere between what Ganmaa et al. tell us would be the minimal amount of estrone (E1) you'll find in whey of non-pregnant cows and the low end of the estimates Gabnmaa and her colleagues take as a basis of their theories about milk and male reproductive disorders (Ganmaa. 2011), milk and prostate cancer (Ganmaa. 2002), or milk and breast cancer (Ganmaa. 2005).
Let's put these numbers into perspective: "The level in a liter of skim milk, for example, is approximately 667 times lower than the conjugated equine estrogens in low-dose Premarin (300 g) and 1389 times lower than standard dose Premarin (625 g), which is associated with breast cancer incidence in post-menopausal women after long-term exposure." (Farlow. 2009)
It goes without saying that this discrepancy between the assumed and the real amount of estrone in milk does not exactly increase the plausibility of the assumption that the epidemiological "evidence", i.e. cherry picked associations between nationwide dairy intakes, infertility and cancer rates Ganmaa et al. cite in the respective papers, warrants the conclusion that there was a causative link between the amount of milk and milk products you consume and your likelihood of developing reproductive disorders, prostate or breast cancer.

Let's cherry pick some counter-evidence to the cherry-picked evidence!

If we simply assume that Ganmaa et al. and other researchers who subscribe to the "dairy is the devil" theory don't cite the existing counter-evidence. It should be easy to do some epidemiological cherry picking, ourselves, to support the safety of dairy, right? Right! And in the case of breast cancer, this is actually not really difficult:
  • Table 1: Change in breast cancer Multivariable-adjusted relative risk with highest vs. lowest dairy consumption (Genkinger. 2013)
    -32% breast cancer risk in premenopausal women with one or more servings of low fat dairy per day (Shi. 2002)
  • -19% breast cancer risk  in postmenopausal women with two or more servings of dairy (McCullough. 2005)
  • -86% breast cancer risk with highest dairy consumption in case control study in Iranian women (Bahadoran. 2013)
  • -10%  benign breast disease in young women with high milk intake at age 14 (Berkey. 2013)
Aside from a large body of evidence for beneficial effects, you will also find paper with results similar to those of a recent investigation into the relation of dairy consumption and breast cancer risk
in the Black Women’s Health Study by Jeanine M. Genkinger, Kepher H. Makambi, Julie R. Palmer, Lynn Rosenberg, and Lucile L. Adams-Campbell, who report that ...
"[...i]n this large prospective cohort of African-American women, null associations were observed for intakes of milk (total, whole, and 2 %), other specific types of dairy products, dietary calcium, and dietary vitamin D with breast cancer risk." (Genkinger. 2013)
If you look at the p-values (remember: p > 0.05 ➲ not significant) in Table 1 it becomes even more obvious that we are dealing with a classic null-result here. If anything you could argue that there is a minimal protective effect with a high(er) intake of skim milk.

So dairy doesn't cause breast cancer... does it make men infertile, then?

Figure 4:Change in idiopathic asthenozoospermia w/ high vs. low intake of meat, sweets & dairy (Eslamian. 2012)
For the male fertility issue it's not exactly as easy to find our exonerating studies. In fact a relatively recent study by Afeiche et al. (2013) appears to confirm that there is a direct link between full-fat dairy consumption and compromised sperm quality in men.

These detrimental effects are yet by no means dairy exclusive (actually it should read "full-fat dairy exclusive", because most studies could not find negative effects for low fat dairy foods).

Mendiola et al. (2009), for example, observed a similar decline in sperm quality in men with a high processed meat intake and Eslamian et al. (2012) report that both, the total meat (+103%, p = 0.039) and sweets intake (+105%, p = 0.046), but not the amount of dairy the 72 asthenozoospermic men and 169 normo-zoospermic in Eslamian et al.'s case-control study consumed on a daily base were associated with a significantly higher risk of idiopathic asthenozoospermia (see Figure 4).
Saturated fat as common denominator? I know it's not popular, but processed meat and high fat dairy have a significant amount of saturated fat, which has been implicated as another correlate of reductions in sperm quality in a whole host of studies. Most recently Jensen et al. observed 38% (95% CI: 0.1%, 61%) lower sperm concentration and a 41% (95% CI: 4%, 64%) lower total sperm count in 701 young Danish men with high vs. low saturated fat intake (Jensen. 2013). In view of the less significant, but more pronounced associaton of asthenozoospermia with high sweet intakes, Eslamian et al. report in their 2012 paper, I would yet suspect that overeating and not fats or carbs are the real problem, here.
If finding evidence that the dairy ↔ infertility issue isn't an issue at all was hard, doing the same for epidemiologically established link between high(er) dairy intakes and prostate cancer is ... not virtually impossible, but significantly harder.

Last but not least, the prostate cancer issue

There is in fact a whole host of studies a litigator could chose from, if he decided to sue the dairy industry and I have to admit that I wouldn't want to wear the gown that indicates that it's up to me to decide whether evidence such as, the...
  • 3.2x increase in advanced prostate cancer risk in men who consumed dairy products on a daily basis as adolescents, Torfadottir et al. observed in 8,894 men who were born between 1907 and 1935 in Iceland (Torfadottir. 2012), 
  • 2.2x increase in prostate cancer risk in US men who consumed 21 or more servings of dairy products per week vs. those who consumed only 5 servings/week (Tseng. 2005)
  • 1.68x higher risk of prostate cancer risk researchers calculated in a meta-analysis of case-control studies published between 1984 and 2003 (Qin. 2007)
... is convincing enough to say: "Yes, you're right. Your prostate cancer was caused by products of the dairy industry." I mean, there is even a study by Tate et al. that was published in the August issue of Nutrition and Cancer in 2011 that appears to suggest that the link between dairy and prostate cancer is in fact one of the very few instances, where association signify causation.
Figure 5: Growth promoting effects of various substrates in an LNCaP prostate cancer cell experiment (Tate. 2011), left; Estrogen (E2 in pg/ml) levels before and after the consumption of milk of pregnant cows (Maruyama. 2010), right.
It's undebatable that the data in Figure 5 (left) leaves no doubt that bovine milk possesses greater stimulatory effect on the proliferation of LNCaP prostate cancer cells than IGF-1. It would also suggest that the relatively low levels of estrogen in bovine milk may still promote increases in serum estrogen levels that could be sufficient to cause the previously cited increases in prostate cancer risk in men with a particularly high dairy consumption.

Unfortunately, the data from the paper Artur sent me (see Figure 5, right) confirms what the proponents of dairy consumption have been saying all along (Parodi. 2012). The small amounts of estrogen (E2) in milk don't even make it into the blood stream - accordingly, the serum E2 concentration in the Maruyama study was "unchanged during the 2 h examination (before and peak: 31±4 pg/mL and 32±4 pg/mL, NS)" (Maruyama. 2010).

Let's not forget the changes in estrone and progesterone

We would thus be back to square one and our initial assumption that all that cannot be so bad, as it may have looked at first sight, if we it was not for two significant changes Maryama et al. observed in their experiment, we have hitherto ignored: The +26% and +14% increases in estrone (E1) and progesterone levels, respectively.

We have touched on estrone already. It is one of several natural estrogens and is abundant primarily during pregnancy (which explains why it's high in the milk of pregnant cows) and while the Wikipedia entry on estrone says that it was "known to cause anorexia, nausea, vomiting, and erectile dysfunction" the reference the author provides is an info-document from the United States Department of Labor.
And what about female libido? I did not forget you, ladies. The thing is with the high amount of estrone and progesterone you already have in your body, the minimal amount you may be getting from milk is probably not going to have any effects on your libido.
If you try to find corresponding evidence in peer reviewed magazines, on the other hand, you come up with a report by Jerzy Terter that was published in the British Medical Journal in October 1972 and says that estrone and estrone & testosterone have been used successfully to treat, not induce erectile dysfunction (Terter. 1972). Similar restorative effects have been reported for a combination of estrogen and progesterone, which was more effective in increasing coital frequency in male castrats than testosterone (Davidson. 1983)

Fine, libido / erectile performance shouldn't be an issue, but what about cancer?

Even if the small quantities of estrone and progesterone don't mess with your libido, this does not mean that they cannot (in the very long term) increase your risk of prostate or breast cancer, right? Since we've wantonly neglected the ladies in the previous paragraphs we'll start out with the breast cancer issue and the question: "Do progesterone or estrone increase your breast or endometrial cancer risk?"
  • Progesterone and breast, endometrial cancer & co: Despite the fact that studies from the 1980s show that progesterone deficiency increases the risk of developing breast cancer before menopause by more than 400% (Cowan. 1981) and in spite of recent evidence that progesterone enhances the anti-cancer effects of calcitriol (active vitamin D; cf. Lee. 2013), the rumor that progesterone / protestin based oral contraceptives would promote the growth of all sorts of cancer is tenacious.

    Possible health problems due to low progesterone (in pre- menopausal women): Low blood sugar, foggy thinking, uterine fibroids, decreased sweating, fibrocystic breasts, low blood pressure, tender breasts, infertility, chemical sensitivity, cold body temperature (ordered from lowest to highest incidence).
    Evidence from the early 1980 would in fact support the progesterone cancer association (Pike. 1982). If you know something about the hormonal content of the "early pill", it's no wonder that the observations Pike et al. made in the 1980s stand in contrast to the results of more recent studies on associations between oral contraceptives and breast or other forms of cancer. Studies like the one by Marchbanks et al., for example. In the corresponding paper, the researchers report ZERO increase in breast cancer risk for current oral contraceptive users and a 10% reduced breast cancer risk for those of the 4575 women with breast cancer and 4682 controls who had previously used them (Marchbanks. 2002).

    It goes without saying that there are also more recent studies suggesting risk increases with oral contraceptive for various forms of cancer. The total amount, but also the type of progesteron (bovine vs. articial, sometimes much stronger progestins) do make it very unlikely that milk will promote breast cancer growth... incidentally, the previously discussed in vitro study by Tate et al. (2011) confirms that. In the said study milk may have promoted the growth of the prostate cancer cells, the breast cancer cells, the researchers tested as well, did yet not respond to be being bathed in a Petri dish full of bovine milk. Much contrary to soymilk, by the way, which promoted the growth of Tate et al.'s breast cancer cells magnificently.
  • Estrone and breast, endometrial cancer & co: In view of the fact that estrone is capable of binding to the estrogen receptor on breast cancer cells and considering the fact that Toniolo et al. observed in a 1995 prospective study of endogenous estrogens and breast cancer in postmenopausal women that women with estrone levels between 12.3pg/ml and 20.9pg/ml had a 3.7x elevated breast cancer risk compared to those with estrone levels of 8pg/ml or less (Toniolo. 1995). Similar results were reported only recently by Farhat et al. (2013) for premenopausal women whose breast cancer risk is 3x elevated with estrone levels of 50.39-151.39pg/ml vs. 9.05-27.86 (Farhat. 2013)

    In view of the fact that I could not find a definitive number for the oral bioavailability of estrone, I had to use the C-max (max. concentration) values from a 1990 study by Aedo et al. to estimate whether the maximal amount of estrone you can find in cow's milk, i.e. ~100pg/ml could elevate a woman's E2 levels to an extend that would put her into a higher breast cancer risk category.
Why don't we use the values from the Maruyama study? I am pretty certain that it would be a bad idea to extrapolate estrogen / estrone related data from a study, where the corresponding levels were measured only in men to women. Moroever, even if we did that, we would still be faced with the problem that the peak values Maruyama et al. measured are probably irrelevant in terms of cancerous growth, which thrives in a milieu with constantly elevated estrone levels and is unlikely to grow in response to intermediate peaks that last for less than an hour.
  • In the said study the area under the estrone in response to the ingestion of 2.5mg of estrone-sulfate was 5.32 ng/ml per hour.

    Table 2: Association of estrone levels with invasive breast cancer risk (Farhat. 2013)
    In simple (from a science point of view questionable) analogy, one liter of bovine milk from a pregnant cow in the third trimester (=highest estrone content; ca. 100pg/ml) would thus create an AUC of only 0.2pg/ml per hour. If you look at the data in Table 2 it should be obvious that this is not going to take a women from Q1 with E2 levels of 9.05–27.86pg/ml to Q3 (36.79–50.38 pg/ml) the first quartile, where the risk increase becomes statistically significant.

    Honestly, I would not rely on hilariously inaccurate calculations like this, if the available epidemiological evidence I discussed before would not indicate that the consumption of bovine milk does not increase the risk of developing breast cancer, although the number of potential mechanisms, e.g. high estrogen, high estrone, high progesterone, overactivation of mTOR and IGF-1, are endless. Moreover, similar protective effects have been observed for ovarian cancer with (interestingly, they mostly ascribed to dairy calcium, though)
    • skim or low fat milk - 13-15% reduction, when consumed regularly
    • hard cheese - up to 32% reduction when consumed 2-7 days per week
    • cottage and ricoatte chesse - up to 24% when consumed 2-7 days per week
    in a recently published study by Merrit et al. (2013). The researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health did yet also observe risk increases with high fat dairy products like cream cheese (+42%) or whole milk (+38%), which bring us back to the issue in the "saturated fat as common denominator?" box above - an issue any further analysis of which I am going to postpone to a future SuppVersity article.
If we wanted to summarize the results of our analysis, I would say that the estrogen and progesterone content in bovine milk is not much of a problem for the women. Now this begs the question, whether it is a problem for the men, whose E2 and progesterone levels were significantly, yet only shortly elevated after the consumption of the test milk in the Maruyama study.
  • Progesterone and prostate cancer in men: With a normal range of 0.27 – 0.9 ng/ml the progesterone levels in the Maruyama study, i.e. 0.75ng/ml are still well within the normal range, for men. This and the mere facts that
    1. there is a host of research that confirms that the majority prostate cancer cells don't even have a progesterone receptor (Hobisch. 1997; Gregory),
    2. the progesterone receptors in prostate stromal fibroblasts and smooth muscle cells, suppress prostate stromal cell proliferation (Yu. 2013), and
    3. studies like Umekita (1996) suggest that medroxy progesterone acetate inhibits the growth of LNCaP prostate cancer cells in the Petri dish (Umekita. 1996)
    render it very unlikely that the temporary progesterone peak will have any effect on prostate cancer risk - whether the potential of a belated expression of progesterone receptors, as it was observed by Bonkhoff et al. in 2001 may speed up the the proliferation of existing prostate cancer is questionable, but does not appear to be an issue with the minimal milk-induced increases in progesterone levels in the Myruyama study, anyway.
  • Estrone and prostate cancer risk in men: As far as the estrone levels Maruyama et al. measured in their 2010 study are concerned it is very difficult to tell, whether or not the 26% increase in E2 levels is or isn't a problem.
The estrone values in the Maruyama study are unrealistic. With a normal range of <68pg/ml the subjects in the Maruyama study would have elevated E1 levels to begin with, if the measurement was correct.
  • According to a study by Hsing & Comstock, prostate cancer patients have lower estrone : testosterone ratios than healthy controls (Hsing. 1993). In their 1988 paper Nomura et al. had already reported that prostate cancer patients have 26.7% lower estrone levels than healthy controls (Nomura. 1988); an observation that confirms the results of a previous analysis of estrone levels in US and Nigerian men by Ahluwalia from 1981 (Ahluwalia. 1981). In all but the Nigerians, the differences were yet not significant, which is why I would hesitate to use these observations to support the hypothesis that the changes in estrone and testosterone Maruyama et al. observed may actually protect against breast cancer.

    In spite of a study by Giton et al. (2008) that implicates estrone sulfate, which happens to be elevated in the presence of high estradiol levels (probably the real culprit here) as a marker of tumor aggressiveness, it would thus appear unwarranted to worry about the estrone increase in the Maruyama study, if we focus on a 26% from a midrange estrone value (see red box above for an explanation of why I don't use the exact serum values from the study) values are even accurate.
What remains to be seen, though, is whether future epidemiological evidence will support or refute the currently heralded hypothesis that dairy consumption increases prostate cancer risk and whether we will be able to identify more feasible explanations for this relations than those that are implicated by the results Maruyama et al. present in their 2010 study.
Table 3: Summary of human studies that evaluated the role of milk/dairy product consumption in the development of prostate cancer; Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; OR, odds ratio; RR, relative risk (Chagas. 2012).
Maybe someone finally comes up with actual evidence for the involvement of the 3ng/ml of the DHT precursor 5alpha-pregnanedione in milk (Jouan. 2006) as it was probosed by William Danby in a 2008 paper about the link between dairy intake and (pubertal) acne.
A high dairy intake...
lowers testosterone
impairs libido
impairs fertility
disturbs regular menses
promotes prostate cancer
promotes breast cancer
promotes any type of cancer
Bottom line - What does the evidence say? This is probably the longest SuppVersity Article ever. This is why even summarizing all the points would break the mould of the short summaries of which I know that all of you love them. Therefore I decided to replace the regular text-based summary by a "graphical" one in which I list the purported pitfals of dairy consumption I discussed in the previous paragraphs and my take on the reliability of the contemporary evidence. In that, ...
  • ✘ - indicates low-to-no evidence, while
  • ❓ - tells you that things are not certain, yet  and
  • ✔ - marks a potential reason to stay away from dairy
If you want to learn why I chose "✘"for one and "❓"for another of the charges that are brought forward against dairy, you will yet have to read the corresponding part of this >5,000 word article - sorry ;-)
Reference:
  • Aedo, A. R., Landgren, B. M., & Diczfalusy, E. (1990). Pharmacokinetics and biotransformation of orally administered oestrone sulphate and oestradiol valerate in post-menopausal women. Maturitas, 12(4), 333-343.
  • Afeiche, M., Williams, P. L., Mendiola, J., Gaskins, A. J., Jørgensen, N., Swan, S. H., & Chavarro, J. E. (2013). Dairy food intake in relation to semen quality and reproductive hormone levels among physically active young men. Human Reproduction.
  • Ahluwalia, B., Jackson, M. A., Jones, G. W., Williams, A. O., Rao, M. S., & Rajguru, S. (1981). Blood hormone profiles in prostate cancer patients in high‐risk and low‐risk populations. Cancer, 48(10), 2267-2273.
  • Bahadoran, Z., Karimi, Z., Houshiar-rad, A., Mirzayi, H. R., & Rashidkhani, B. (2013). Is Dairy Intake Associated to Breast Cancer? A Case Control Study of Iranian Women. Nutrition and cancer, 65(8), 1164-1170. 
  • Berkey, C. S., Willett, W. C., Tamimi, R. M., Rosner, B., Frazier, A. L., & Colditz, G. A. (2013). Dairy Intakes in Older Girls and Risk of Benign Breast Disease in Young Women. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 22(4), 670-674. 
  • Bonkhoff, H., Fixemer, T., Hunsicker, I., & Remberger, K. (2001). Progesterone receptor expression in human prostate cancer: correlation with tumor progression. The Prostate, 48(4), 285-291. 
  • Chagas, C. E., Rogero, M. M., & Martini, L. A. (2012). Evaluating the links between intake of milk/dairy products and cancer. Nutrition reviews, 70(5), 294-300.
  • Cordain, H. D. The Adverse Effects of Milk-by Loren Cordain & Pedro Bastos.
  • Cowan, L. D., Gordis, L., TONASCIA, J. A., & Jones, G. S. (1981). Breast cancer incidence in women with a history of progesterone deficiency. American journal of epidemiology, 114(2), 209-217.
  • Davidson, J. M., Camargo, C., Smith, E. R., & Kwan, M. (1983). Maintenance of sexual function in a castrated man treated with ovarian steroids. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 12(3), 263-274.
  • Eslamian, G., Amirjannati, N., Rashidkhani, B., Sadeghi, M. R., & Hekmatdoost, A. (2012). Intake of food groups and idiopathic asthenozoospermia: a case–control study. Human Reproduction, 27(11), 3328-3336.
  • Farhat, G. N., Parimi, N., Chlebowski, R. T., Manson, J. E., Anderson, G., Huang, A. J., ... & Cummings, S. R. (2013). Sex Hormone levels and risk of Breast cancer With estrogen Plus Progestin. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 105(19), 1496-1503.
  • Farlow, D. W., Xu, X., & Veenstra, T. D. (2009). Quantitative measurement of endogenous estrogen metabolites, risk-factors for development of breast cancer, in commercial milk products by LC–MS/MS. Journal of Chromatography B, 877(13), 1327-1334.
  • Ganmaa, D., Wang, P. Y., Qin, L. Q., Hoshi, K., & Sato, A. (2001). Is milk responsible for male reproductive disorders?. Medical hypotheses, 57(4), 510-514. 
  • Ganmaa, D., Li, X. M., Wang, J., Qin, L. Q., Wang, P. Y., & Sato, A. (2002). Incidence and mortality of testicular and prostatic cancers in relation to world dietary practices. International journal of cancer, 98(2), 262-267.
  • Ganmaa, D., & Sato, A. (2005). The possible role of female sex hormones in milk from pregnant cows in the development of breast, ovarian and corpus uteri cancers. Medical hypotheses, 65(6), 1028-1037.
  • Giton, F., de la Taille, A., Allory, Y., Galons, H., Vacherot, F., Soyeux, P., ... & Fiet, J. (2008). Estrone sulfate (E1 S), a prognosis marker for tumor aggressiveness in prostate cancer (PCa). The Journal of steroid biochemistry and molecular biology, 109(1), 158-167.
  • Genkinger, J. M., Makambi, K. H., Palmer, J. R., Rosenberg, L., & Adams-Campbell, L. L. (2013). Consumption of dairy and meat in relation to breast cancer risk in the Black Women’s Health Study. Cancer Causes & Control, 1-10. 
  • Gregory, C. W., He, B., Johnson, R. T., Ford, O. H., Mohler, J. L., French, F. S., & Wilson, E. M. (2001). A mechanism for androgen receptor-mediated prostate cancer recurrence after androgen deprivation therapy. Cancer research, 61(11), 4315-4319.
  • Habito, R. C., & Ball, M. J. (2001). Postprandial changes in sex hormones after meals of different composition. Metabolism, 50(5), 505-511. 
  • Hsing, A. W., & Comstock, G. W. (1993). Serological precursors of cancer: serum hormones and risk of subsequent prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 2(1), 27-32.
  • Hobisch, A., Hittmair, A., Daxenbichler, G., Wille, S., Radmayr, C., Hobisch‐Hagen, P., ... & Culig, Z. (1997). Metastatic lesions from prostate cancer do not express oestrogen and progesterone receptors. The Journal of pathology, 182(3), 356-361.
  • Jensen, T. K., Heitmann, B. L., Jensen, M. B., Halldorsson, T. I., Andersson, A. M., Skakkebæk, N. E., ... & Jørgensen, N. (2013). High dietary intake of saturated fat is associated with reduced semen quality among 701 young Danish men from the general population. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 97(2), 411-418. 
  • Jouan, P. N., Pouliot, Y., Gauthier, S. F., & Laforest, J. P. (2006). Hormones in bovine milk and milk products: a survey. International Dairy Journal, 16(11), 1408-1414.
  • Lee, L. R., Teng, P. N., Nguyen, H., Hood, B. L., Kavandi, L., Wang, G., ... & Syed, V. (2013). Progesterone Enhances Calcitriol Antitumor Activity by Upregulating Vitamin D Receptor Expression and Promoting Apoptosis in Endometrial Cancer Cells. Cancer Prevention Research.
  • Malekinejad, H., Scherpenisse, P., & Bergwerff, A. A. (2006). Naturally occurring estrogens in processed milk and in raw milk (from gestated cows). Journal of agricultural and food chemistry, 54(26), 9785-9791. 
  • Marchbanks, P. A., McDonald, J. A., Wilson, H. G., Folger, S. G., Mandel, M. G., Daling, J. R., ... & Weiss, L. K. (2002). Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 346(26), 2025-2032.
  • Maruyama, K., Oshima, T., & Ohyama, K. (2010). Exposure to exogenous estrogen through intake of commercial milk produced from pregnant cows. Pediatrics International, 52(1), 33-38.
  • McCullough, M. L., Rodriguez, C., Diver, W. R., Feigelson, H. S., Stevens, V. L., Thun, M. J., & Calle, E. E. (2005). Dairy, calcium, and vitamin D intake and postmenopausal breast cancer risk in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 14(12), 2898-2904. 
  • Mendiola, J., Torres-Cantero, A. M., Moreno-Grau, J. M., Ten, J., Roca, M., Moreno-Grau, S., & Bernabeu, R. (2009). Food intake and its relationship with semen quality: a case-control study. Fertility and sterility, 91(3), 812-818. 
  • Merritt, M. A., Cramer, D. W., Vitonis, A. F., Titus, L. J., & Terry, K. L. (2013). Dairy foods and nutrients in relation to risk of ovarian cancer and major histological subtypes. International Journal of Cancer, 132(5), 1114-1124. 
  • Nomura, A., Heilbrun, L. K., Stemmermann, G. N., & Judd, H. L. (1988). Prediagnostic serum hormones and the risk of prostate cancer. Cancer research, 48(12), 3515-3517.
  • Parodi, P. W. (2012). Impact of cows’ milk estrogen on cancer risk. International Dairy Journal, 22(1), 3-14. 
  • Park, Y., Mitrou, P. N., Kipnis, V., Hollenbeck, A., Schatzkin, A., & Leitzmann, M. F. (2007). Calcium, Dairy Foods, and Risk of Incident and Fatal Prostate Cancer The NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. American journal of epidemiology, 166(11), 1270-1279.
  • Pike, M. C., Krailo, M. D., Henderson, B. E., Duke, A., & Roy, S. (1983). Breast cancer in young women and use of oral contraceptives: possible modifying effect of formulation and age at use. The Lancet, 322(8356), 926-929. 
  • Qin, L., Xu, J., Wang, P., Tong, J., & Hoshi, K. (2007). Milk consumption is a risk factor for prostate cancer in Western countries: evidence from cohort studies. Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition, 16(3), 467.
  • Shaw, S. (2007) Modern Milk. Discussing research by Ganmaa Davaasambuu. Harvard Magazine. May-June.
  • Shin, M. H., Holmes, M. D., Hankinson, S. E., Wu, K., Colditz, G. A., & Willett, W. C. (2002). Intake of dairy products, calcium, and vitamin D and risk of breast cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 94(17), 1301-1310.
  • Tate, P. L., Bibb, R., & Larcom, L. L. (2011). Milk stimulates growth of prostate cancer cells in culture. Nutrition and cancer, 63(8), 1361-1366. 
  • Teter, J. (1972). Treatment of endocrine impotence. British medical journal, 4(5832), 114.
  • Toniolo, P. G., Levitz, M., Zeleniuch-Jacquotte, A., Banerjee, S., Koenig, K. L., Shore, R. E., ... & Pasternack, B. S. (1995). A prospective study of endogenous estrogens and breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 87(3), 190-197.
  • Torfadottir, J. E., Steingrimsdottir, L., Mucci, L., Aspelund, T., Kasperzyk, J. L., Olafsson, O., ... & Valdimarsdottir, U. A. (2012). Milk intake in early life and risk of advanced prostate cancer. American journal of epidemiology, 175(2), 144-153. 
  • Tseng, M., Breslow, R. A., Graubard, B. I., & Ziegler, R. G. (2005). Dairy, calcium, and vitamin D intakes and prostate cancer risk in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Epidemiologic Follow-up Study cohort. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 81(5), 1147-1154.
  • Umekita, Y., Hiipakka, R. A., Kokontis, J. M., & Liao, S. (1996). Human prostate tumor growth in athymic mice: inhibition by androgens and stimulation by finasteride. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(21), 11802-11807.
  • Volek, J. S., Love, D. M., Avery, N. G., Sharman, M. J., & Kraemer, W. J. (2001). Effects of a high-fat diet on postabsorptive and postprandial testosterone responses to a fat-rich meal. Metabolism, 50(11), 1351-1355.

Friday, July 26, 2013

Science Round-Up Seconds: DHA + EPA + DPA & Prostate Cancer - Auxiliary Data on the Effect of Fish & Fish Oil on Prostate-, Breast- and Colorectal Cancer

Did the media hype surrounding the "Fish Oil Promotes Prostate Cancer" break this poor critter's neck?
I guess you will all have listened to the Science Round-Up live, right? No? Well then I'd suggest you do that now, because I am not going to waste any more time on the breakfast or sweetener study, but felt inclined to take another look at the fish / fish oil and prostate cancer issue.

Why? Well, I have written tons about breakfast (read it), the circadian rhythm (read it) and by good way too much about sweeteners (look here) in the past to reiterate that in the absence of any new scientific evidence whatsoever.

"Fish oil promotes prostate cancer! What shall we do?"

While I am not sure that someone actually wrote that, it is only natural for the layman to assume that taking fish oil capsules and even eating fish would be detrimental to his prostate health, once he is confronted with scientific evidence not just from one study, but actually from a meta analyses of what the researchers deem to be the "currently available literature". This lends a whole new level of credibility to the results the scientists observed in the male subjects from the SELECT trial; a trial, of which you will probably remember, that it is the study that found that vitamin E + selenium supplementation area associated with higher risks of prostate cancer.

All that lends the recent "fish oil is killing you" study the aura of a controlled intervention study. And that despite the fact that the Brasky study is nothing but another non-specific cross-analysis of the associations between high serum levels of long-chain omega3-PUFAs and prostate cancer. A study that delivers no information whatsoever on where the DHA, EPA and DPA (an intermediate form) came from and a study that does not tell you, whether the levels have been high before and remained high afterwards or were high because the subjects were afraid to develop prostate cancer and started to supplement with fish oil. Yes, even Carl's hypothesis that having prostate cancer will increase the enzymatic cascade that produces EPA and DHA from short chain omega-3s could be possible - at least the study at hand would not be able to rule it out.

Now, you've heard most of that on the Science Round-Up, yesterday. So let's rather take a look to the left and the right to get a better grasp of the current state of the art... ah, I mean research:
  • "No association was found between overall fish consumption in early or midlife and prostate cancer risk." (Torfadottir. 2013) This is the conclusion of an Icelandic study from April this year. The study was nested among the 2268 men aged 67-96 years in the AGES-Reykjavik cohort study and produced another surprising result: While high fish consumption in early- and midlife was not associated with overall or advanced prostate cancer,
    "[..] a high intake of salted or smoked fish was associated with a 2-fold increased risk of advancedprostate cancerboth in early life (95% CI: 1.08, 3.62) and in later life (95% CI: 1.04, 5.00)." (Torfadottir. 2013)
    An observation which clearly brings us back to the previously made reservations with respect to the absence of any reliable data on where the "fish oil" in the blood of the subjects in the Brasky study came from. It also stands in line with the results of Stott-Miller et al. (2013), who report a +32% increased prostate cancer risk for men consuming fried fish more than once a week.
    Figure 1: Overall fish oil consumption and risk of prostate cancer (Torfadottir. 2013)
    Talking about fish oil, if you take a look at figure 1 you can see that it had non-significant protective effects when consumed irregularly in mid and late life, but was (likewise not stat. sign.) associated with a higher risk of developing prostate cancer in early life.
  • The role of docosapentaenoic acid (DPA) remains elusive. While the Brasky study suggests that it's "bad stuff", another recently published paper identified DPA as a marker that "is linked with reduced total prostate cancer risk" (Sorongon-Legaspi. 2013).

    Figure 2: Omega-3 levels and prostate cancer risk (Sorongon-Legaspi. 2013; DPA highlighted in red); enzymatic cascade that converts ALA in 5 steps to DHA
    If you take a look at the figure on the right, you will see that ALA, EPA and DHA, alone, which are #1, #4 and #6 on the enzymatic cascade that converts short chain (ALA) to long chain omega-3 fatty acids (see figure 2, right), have no effect on prostate cancer at all. DPA, on the other hand, is - in this analysis (!) - associated with a 24.4% reduced risk for prostate cancer.

    How that's supposed to work, though eludes me. And in the absence of a mechanistic explanation of this statistical feature, we should be careful to clutch at straws, when we do, on the other hand, negate the risk Brasky et al. observed.
  • If you already have prostate cancer high levels of DHA, the "bad prostate cancer omega-3" actually appear to protect you from dying. A recently published study by Epstein et al. (2013), for example, found
    "Among all men, those with the highest omega-3 docosahexaenoic acid and total marine fatty acid intakes were 40% less likely to die from prostate cancer (P(trend) = 0.05 and 0.04, respectively)." (Epstein. 2013)
    On the other hand, the 525 Swedish men with prostate cancer in Örebro County (1989-1994) who were the subjects in Epstein et al.'s study were at 2x higher risk of dying, when their overall fat intake was high. This is something that cannot be excluded in the Brasky, respectively SELECT trial either - after all an overall high fat intake will bring about higher LC omega-3 PUFA levels than a lower fat intake with the same ratio of LC omega-3 PUFAs in it.
Now in the absence of any reasonable explanation for the observations and in view of the fact that you would have to expect that the same effects should be observed in other forms of tissue, if the effects were related to the negative effects of rancid fish oils, as they have been observed by Garcıá-Hernándéz et al. (2013) in a recently published study (a detailed discussion of the results will follow on the weekend). The latter, i.e. a risk increase for other types of cancers has yet not been reported. We do in fact have evidence to the exact opposite, i.e. a reduced cancer risk for...
  • colorectal cancer incidence (case-control studies) -- risk reductions of -26% for high total LC-PUFA intakes (Kimura. 2007); -38%  for EPA > 442mg/d and -37% for DHA > 587mg/d  (Theodoratou. 2007) and -39% for total LC-PUFA > 180mg/d; -35% for EPA > 50mg/day (!) and -42% for DHA >110mg/day (Kim. 2010)
  • breast cancer incidence (case control studies) -- risk reductions of -49% for total LC-PUFA > 550mg/day; -73% for EPA > 1.39% of total fat in erothrocytes; -94% for DHA > 4.79% of total fat intake (Kuriki. 2007); -50% for EPA > 101mg/day (Kim. 2009) and -56% for DHA >213mg/day (Kim. 2009); -49% for EPA = 0.69 of total fat in erothrocytes (Shannon. 2009)
These results are supported by beneficial results from prospective cohort studies and in-vitro evidence for these and other forms cancer. So, if there was a mechanism to explain the increased cancer risk, it must be prostate specific and until we have not found this very mechanism, I doubt the relevance of the associations that were observed and reviewed by Brasky et al. in their latest paper.

Bottom line: Call me a stubborn physicist, but as long as I don't understand or at least have a hypothesis that would point towards an underlying mechanism that could explain the association of high serum levels (not high intake) of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids and the incidence of prostate cancer, I don't believe that it is relevant.

"Are You Going to Die From or With Prostate Cancer? Plus: What Can be Done to Influence This Fate?" Learn more about prostate cancer in the SuppVersity Prostate Cancer Special (read more)
And let's be honest, that the exact opposite appears to be the case for almost all other forms of cancer does not exactly support the notion that this very mechanism even exist.

I still don't discard the possibility and in view of the fact that I've never been an advocate of fish oil supplements, this is not exactly a reason for me to go back on my previous recommendation to keep your intake of omega-6 fatty acids "low" (compared to that of your fellow inhabitants of the Western Obesity Belt) and include fatty fish in your diet at least once, better twice a week. Don't fry it, and don't put it into the smoker and you will live happily ever after.

Well, no not exactly; but even if the likelihood that you develop prostate cancer increases, the established benefits of the inclusion of fish in your diet - here is just one of the most recent examples: -16% all-cause mortality, -37% risk of dying from ischemic stroke and -39% for dying from the consequences of diabetes (results based on data from 134,296 men and women in Takata. 2013) - certainly outweigh the potential increase in prostate cancer risk.

References:
  • Brasky TM, Darke AK, Song X, Tangen CM, Goodman PJ, Thompson IM, Meyskens FL Jr, Goodman GE, Minasian LM, Parnes HL, Klein EA, Kristal AR. Plasma Phospholipid Fatty Acids and Prostate Cancer Risk in the SELECT Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013 Jul 10. [Epub ahead of print]
  • Epstein MM, Kasperzyk JL, Mucci LA, Giovannucci E, Price A, Wolk A, Håkansson N, Fall K, Andersson SO, Andrén O. Dietary fatty acid intake and prostate cancer survival in Örebro County, Sweden. Am J Epidemiol. 2012 Aug 1;176(3):240-52. 
  • Kimura Y, Kono S, Toyomura K, et al. Meat, fish and fat intake in relation to subsite-specific risk of colorectal cancer: The Fukuoka Colorectal Cancer Study. Cancer Sci. 2007; 98:590 – 597. 
  • Kim J, Lim SY, Shin A, et al. Fatty fish and fish omega-3 fatty acid intakes decrease the breast cancer risk: a case-control study. BMC Cancer. 2009; 30:216 – 226.
  • Kim S, Sandler DP, Galanko J,et al.Intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids and distal large bowel cancer risk in whites and African Americans. Am J Epidemiol. 2010; 171:969 – 979. 
  • Kuriki K, Hirose K, Wakai K, et al. Breast cancer risk and erythrocyte compositions of n-3 highly unsaturated fatty acids. Japanese Int J Cancer. 2007; 121:377 –385.
  • Shannon J, King IB, Lampe JW,et al. Erythrocyte fatty acids and risk of proliferative and nonproliferative fibrocystic dis ease in women in Shanghai, China.Am J Clin Nutr. 2009; 89: 265 – 276.
  • Sorongon-Legaspi MK, Chua M, Sio MC, Morales M Jr. Blood level omega-3 Fatty acids as risk determinant molecular biomarker for prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer. 2013;2013:875615.
  • Stott-Miller M, Neuhouser ML, Stanford JL. Consumption of deep-fried foods and risk of prostate cancer. Prostate. 2013 Jun;73(9):960-9.
  • Takata Y, Zhang X, Li H, Gao YT, Yang G, Gao J, Cai H, Xiang YB, Zheng W, Shu XO. Fish Intake and Risks of Total and Cause-specific Mortality in 2 Population-based Cohort Studies of 134,296 Men and Women. Am J Epidemiol. 2013 Jul 1;178(1):46-57.
  • Theodoratou E, McNeill G, Cetnarskyj R, et al. Dietary fatty acids and colorectal cancer: a case-control study. Am J Epidemiol. 2007; 166:181 – 195. 
  • Torfadottir JE, Valdimarsdottir UA, Mucci LA, Kasperzyk JL, Fall K, Tryggvadottir L, Aspelund T, Olafsson O, Harris TB, Jonsson E, Tulinius H, Gudnason V, Adami HO, Stampfer M, Steingrimsdottir L. Consumption of fish products across the lifespan and prostate cancer risk. PLoS One. 2013 Apr 17;8(4):e59799.