soy compound linked to LOWER breast cancer risk
Posted by pinkerbell03 on Apr 11, 2008 · Member since Mar 2007 · 850 posts
Good to see this. I worked at a cancer center for two years, worked w/ three of the most brilliant oncologists (who always told me that there was no viable research that shows a soy/cancer link), and I can't count how many times I've been asked, or told rather, sometimes by complete strangers no less, that soy caused breast cancer.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080411/hl_nm/soy_compound_dc;_ylt=AphEpUqaP3JY4D4elVJPq7YDW7oF
Hallelujah.
The whole soy/breast cancer thing relates to the fact that soy contains estrogen. But, I mean, so do my birth control pills. I'm not that worried. The whole thing is blown so out of proportion.
This is good to see! ;)b
This is encouraging to know. I did wonder about a couple of things, though, reading the article.
1) "Some animal research, in fact, has suggested that genistein might spur tumor development and growth. The new findings, reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, suggest that this is not the case in women, at least when genistein is consumed through food alone." - what else is genistein found in, if not only in food? I'll have to research that when I'm done here cuz now I'm curious. (Birth control pills? Other stuff?)
2) Did the research isloate the many other variables that could play a part in possibly reducing the cancer rate? Just curious. I like to look at all the angles to satisfy my mind. ::) It mentioned that there was a reduction with the high levels of genistein compared to the lowest levels, but no diff showed with the moderate levels. That seems interesting. Does that mean there was no difference in women ingesting moderate amounts of soy who got cancer compared to those who did only eating low amounts? Am I just not understanding it correctly?
"When Iwasaki's team separated the women based on their blood levels of genistein at the study's start, they found that the one-quarter with highest levels were 65 percent less likely to develop breast cancer than the quarter of women with the lowest genistein levels.
There was no risk reduction seen among women with moderate levels of the isoflavone, however."
3) (Ok, I lied. I have 3 questions.) And also, who funded the study- who funded the research? It just says researchers. That's always good to know to get an idea if they're independent or have a possible bias or motive. <-- speaking generally here
Well I tried googling genistein with nmerous other words to find out what else it might be in besides food with no luck. I'm tired of looking, so I give up. Someone let me know if you know of anything else.
I also tried looking up the article at "American Journal of Clinical Oncology" site to see the info from the original study, but had no luck finding it. :( Struck out twice! Boo.
FF, I LOVE that you want to look at all the angles. I love that you research things, and that you don't just believe everything you read. It's nice to ee that, I feel like too many people read something once, believe it til death, and never actually look into it. Kudos to you lady!
Totally. The Fightress dominates the News and Debate Board with her mad skills. ;)b
Ha ha! You guys (ladies) rock! I'm just glad I'm not annoying the heck out of everyone! ;)
As far as funding:
"Supported by grants-in-aid for cancer research, for the Third Term Comprehensive Ten-Year Strategy for Cancer Control, and for Research on Risk of Chemical Substances from the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare of Japan; and Grant-In-Aid No. 17015049 for Scientific Research on Priority Areas and Grant-In-Aid No. 17790378 for Young Scientists from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science."
Conducted by:
"From the Epidemiology and Prevention Division, Research Center for Cancer Prevention and Screening, National Cancer Center; Department of Sport and Exercise Nutrition, School of Physical Education, Sendai University; and the Cancer Information Services and Surveillance Division, Center for Cancer Control and Information Services, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan"
My university doesn't subscribe to the Journal of Clinical Oncology, so I can't get the full text, but that is all in the abstract. My girlfriend works in an oncology/toxicology lab, maybe I'll ask her to work on this type of thing next.
Ljette- wow, thanks! You kick butt!! :D How did you locate that? (So I can get better at digging!)
cow's milk has estrogen too.....i mean come on, its made for baby cows by a female animal. of course its going to have estrogen in it?! why do people worry more about soy estrogen than cow estrogen?
don't all plant foods have some level of plant estrogen in them?
cow's milk has estrogen too.....i mean come on, its made for baby cows by a female animal. of course its going to have estrogen in it?! why do people worry more about soy estrogen than cow estrogen?
don't all plant foods have some level of plant estrogen in them?
What I noticed working w/ cancer patients, especially the breast cancer patients, they wanted to blame it on something. So when the whole soy cancer connection theory, and the antiperspirant one as well came out, so many people were eager to grab onto it. I had a patient that was convinced that she got her breast cancer because she used to be vegan, and she ate a lot of soy. Hmm, maybe it's because your mom/grandma/aunts/cousins had it.
I completely understand, I had cancer too, and I still have theories to why I got it at such a young age. You don't want to think that your body turned against you, grew a nasty tumor inside you just because, there HAS to be something that did this to you, your diet, your drinking water, your deodorant... It's always easier if you have something or someone to blame. Again, MY opinion, based on my observations and my own experience.
I think what they mean by non-food sources of genistein is that the lab animals were probably fed pure genistein, rather than eating whole so products that naturally contain genistein. Stuff like this is done one purpose in non-human animal studies to eliminate confounding factors (but it seems like here that the whole food product is different enough or humans are different enough to change the results entirely).
Also, birth control estrogens and cow estrogens are not the same as plant estrogen. Phytoestrogen apparently acts like an (animal) estrogen analog, and that's where the confusion about its effects come in. If it's an analog, the body could read it just like estrogen (--> increased breast cell cancer growth), or it could be a competitive inhibitor, locking on the site and preventing (animal) estrogen from getting in (--> reduced breast cell cancer growth). Also, there's different types of animal estrogens, so the ones in cow's milk mght not have the same effect as the birth control estradiols.
I've been reading lots and lots of research lately about the animal protein and cancer connection. The animal studies (as unfortunate as it is that they exist =/...) are pretty convincing that casein (milk protein) is a major promoter for cancerous growth. A number of studies show an animal protein-cancer association in humans, but most are case-control studies that can't really prove causation. And, of the dairy-cancer studies out there, there seems to be mixed results. Supposedly this might be because vitamin D and calcium might have a protective effect (so said one research review, but who ever said how or why they would? ??? ).
What we need us is some long-term prospective study regarding diet and cancer incidence. Expensive indeed, but it was the only way they proved the smoking/lung cancer link!
Wow, thanks ladies for all the great info!
What we need us is some long-term prospective study regarding diet and cancer incidence. Expensive indeed, but it was the only way they proved the smoking/lung cancer link!
what about The China Study by T Colin Campbell? If you haven't read this, I think you would like it, FB.....its a 30 year study that links diet to all kinds of disease, including cancer.
I did read it, but the problem was that in many instances, counties were compared, not individuals.
My searches are limited to what I can access online for free from the university, so there might be some part of the China Study that did in fact do this... I just can't access it. For my research paper I looked up a lot of his sources, and only a little over half were available to me online. =( sucks. it seems like access to scientific studies should be free for everyone! i know the journals have to make money, but it seems like we should know about diet/disease or new cancer treatments or the efficacy/side effects of the new drugs we see advertised on tv... right?
"Some animal research, in fact, has suggested that genistein might spur tumor development and growth."
I never believe these animal research things. I am against animal testing for two reasons.
1) it's cruel
2) it is false. Animals have different systems then humans. What effects a rat, or a cat, or a dog, or whetever, will not necessarily effect a human the same way. Wasn't there a case sometime when something was toxic to rats, but it was a cure for a disease in humans? Chocolate is toxic to dogs, but to humans it is healthy by providing antioxidents. So I never believe animal tests. Now if they test on humans and there are adverse effects, then okay, I believe.