05-02-2018 17:29 - edited 05-02-2018 17:33
05-02-2018 17:29 - edited 05-02-2018 17:33
"A new study published in JAMA Oncology finds that women with breast cancer who have more muscle mass have a better chance of survival.
In general, when people aren’t well they can lose a lot of weight, and much of that weight is muscle. Low muscle mass, called sarcopenia in medicine, also often occurs as we age, and it seems to correlate with poorer outcomes in people who are chronically ill, including those who suffer from cancer."
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/breast-cancer-patients-fare-muscle/story?id=54305456
Interestingly, the study in JAMA also found, "BMI alone was not significantly related to overall mortality and did not appropriately identify patients at risk of death owing to their body composition."
05-16-2018 00:51
05-16-2018 00:51
This is a perfect example of an uninformed medical correspondent drawing an illogical and deadly conclusion.
First of all, a course of treatment CANNOT be drawn from an observational study. All an observational study can do is uncover associations, most of which turn out not to be significant. There is not even a shred of evidence of cause and effect in this study. It is equally likely that more aggressive forms of cancer cause a person to lose muscle density and increase fat.
The deadly recommendation is to eat more animal proteins, especially milk, which have been linked in interventional studies to cause cancer. The mechanism is well documented. Milk products are the most significant carcinogenic substance known that people regularly consume. This extends to all animal proteins and to all forms of cancer. Anytime the calories from animal proteins exceed somewhere between 10 and 20% of a person's diet, cancer cells start to grow. It's actually the same mechanism that causes muscle cells to grow quickly.
You should know the milk industry is a significant contributor to JAMA and Dr. Campbell pointed out in his book "Whole" how this affects which articles they publish.
05-16-2018 04:29
05-16-2018 04:29
@GershonSurge wrote:Milk products are the most significant carcinogenic substance known that people regularly consume. This extends to all animal proteins and to all forms of cancer.
It’s not what the American Cancer Society tells us:
Overweight and obesity increase the risk for getting breast cancer. What’s less clear is the link between breast cancer risk and any one food type.
Some early studies raised concerns about whether drinking milk from cows treated with hormones can raise risk of breast cancer or other types of cancer. But later studies failed to find a clear link. At this time, it is not clear that drinking milk produced with or without hormone treatment is of any concern regarding cancer risk or other health effects
Dominique | Finland
Ionic, Aria, Flyer, TrendWeight | Windows 7, OS X 10.13.5 | Motorola Moto G6 (Android 9), iPad Air (iOS 12.4.4)
Take a look at the Fitbit help site for further assistance and information.
05-16-2018 07:48
05-16-2018 07:48
If you persist in not reading the many references I give you, you will persist in your ignorance. If you read "Whole" you will find Dr. Campbell discusses the American Cancer Study and their recommendations in depth. But then, you are considerably younger than I, and you haven't had as much time to read.
05-16-2018 08:33
05-16-2018 08:33
@GershonSurge wrote:
This is a perfect example of an uninformed medical correspondent drawing an illogical and deadly conclusion.
First of all, a course of treatment CANNOT be drawn from an observational study. All an observational study can do is uncover associations, most of which turn out not to be significant. There is not even a shred of evidence of cause and effect in this study. It is equally likely that more aggressive forms of cancer cause a person to lose muscle density and increase fat.
The deadly recommendation is to eat more animal proteins, especially milk, which have been linked in interventional studies to cause cancer. The mechanism is well documented. Milk products are the most significant carcinogenic substance known that people regularly consume. This extends to all animal proteins and to all forms of cancer. Anytime the calories from animal proteins exceed somewhere between 10 and 20% of a person's diet, cancer cells start to grow. It's actually the same mechanism that causes muscle cells to grow quickly.
You should know the milk industry is a significant contributor to JAMA and Dr. Campbell pointed out in his book "Whole" how this affects which articles they publish.
Are we reading the same study? There is no mention of treatment, or strength training as treatment. It is merely pointing out the association (and a reasonable one), that less muscle mass is associated with poorer outcomes in chronically ill patients, including cancer patients.
Diet, your personal feelings aside, isn't relevant in the study. Whether someone builds muscle with milk or eating beans is outside the scope of the article. What is important is being aware of sarcopenia. Do you have any dietary tips that prevent sarcopenia?
05-16-2018 09:15
05-16-2018 09:15
Perhaps you didn't scroll past the picture in the article:
"Keep in mind, a good diet -- particularly one with protein -- helps build healthy muscle. Good sources of protein include lean meat, eggs, yogurt, fish, beans, and nuts. The recommended daily allowance (RDA) of protein is based on your weight. A women who weighs 125 pounds needs about 45 grams of protein in a day. That would be about 3 ounces of chicken and 3 cups of milk in a day. Eat the protein another way and it’s 4.5 ounces of salmon and 100 almonds. No matter what foods you choose, don’t forget the protein."
05-16-2018 12:08
05-16-2018 16:01
05-16-2018 16:01
Yes, I do. I think the purpose of the study was for Kaiser to sell more CAT scans.
As for the value of strength training as we get older, I suggest reading "Start Strong, Finish Strong by Ken Cooper. He has been collecting data since the early 60's and doing interventional treatment.
05-17-2018 03:55 - edited 05-17-2018 03:58
05-17-2018 03:55 - edited 05-17-2018 03:58
If you like, I'll give you some thoughts that I haven't confirmed through scientific studies.
Over the years, I've noticed the people who live the longest are steadily active. Not doing formal exercise, but doing things like gardening, household chores, social events, dancing, etc. Things that are called None Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT). My neighbor, who is a very healthy 83, spends his mornings doing some kind of work in the yard. We have a joke going that every time he cuts his lawn, I cut mine -- or is it the other way around? Some days we spend the whole morning alternating cutting the lawn. Not really, but it's a funny picture in my mind.
I haven't noticed very many weightlifters live a long life, but I haven't known too many weightlifters except at the gym.
When people get cancer, many of them lose muscle weight. On the study, I agree there is an association, but it seems to be that the cancer causes muscle loss and not that the muscle loss causes cancer progression. What I have noticed is people who get an absurdly challenging goal live the longest. Take Ruth Heidrich. She got cancer at age 47. She was cured through diet by Dr. McDougall between 1980 and 1984. She also had some operations. She started doing Ironman triathlons. Recently, she ran a marathon.
There were some flaws in the original Aerobics study done by Dr. Cooper. He tilted all the way towards aerobic exercise. Now, he suggests a balance of 100 minus your age in strength training and aerobic exercise. The minimum amount is pretty close to the 20 minutes a day the CDC or whoever recommends. That would be at a pace greater than 4 mph. Strength training is important as we get older so we don't the use of our muscles by losing the neuro-connections. That's a fancy term for literally forgetting how to get up from the floor without assistance from a nearby object like a table. I once saw a woman fall in the middle of the street and she literally could not figure out how to get up. I helped her.
My sister is going on 70 and she lifts almost every day. She uses one 25 pound dumbbell and does a half hour super-set. For many years, she has done 100 reps of jumping rope every time she gets out of the car. Her goal is to be in shape for rowing and kayaking. Not a float trip. A 17-mile trip paddling around a lake. She independently decided to eat virtually the same way I do.
My sister is a retired pathologist and was interested in the combination of eating and exercise for about 40 years. Strength training becomes important for the bones at the point we can't leave the ground when running. Flexing the bones even a minor amount helps to keep them strong. Their circulation system is like squeezing a sponge and releasing it. Calcium pills just build bones that look like chalk. Great on an x-ray, but insanely brittle. Water aerobics is especially destructive if people aren't doing the other work.
At some point, a person has to admit they can no longer go uphill and gain muscle mass. However, it is easy enough to dramatically slow the loss. I've found if I direct my activities towards productive work, I get the same results I did through jogging and weightlifting. The important thing is to burn about 1,000 calories above BMR a day. I have no experience to justify this number except for my weight range. My BMI is about 22 now. Usually, just under. I'm at the same weight I was when I was 19. Yes, I look skinny, but that's my body type.
I have a friend who is close to 70 if not already 70. He has hiked or walked at least five miles a day since he was 19. He also does an insane number of household projects like painting, refinishing bathrooms, installing water heaters, etc. He also spends about 100 days in a row working in the oil fields during the winter so he has money to go on trips during the summer.
One reason I recommend "Whole" by Dr. Campbell is he explains how much of our lives are controlled by advertising and spin. Forget the eating aspect. Once you realize the tricks of the trade, you can see it everywhere. Don't ever get caught up in the medical system to any greater extent than you have to. If you ever get in the hospital, they will try to pile up the expenses every minute of the day. I could easily write a book on this topic. Remember, they get paid for even a passing word in the hall. I had it happen and refused to pay that charge.
My advice, as if anyone really wants it, is to do your research, pick a true north, and head in that direction until you decide if it works or not. If you feel strength training is important, do it as much as you like in any way that you like. Don't worry about what some researcher says. Listen to your body. If your interests change do something else. But whatever happens, stay as active as you can. It's all good.
Hope this helps.
05-18-2018 00:11 - edited 05-18-2018 04:07
05-18-2018 00:11 - edited 05-18-2018 04:07
@GershonSurge wrote:If you persist in not reading the many references I give you, you will persist in your ignorance. If you read "Whole" you will find Dr. Campbell discusses the American Cancer Study and their recommendations in depth. But then, you are considerably younger than I, and you haven't had as much time to read.
I don’t know what’s "the American Cancer Study": there are hundreds of studies conducted on cancer, not just in America, but all over the world. Why would I read a single book by a single, ideologically motivated writer, when I can read comprehensive reviews of the total scientific litterature by panels comprised of qualified professionals? For instance, reports by the World Cancer Research Fund: here are two, one on breast cancer and one on prostate cancer (among the most common forms of cancer for women and men):
http://www.aicr.org/continuous-update-project/reports/breast-cancer-report-2017.pdf (120 pages)
http://www.aicr.org/assets/docs/pdf/reports/2014-prostate-cancer-cup.pdf (52 pages)
Are you saying that the evidence and conclusions layed out in these reports are complete BS?
Dominique | Finland
Ionic, Aria, Flyer, TrendWeight | Windows 7, OS X 10.13.5 | Motorola Moto G6 (Android 9), iPad Air (iOS 12.4.4)
Take a look at the Fitbit help site for further assistance and information.