Advanced Breast Cancer On the Rise in Younger Women....I wonder why

reply to post by Long Lance

you can increase and even maximise your intake of fresh food, but guess what it won't be ten meals. if i ate one cherry every hour would that count? shouldn't you say that around half (percentages may vary) of your food ought to be fresh?

A meal is way more than a serving size. Supper, for instance, could be soup or salad ( 1 serving veggie depending on size), a couple more servings of veggies, a serving of meat or fish, and a serving of grain (a single slice of bread, or a small bun). I would even consider a piece of fruit pie a serving too, even though being loaded with sugar, not the healthiest serving. But still a serving.

Serving sizes are small amounts. A serving size of cherries or berries is only about half a cup. Same with most fruits or veggies.
And yeah, the fresher the better.

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by snowspirit

Originally posted by beckybecky

The overall difference between women who wore their bras 24-hours a day and those who did not wear bras at all was a 125-fold difference.

(x7)

In essence, what singer and grismaijer study found was that the odds of getting breast cancer dramatically increased with bra-wearing over 12 hours per day.

* women who wore their bras 24 hours per day had a 3 out of 4 chance of developing breast cancer (in their study, n=2056 for the cancer group and n=2674 for the standard group).
* women who wore bras more than 12 hour per day but not to bed had a 1 out of 7 risk.
* women who wore their bras less than 12 hours per day had a 1 out of 152 risk.
* women who wore bras rarely or never had a 1 out of 168 chance of getting breast cancer. The overall difference between 24 hour wearing and not at all was a 125-fold difference.

A 125 fold difference is 12500%

(The MTV generation might not understand that a 125 fold increases=12500% NOT 125% so I repeated this.)

Lifestyle and diet studies for cancer always have differences in the region of 20 to 60% usually.

This is a 12500% difference.

4700 women took part in the study.

The results of this study are compelling, even considering that it was not a "controlled study" for other risk factors. Bear in mind that known (published in medical journals) risk factors for breast cancer are mostly in the range of less than three-fold differences. It should also be noted that singer and grismaijer surveyed bra-wearing behavior of the past, which is excellent for a disease with such a long development period. The authors show how most of the known risk factors can be related to bra-wearing behavior and/or the lymphatic system.

For example, breast feeding and pregnancy cause full development of the mammary lymphatics. Also, women of higher economic status have higher breast cancer rates, and one would expect that they would wear their bras more hours per day. Women who excercise have lower risk, which could relate to better lymphatic circulation (and I would add, more breast movement).

To this discussion, I would like to add that lymphatic circulation in many tissues (especially the primary lymphatics) are highly dependent on movement. When you sit for a long time on an airplane flight, your feet and ankles can swell, because lymphatic circulation goes to near zero. Wearing a bra, especially a constricting one with underwires, and especially to bed, prevents normal lymphatic flow and would likely lead to anoxia (lower than normal oxygen content), which has been related to fibrosis, which has been linked to increased cancer risk.

Women evolved under conditions where there was breast movement with every step that they took when they walked or ran. My reading of the scientific literature about lymphatic flow shows me that this may be as important as the constriction factor. Every subtle bounce of the breast while moving, walking, running, etc. Gently massages the breast and increases lymphatic flow and thus cleans the breast of toxins and wastes that arise from cellular metabolism.

Of course, there may be other mechanisms for the damage that bras apparently cause. One such mechanism could be temperature. Breasts are external organs and have a naturally lower temperature. Cancers can be temperature-dependent. Breast cancer is hormone-dependent. Temperature can alter hormone function. Breast temperature changes throughout the monthly cycle.

All these facts are from the medical literature. By whatever mechanism, someone will eventually explain why singer and grismaijer found a 125-fold difference in cancer rates between bra-free breasts and those constricted by 24-hour-per-day bra-wearing.

Also, just for an interesting experiment, the next time you walk down the street, notice visually how constricting bras are. On many women you can actually see "dents" around the sides of their chests where there bras are, even in something as opaque as a black t-shirt.


Years ago, many people thought that the idea of cigarettes causing lung cancer was funny. Even if further research with highly controlled studies only shows a difference of 5-fold, or even 2-fold, it will be no laughing matter.

(The MTV generation might not understand that a 125 fold increases=12500% NOT 125% so I repeated this.)

Lifestyle and diet studies for cancer always have differences in the region of 20 to 60% usually.

This is a 12500% difference.

reply to post by beckybecky


I've love reading your posts on this issue. I very rarely where a bra, they feel constricting, and when younger, I didn't need one. Just did lots of exercises.

I still only wear one if going out and need to prop up to fill the sweater properly, lol

I had heard years ago that the lymph fluid needs to travel freely, and it explains why when I do wear a bra, it feels like it used to when breast feeding, you get "full". It's from being constricted. It's not a good feeling. :shk:

After reading your posts, I feel like not wearing a bra was a very healthy choice - I'm just glad that I'm not someone who really needs the extra support.

My husband also enjoyed your posts here, he likes them free
I think he'd like any covering up top gone as well, but that's not happening, lol.

reply to post by chasingbrahman

I'm surprised that people will look at microwave ovens before looking at the possibility that injecting yourself with synthetic hormones could possibly be the answer. I've had so many horrible reactions to birth control ....you name it ..I've been on it..and had some side effects I couldn't deal with. Ignoring the very chemicals and hormones woman take on a daily basis and giving credence to GMo's .....what???? I believe the article the OP gave was about breast cancer over the last 3 decades .
There are several types of cancer ...hormone reactive ....immunity reactive ......I'll come back with sources...*blush*

reply to post by snowspirit


I'm one of those women who have to wear a bra in public - C cup, 50 years old - or I look like an old cow. But, as soon as I walk in the house, it's the first thing to come off. I always tell younger women who want bigger breasts that they don't know what they're asking for. It was sooo nice to go braless all the time when I was younger.

I've heard that young women ( in their teens) who had a baby and breast fed, have almost a 0% chance of having breast cancer - don't know if it's true. I had my son when I was 18, and I breast fed him - not that that's a responsible thing to do in today's world, but I happened to be one.

I also think birthcontrol and all the hormones in food, lack of vit. D, cell phones, and all the plastics in the food are making a rise in breast cancer.

reply to post by Happy1

The National Cancer institute has an entire learning module on estrogen. Documentaries on the "Disappearing Male" all feeds into estrogen's, and then woman go and take more synthetic estrogen .......hmmmm. www.cancer.gov...

reply to post by beckybecky


We should be able to see an increase in breast cancer among men then. Or some type of cancer.

Men didnt typically wear anything tight like that regularly.

But look at the teens these days? They all have tight fitting under armor shirts on that in some cases have to be tighter than a bra.

reply to post by Happy1

I've heard that young women ( in their teens) who had a baby and breast fed, have almost a 0% chance of having breast cancer - don't know if it's true. I had my son when I was 18, and I breast fed him - not that that's a responsible thing to do in today's world, but I happened to be one.

I had a really good doctor through my 20s, and he always said breast feeding helped. And 18 used to be the perfect age for having children, just today's world is different (difficult world). Our hormones though (menstruation), prepare us for children at an early age, so for our health sake late teen - early 20s is probably still the healthiest age.

You're around my age. Our grandparents likely would have had 2 or 3 kids by age 18, and already been married for a few years.
Times have sure changed....

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by beckybecky

 

We should be able to see an increase in breast cancer among men then. O.

you make no sense at all.

(The MTV generation might not understand that a 125 fold increases=12500% NOT 125% so I repeated this.)

Lifestyle and diet studies for cancer always have differences in the region of 20 to 60% usually.

This is a 12500% difference.

it seems school was wasted on people here.

they just can't seem to get through their thick heads a 12500% is equivalent to a guarantee or a on/off switch in terms of causation of cancer.

i would not be surprised if some of you think 12500% means 1.25%

actually it is twelve thousand and five hundred percent.

12500%

(The MTV generation might not understand that a 125 fold increases=12500% NOT 125% so I repeated this.)

Lifestyle and diet studies for cancer always have differences in the region of 20 to 60% usually.

This is a 12500% difference.

reply to post by beckybecky


Did you just have the nerve to crop my post and completely ignore what I fully said.

And then insult me?

We should be able to see an increase in breast cancer among men then. Or some type of cancer.

Men didnt typically wear anything tight like that regularly.

But look at the teens these days? They all have tight fitting under armor shirts on that in some cases have to be tighter than a bra.

Oh look it's my actual post. And since you can't actually read very well, I went ahead and highlighted the important parts. Don't worry, becky. Unlike your un-inelligent wall of ranting that you tried to insult me with, it's only two sentences.

I'm sure you'll manage to make it through two sentences. And there's a gold star waiting when you actually do. Yay!

In all seriousness. I actually did read your post. You'll be wondering, what was I trying to say? Well Becky, your post mentioned the correlation between bras and lymphatic blockage. If this were a primary cause of that increase, don't you'd think we'll see an increase in breast cancer amongst men with the societal trend of wearing athletic compression shirts all the time?

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by beckybecky

 

Did you just have the nerve to crop my post and completely ignore what I fully said.

And then insult me?

We should be able to see an increase in breast cancer among men then. Or some type of cancer.



.

I'm sure you'll manage to make it through two sentences. And there's a gold star waiting when you actually do. Y

edit on 6-3-2013 by Miraj because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-3-2013 by Miraj because: (no reason given)

I DON'T INSULT PEOPLE.

I OBSERVE ONLY.

We should be able to see an increase in breast cancer among men then. Or some type of cancer.


THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

EXPLAIN IT.

We should be able to see an increase in breast cancer among men then. Or some type of cancer.

what does that mean?

which shirt squashes a man like bra.

armor.WHAT IS ARMOR?

tell us.

The MTV generation might not understand that a 125 fold increases=12500% NOT 125% so I repeated this

We should be able to see an increase in breast cancer among men then. Or some type of cancer.

www.breastcancerfund.org...
and
www.breastcancerfund.org...

are worth a read, I knew about these chemicals in the 1970s and have little faith that anything will be done as big money is far more important than the health of people who "dont know" (sarcasm)

reply to post by Imightknow

Originally posted by snowspirit
reply to post by Happy1

 

I've heard that young women ( in their teens) who had a baby and breast fed, have almost a 0% chance of having breast cancer - don't know if it's true. I had my son when I was 18, and I breast fed him - not that that's a responsible thing to do in today's world, but I happened to be one.

I had a really good doctor through my 20s, and he always said breast feeding helped. And 18 used to be the perfect age for having children, just today's world is different (difficult world). Our hormones though (menstruation), prepare us for children at an early age, so for our health sake late teen - early 20s is probably still the healthiest age.

You're around my age. Our grandparents likely would have had 2 or 3 kids by age 18, and already been married for a few years.

Times have sure changed....

Just redoing this post to see if that picture is still showing.

Too funny.
I think I've been hacked.

There should not be a pic in my post. Lol.

reply to post by beckybecky



Really? You never insulted me when you said that all my schooling was for nothing, or when you reffered to me as the "MTV Generation"?

In all seriousness. I actually did read your post. You'll be wondering, what was I trying to say? Well Becky, your post mentioned the correlation between bras and lymphatic blockage. If this were a primary cause of that increase, don't you'd think we'll see an increase in breast cancer amongst men with the societal trend of wearing athletic compression shirts all the time

I'll go ahead and explain. In your post it was suggested that an increase in breast cancer in women, could be due to lymphatic blockage when the bra is on. Now, I know its not nearly the same rate, even slightly due to hormones but A) Men do get breast cancer. It does happen. B) Men also have lymphatic ducts.

Now.


Now this is a typical under armour shirt. What do you think it does? It presses down on the body, especially on the chest. Teenage males and adult men sometimes wear these things all day.

Don't you think if there increased breast cancer rates among men since now the same mechanism is in place that could be causing the increase in women?

Another cause may be soy. Soy is highly pathogenic and its in nearly all processed foods.

Then there's soy milk, marketed as a health food. In fact its poison. Google it and you'll see what I mean.

reply to post by Imightknow

Im concerned about the reproductive ability of young women in future,if the cysts and gynaecological problems they are having these days,are anything to go by.
Whats even more disturbing,is the fact that docs,even a specialist in my country,assured me that "its always been this way-its completely normal,we just did'nt have the technology to detect it a generation or 2 ago"
So-if they Did'nt have the tech to detect it-HOW COULD THEY POSSIBLY JUST STATE THAT CYSTS ON THE INNER REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS OF YOUNG GIRLS(and the painful symptoms it can cause)HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PRESENT?
How could they possibly know?
Young women talk,women talk a Lot-and its an age where one is pretty self-centred-i do Not recall young women having a quarter of the problems they seem to view as "normal" these days!Our problems were confined to pain during the monthly cycle,maybe for some,heavy bleeding for the first 2/3 days-inconvenient at best,painful+messy at worst.But bleeding cysts,at 15yo,when one has never even been sexually active,for instance? NOT ON YOUR NELLY.
At least,in my country,that was the case.
I have also wondered if it could be ascribed to agricultural+livestock practices,the result of which then enters the food supply.Sout Africa has always been quicker than most of Africa to catch up with overseas techniques,and the agricultural sector has always been on the ball here,anyway.So maybe,its in the food we eat.
I hope its just that-although heaven knows,thats bad enough-one has to be either wealthy or very lucky to have access to purely organic food nowadays.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by beckybecky


If you're serious.

I feel we have another Jared Loughner on our hands.