Note: before anyone pooh-poohs this article for being in a blog mostly about weather and climate, note the description on the masthead. Note also that I have recently experienced cancer in my family as I’m sure many readers have at some time, therefore it is relevant to me, and may be helpful to others, and that’s all that matters. – Anthony
Guest post by David Archibald
Before starting out in climate science in 2006, my main hobby was cancer research. To that end, I had co-invented a cancer drug with two professors from Purdue University, Professor Jim Morre and his wife Professor Dorothy Morre. I went on to lodge a patent on a benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) drug myself. I still operate in that space. Early in that journey, I was given the draft manuscript of a book on how isoflavones from soy and other legumes modulate the human female hormone system.
That was in 1998. The manuscript had been written by Dr Graham Kelly who had founded a company to commercialise isoflavone supplementation in men and women. Dr Kelly’s journey in cancer research started in the 1980s when a friend with bowel cancer asked him to look into the science of it. Dr Kelly was intrigued by the epidemiological differences in cancer rates between populations. For example, Japanese who migrate to the US go to the US breast cancer rate in a generation. The US breast cancer rate is five times the Japanese breast cancer rate. The difference in cancer rate is not genetic, it is obviously dietary. So what is the difference in diet that is causing the difference in cancer incidence? A big difference is isoflavone consumption. Amongst the Japanese, it is an average of 40 mg per day. The US average is 3 mg per day.
In Western countries, breast cancer and prostate cancer have the same incidence. In women, 11% get diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime and 5% die of it. In men, 11% get diagnosed with prostate cancer in their lifetime and 5% die of it. There are very big epidemiological differences in prostate cancer rates. As the following graph shows, the Vietnamese prostate cancer rate is one fortieth of the Western prostate cancer rate:
Defeating the scourge of a lot of common cancers is as simple as changing your diet. It is a bit like Vitamin C. If you don’t get any Vitamin C in your diet, you die of scurvy within three years. Pigs and dogs make their own Vitamin C, and presumably some precursor ape to humans had the ability to make it. Humans must have lost the ability for an evolutionary advantage. There are probably a large number of other plant molecules which we evolved to rely upon in our diet. We might not die in the near term if we don’t get them in our diet, but we suffer an increased incidence of degenerative diseases if we don’t. With respect to the dietary components that might cause the low Vietnamese prostate cancer rate, the national dish of Vietnam is called pho. It is a bowl of noodles and meat with three side dishes – bean sprouts, chillis and mint. The anticancer effect would be the result of synergistic blocking of the tNOX molecule on the external membrane of cancer cells by sulforaphane from the bean sprouts with capsaicin from the chilli peppers, stopping the overproduction of anti-apoptotic proteins and allowing the death receptors to trigger the apoptotic cascade of the caspases.
Back to Dr Kelly’s book, “Hormones with Harmony”. It is 70,000 words and goes into highly readable detail on how the daughter metabolites of isoflavones become human hormones in the body. They then become very useful in evening out the peaks and troughs of the body’s estrogenic hormones: estradiol, estrone and estriol. The book goes into detail on how the plant-derived hormones are beneficial in pms, mastalgia, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, menopausal symptoms, osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, cataracts, senile dementia and breast cancer. Without being overly technical, it does not talk down to its readers. Earlier this year, I undertook to get it published and it is now available on Kindle for $5 per copy. I do recommend it.
Further to the subject of prostate cancer, there are a number of plant molecules that have an effect on it and BPH. All cancers have tNOX molecules on their external membranes. tNOX is the tumour variant of cNOX, or normal constituent NOX. No plant molecules bind to cNOX but a number bind to tNOX. tNOX has two binding sites. If both are bound to simultaneously, the effect is synergistic. For example, the combination of sulforaphane with capsaicin has twenty times the effect of sulforaphane alone. Another example of synergism is curcumin from turmeric with piperine from black pepper.
David Archibald
December 2012
Sounds reasonable. And then there’s this that I ran across just recently:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2239110/Just-soft-drink-day-raises-mens-risk-aggressive-prostate-cancer-40-cent.html
While general diet change would be a confounder, I would imagine that drinking Western style sodas has probably made a much faster/bigger inroad of change in the Vietnamese diet over the last 50 years. So if the soda connection is real I would think it would show up pretty strongly given the low rates to begin with.
– MJM
The health food business is the last refuge of the old time medical quacks and they are thriving like never before, using words like isoflavines, flavinoids, anti-oxidants, and so forth. As for the rest of us, well, there’s a sucker born every minute. When it comes to pseudo-scientific BS, the health foods promoters are worse than climate scientists. A word of warning.
When I think of each person I know who has been diagnosed with anything from cancer to ADHD, it occurs to me that none of them have chosen the same modality of healing for the same disorder. One thing I have learned is to respect the individual decisions people make.
What people with perfect bills of health might not be able to understand is that some of the cures modern medicine prescribes are, on balance, worse than the actual disease. If you get diagnosed with a life threatening disease, I think it is important to make it a goal not to be killed or maimed by doctor-caused illness; and also not to let the disease become the center of your life and all your thinking.
Anyways, people all have a different sense of what they should do to become well. This is why Obamacare and the state exchanges boards (which are government panels which tell insurance cos what to cover), is such a horrifying thought. Americans do not want this layer of bureaucracy telling them how to care for their own bodies.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/29/why-states-should-reject-the-california-model-of-a-health-insurance-exchange/
Charles Tossy says:
December 12, 2012 at 8:14 am
—
There is no archaelogical evidence to suggest that people lived longer thousands of years ago. The life of the hunter gatherer was brutal, and for the most part short.
gnomish says:
December 12, 2012 at 9:15 am
Yes, hormones do pass into the milk, but those hormones were already there. One of the requirements of the FDA is that these treatments not increase hormone levels in the milk.
“””””…..MarkW says:
December 12, 2012 at 7:52 am
Just to be anal about it, I see two mastheads, the first and more prominent states:
The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change…..”””””
Gee; “””””…..Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature science, weather climate change, technology and recent news by Anthony Watts…..”””””
Dammit Anthony ! this place ain’t supposed to be about climate change, until we run out of puzzling things in life, to talk about. You better shape up, or I’m leaving.
George
As Garfield says, Dieting doesn’t make you live longer, it just feels that way.
Elevated LDL cholesterol levels is a sign of ongoing irritation or inflammation. One major and frequently unmentioned cause is gum disease – yep, your dentist can help protect your heart. The reason is that inflamed gums are essentially infected, and that infection has direct access to your circulatory system, and thus the rest of your body. So, take care of your teeth and they will take care of you.
Also, it seems that the higher LDL levels in US beef are the result of feed-lot use of corn. “Corn-fed beef” was a major marketing ploy back in the day and has now become a fixture in the US consciousness – corn fed beef is special. But really, no, no it’s not.
“Corn fed” was used to help drive up the corn market. Industrially corn is far more useful than wheat for example, and it is immensely more productive per acre. However as cattle food, it isn’t a great idea. Cattle are ruminants (cud-chewers) and are evolved to eat and happily digest relatively low value feed such as grasses and forbes, breaking down the complex carbohydrates that comprise cellulose into simpler sugars. A diet weighted heavily to corn (the entire plant is a grass, but feed-lot cattle are fed a grain-heavy diet) is hard on the cattle’s health. It throws off pH in the rumen for instance, and is directly the cause of the increasing use of antibiotics in factory-fattened animals. That in turn is a major factor in emerging antibiotic resistant bacteria strains, either number one, or two with hospitals right next door. Grass-fed beef is lower in LDL (like bison in fact). It isn’t as fat, and if you prefer well-done beef, may be a disappointment.
@mpainter: Agreed, but there are also benefits from navigating this chaotic industry with research tracts in hand weighted by the number and quality of the studies. That navigation is much harder without some solid research channels and crosschecks. This is comparable to navigating the science and policy issues of climate with limited or biased sources coming from all directions.
As you stated in your note, Anthony, this article is entirely appropriate for your site. Personally I think it’s refreshing to get away from the climate aspect for a change. On that note, a critique of David’s article:
Scientifically speaking, if the theory, which is supported by the statistics, has not been supported by clinical trials then this has still been validated.
Although I agree with the premise that diet can directly affect cancer rates, I do not, and would not, dismiss the genetic connection. It is my profound belief that genetics is the primary factor in causing cancer, but it only signifies a predisposition to get certain types of cancers, not the inevitability of developing cancer. In order for cancers to develop I believe that the genetic predisposition for that type of cancer has to be present and there has to be exposure to some sort of environmental trigger. One environmental trigger is your diet.
One of the things that isn’t mentioned in the article is although the Japanese (compared to Americans) suffer from lower rates of breast and prostate cancers, they suffer from significantly higher rates of pancreatic, liver, and stomach cancers. These types of cancers have also been statistically linked to diet, in particular that the Japanese eat more foods which have been deep fried, or fried in soy oil. No clinical trials have been used to substantiate those claims either, that I am aware of.
ARGHHH – proofread before submitting:
Scientifically speaking, if the theory, which is supported by the statistics, has not been supported by clinical trials then this has still NOT been validated.
Excellent choice of article, Anthony. And a Christmas prayer from here in Australia for your afflicted relative.
I’m hugely sceptical of the cancer research being conducted by pharmaceutical companies with a vested interest in not finding a cure. I wonder if anyone else has looked into the alleged therapeutic properties of THC, a compound found in cannabis resin? I understand for the alleged benefits to be had one needs to swallow it rather than smoke it.
On the other hand, I have also read reports that it cures everything from glaucoma to arthritis to practically all forms of cancer, and such claims should invite equal scepticism. Still, one wonders why such a completely harmless compound as TCH (which is not mind-altering) is outlawed in the West except when licensed in very rare cases. I mean: Why? Couldn’t possibly be because it’s a natural compound and therefore can’t be patented by a drug company, could it? Or am I being cynical?
@ur momisugly Duster says: December 12, 2012 at 11:41 am
Anthony, this IS a great blog!
Duster, I had always heard about gum disease and over all health, but NO ONE explained it to me. Thanks for more great information (I just endured the dentist, so now I know the pain is worth the gain).
oldseadog says:
December 12, 2012 at 9:42 am
The French drink lots of wine but have lower death rates from liver disease than Brits and Americans.
The Italians eat lots of olive oil and fat but have less obesity related fatal diseases than the Brits and Americans.
The Japanese eat lots of soy and have fewer deaths from certain cancers than the Brits and Americans from the same cancers.
So eat and drink what you like – it is speaking English that kills you.
(Well, some of the AGW “science” is on that level.)
This fits with the second generation from Japan having the same cancer rates as the US population 😉
mpainter says:
December 12, 2012 at 10:54 am
The health food business is the last refuge of the old time medical quacks and they are thriving like never before, using words like isoflavines, flavinoids, anti-oxidants, and so forth. As for the rest of us, well, there’s a sucker born every minute. When it comes to pseudo-scientific BS, the health foods promoters are worse than climate scientists. A word of warning.
Sure, it’s a mine field out there, but on both sides. Health care is an industry, and one not always devoted to actual health. The bottom line is that people have to educate themselves, and not just automatically accept whatever the doctor says. Traditional western medecine leaves a lot to be desired.
I had prostate cancer but it’s been in apparently total remission for years after radiation oncology. I bought the book -and I’ll pass it to a few friends who might benefit. At 83 I listen to my body about what I eat, and my diet has changed gradually as I age. My weight is constant, and I rarely have a viral ‘cold’.
Terry says:
December 12, 2012 at 9:50 am
Yes, and I’ll go you one better. The less you eat past the minimum necessary to survive, the healthier you will be.
Less is more.
Please refer to the work of Ancel Keyes. From the Wiki article:
Bad stuff for the prostate: Booze, animal fat, especially processed meat of any kind. Bad stuff in general: too much sugar, soda, artificial flavoring & coloring, most preservatives.
As I recall from reading his obit in the LA Times back in ’04 when Keyes died just short of his 101st, all diseases were reduced in post-WWII Europe among the nearly starving populations.
Finally, the golden wisdom about the prostate is this:
Many old men die with prostate cancer, but not from prostate cancer.
Soy is an alkaline food and there is a school of thought that says out of wack body pH is one of the main causes of many diseases, cancer being one. So a diet high in soy should show positive results. Most western diets are said to cause a lower pH than what would be naturally healthy. Sugar is one of the most acid foods we ingest and is thought to also be a major contributor to increased cancers in our society.
Steve Keohane said @ur momisugly December 12, 2012 at 8:06 am
Kindle Reader software is available for free for Windows. It automatically keeps my Kindle files in sync between my Kindle and desktop machine. Download from Amazon…
http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000426311
@Duster: “One major and frequently unmentioned cause is gum disease – yep, your dentist can help protect your heart. The reason is that inflamed gums are essentially infected, and that infection has direct access to your circulatory system, and thus the rest of your body.”
Actually, I’ve found that without consuming the copious carbohydrates I used to, my gum disease (as well as the whole more cavities thing) went away, without dentist intervention. So, rather than your dentist protecting your heart when he treats your gum disease, it may be that when you eat significant carbohydrate, it causes both gum disease as well as heart disease.
Tin foil hat time! A long time ago I stumbled across a site that claimed giving soya milk to young boys increased the chances of them becoming homosexual.
To be honest, I didn’t follow the arguments too well but it’s amazing how headlines stick with you. I’ve never touched soya milk since then – I had been looking for dairy free options for my wife – but it shows how certain scare stories, whether based on facts or not, can influence public opinion and get firmly embedded in the sub-concious (you all know what I’m talking about).
I’d actually pretty well forgotten about the soya story until this popped up.
I have a question unrelated to the very good diet info. It might be a dumb one. (If so, feel free to say so.)
The graph said “age standardized”. I’m not sure what that means.
I know that since chlorine and other methods of disinfecting drinking water have been introduced and other advances in the medical field (antibiotics, diagnostic equipment, surgical techniques etc., the average lifespan has increased. Our bodies won’t last forever. I wonder if and to what extent the increase in things like cancer and arthritis might be due to more people living long enough for such things “show up”?
Does “age standardized” mean that the age of the shortest average lifespan is used across the board for the comparison?
First – Thanks to AW for allowing this off-thread, but significant, post.
Second – an earlier poster indicated that cancer [‘The Cancers’, I think, as I think they are not homogenous], like global climate change, probably has many causes.
Some of them we know.
Some of them.
{Cancers and Climate Change}
Studies of UkK cancer clusters [IF – a query – I remember right] have indicated an incomer effect [so it’s not the Nuclear Power Station in your midst that causes the cancers – the same cancer cluster is true for a water treatment plant, or urban light railway – if, and only if, the ‘project’ involed a lot of immigrant labour. “Immigrant” here, meant – I surmise – from outwith the traditional marrying sphere. So for much of the UK from over 50 miles [80 km] away – not, necessarily, from the Ends of the Earth!
But fascinating. I like the spices so capsicum and the peppers do feature in our diets. [Different colour veggies are SuPpOsEd to be good for one. Do no harm, surely – and if they vary your diet, your life becoms a little bit richer!
I have blue eyes. Is there a diet that I can adopt that will help me change them to brown?
I look pretty much like my older brother. I am less overweight but we are clearly from the same gene pool.
I don’t believe that diet overrides genetic predisposition. If I have a gene that wants to clog my arteries or put a lump in some otherwise not lumpy part of me, then I need to shut off that gene, not play roulette witchcraft. Look UP the APO1 Milano gene.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apolipoprotein_A1
The family that has this gene an eat fatty cheeseburgers 10 times a day and they suffer no plaque accumulation.
It ain’t diet….. it is individual metabolic machinery.
I can no more change my eye color as I can change my cancer susceptibility.
Oh yes I can always starve myself….