Nutrition and cancer: A review of the evidence for an anti-cancer diet

It has been estimated that 30–40 percent of all cancers can be prevented by lifestyle and dietary measures alone. Obesity, nutrient sparse foods such as concentrated sugars and refined flour products that contribute to impaired glucose metabolism (which leads to diabetes), low fiber intake, consumption of red meat, and imbalance of omega 3 and omega 6 fats all contribute to excess cancer risk. Intake of flax seed, especially its lignan fraction, and abundant portions of fruits and vegetables will lower cancer risk. Allium and cruciferous vegetables are especially beneficial, with broccoli sprouts being the densest source of sulforophane. Protective elements in a cancer prevention diet include selenium, folic acid, vitamin B-12, vitamin D, chlorophyll, and antioxidants such as the carotenoids (α-carotene, β-carotene, lycopene, lutein, cryptoxanthin). Ascorbic acid has limited benefits orally, but could be very beneficial intravenously. Supplementary use of oral digestive enzymes and probiotics also has merit as anticancer dietary measures. When a diet is compiled according to the guidelines here it is likely that there would be at least a 60–70 percent decrease in breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers, and even a 40–50 percent decrease in lung cancer, along with similar reductions in cancers at other sites. Such a diet would be conducive to preventing cancer and would favor recovery from cancer as well

Processed meat and risk of selected digestive tract and laryngeal cancers

Background/objectives To assess the association between processed meat and the risk of selected digestive tract and laryngeal cancers. Subjects/methods We conducted a series of case-control studies between 1985 and 2007 in Italy. The studies included a total of 1475 cases of cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx, 1077 of the larynx, 716 of the esophagus, 999 of the stomach, 684 of the liver, 159 of the biliary tract, 688 of the pancreas, and a total of 9720 controls. Odds ratios (ORs), and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were estimated by unconditional logistic regression models, including terms for socio-demographic factors, tobacco smoking, and alcohol intake. Results Compared to the lowest tertile of processed meat consumption, the ORs for subjects in the highest one were 1.18 (95% CI 0.98\u20131.43) for oral cavity and pharyngeal, 1.51 (95% CI 1.18\u20131.91) for esophageal, 1.19 (95% CI 0.96\u20131.47) for laryngeal, 0.98 (95% CI 0.81\u20131.18) for stomach, 0.85 (95% CI 0.51\u20131.40) for biliary tract, 1.20 (95% CI 0.94\u20131.54) for liver, and 1.46 (95% CI 1.15\u20131.85) for pancreatic cancers. Conclusions Our findings support the hypothesis that high processed meat consumption increases esophageal and pancreatic cancers risk. Residual confounding by socio-demographic factors, tobacco smoking, and alcohol intake may, partly or largely, account for these associations. We found no overall association with other digestive tract and laryngeal cancers

Traditional dietary pattern of South America is linked to breast cancer: an ongoing case-control study in Argentina

Introduction Several studies have shown the effect of dietary patterns on breast cancer risk, but none has been conducted in Argentina. The aim of this study was to extract dietary patterns from Food Frequency Questioner, to estimate their effect on breast cancer occurrence while taking into account aggregation factors (family history of breast cancer) and to explore the sensitivity of the estimates to changes in the assumptions. Methods A principal component exploratory factor analysis was applied to identify dietary patterns, which were then included as covariates in a multilevel logistic regression. Family history of BC was considered as a clustering variable. A multiple probabilistic sensitivity analysis was also performed. Results The study included 100 cases and 294 controls. Four dietary patterns were identified. Traditional (fat meats, bakery products, and vegetable oil and mayonnaise) (OR III tertile vs I 3.13, 95 % CI 2.58?3.78), Rural (processed meat) (OR III tertile vs I 2.02, 95 % CI 1.21?3.37) and Starchy (refined grains) (OR III tertile vs I 1.82, 95 % CI 1.18?2.79) dietary patterns were positively associated with BC risk, whereas the Prudent pattern (fruit and non-starchy vegetables) (OR III tertile vs I 0.56, 95 % CI 0.41?0.77) showed a protective effect. For Traditional pattern, the median bias-adjusted ORs (3.52) were higher than the conventional (2.76). Conclusions While the Prudent pattern was associated with a reduced risk of BC, Traditional, Rural and Starchy patterns showed a promoting effect. Despite the threats to validity, the nature of associations was not strongly affected.Fil: Tumas, Natalia. Universidad Nacional de Cordoba. Facultad de Medicina. Escuela de Nutricion. Cat.de Estadistica y Bioestasdística; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Córdoba. Centro de Investigaciones y Estudio sobre Cultura y Sociedad; ArgentinaFil: Niclis, Camila. Universidad Nacional de Cordoba. Facultad de Medicina. Escuela de Nutricion. Cat.de Estadistica y Bioestasdística; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Aballay, Laura. Universidad Nacional de Cordoba. Facultad de Medicina. Escuela de Nutricion. Cat.de Estadistica y Bioestasdística; ArgentinaFil: Osella, Alberto. Laboratorio di Epidemiologia E Biostatistica; ItaliaFil: Diaz, María del Pilar. Universidad Nacional de Cordoba. Facultad de Medicina. Escuela de Nutricion. Cat.de Estadistica y Bioestasdística; Argentin