• Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Possible Link Between High Fat Diet & Breast Cancer

Sid Bonkers

Sid Bonkers

Well-Known Member
As the thread tittle says there is new research that links a possible cause between diets high in fat and an increased risk of certain cancers especially breast cancer.

Quote:
"High total and saturated fat intake were associated with greater risk of estrogen receptor- and progesterone receptor-positive (ER+PR+) breast cancer (BC), and human epidermal growth factor 2 receptor-negative (HER2-) disease, according to a new study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute."

Comments?

Debate?

Thoughts?
 
It' would be interesting to see the full study as it'll be useful to see whether we're talking:

a) relatively healthy high fat diets like the LCHF with plenty of vegetables
b) high fat and sat fat and med-high carb of the classic so-called 'western diet' of crisps, pies, chips with everything

"The EPIC cohort study consisted of 337,327 women living in 10 European countries"

If I had to guess, I'd say it's more likely to be b) here.

I'd be interested to read more if someone has a link to the methods and design of the study.
 
I think that it's worth remembering the differences between epidemiology (which is basically data mining) and real experimental science.

Epidemiology is a strictly observational method for trying to spot relationships between certain variables in a large (and often dirty) dataset. Like all purely observational methodologies it cannot determine cause and effect. In this case they have found a statistical relationship between the amount of fat women ate in the EPIC study, and their propensity for breast cancer.

This is not the same as saying "fat causes an increased risk of breast cancer" because there might be some other confounding variable that influences both. To a certain extent you can use more statistics to try and eliminate possible confounding effects, but you can never be sure that you've eliminated them all. There are other problems with epidemiology too, a big one being the reliance on self reported dietary surveys, which are a notoriously unreliable source of evidence.

Almost all of these Daily Mail type headlines about "the evils of fat" are based on this type of epidemiological data.

If you wanted to demonstrate a causal link between high fat and breast cancer, then you'd have to do an experimental study (ie some real science).
Experimental science involves holding one thing constant while deliberately varying another and measuring the response. In this case you'd have to take two randomly chosen sets of women and subject one to a high fat diet, and one to a conventional low-fat diet, and see how many contracted breast cancer after a number of years.

My opinion is that this type of epidemiological study is best ignored (whether the results are pro-fat or anti-fat). They only ever pick up relatively weak statistical relationships, and there are many, many examples of where these relationships are never born out by proper observational science.
 
alaska said:
It' would be interesting to see the full study as it'll be useful to see whether we're talking:

a) relatively healthy high fat diets like the LCHF with plenty of vegetables
b) high fat and sat fat and med-high carb of the classic so-called 'western diet' of crisps, pies, chips with everything.
Click to expand...

It isn't that kind of study. They just record what people say they eat, and measure how many of them get breast cancer. Basically it's an xy scatter plot with "amount of fat intake" on the x axis and cancer incidence on the y axis, with a line of best fit through all the data points.

But you're right - almost everyone in the study will be eating some variation of a high carb diet. There will be very few participants eating a properly LCHF diet, so you could argue that whatever relationship they have identified, probably doesn't apply to low-carbers.
 
borofergie said:
Almost all of these Daily Mail type headlines about "the evils of fat" are based on this type of epidemiological data.
Click to expand...

My appologies I forgot to post the link to the page I was referring to
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/275324.php

Its Medical News Today, not the Daily Mail. And I said nothing about the "evils of fat" I merely posted what I thought to be an interesting link.

Of course it is entirely up to you whether you chose to ignore it or not :)
 
Also, breast cancer is more commonly geneticly passed down.
My wife has been screened for a few years now due to her grandmother being taken by it, her mother beat it, as has her aunty. She and her sister have seen specialists which have resuled in them being tested for a specific gene, which, they have both tested positive for. as her sister is five years older as advised by the specialist has had an op to remove all breast tissue, in a few years my wife will also have a major decision to make. The op reduces their chance of breast cancer from 95% to 5%, nothing to do with fat,carbs, protein etc

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
"High total and saturated fat intake were associated with greater risk of estrogen receptor- and progesterone receptor-positive (ER+PR+) breast cancer (BC), and human epidermal growth factor 2 receptor-negative (HER2-) disease, according to a new study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute."

Comments?

Debate?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Hmmm...what about cornflakes Sid?

My bold...


"Now the Swedish scientists had discovered something that no one had ever suspected: that acrylamide was present in some baked and fried foods, and at levels that made nonsense of the limitations on water. A large portion of chips from one local fast-food company contained at least 300 times the amount of acrylamide permitted in a single glass, while one sample of McDonald's chips had double that amount. Crisps contained acrylamide in even higher concentrations. But it wasn't just fried food that was a problem. Some crispbreads, cereals and biscuits had much higher levels than some kinds of chip. And acrylamide was present, although at much lower levels, in all breads. The average figures for some of the products tested, in micrograms per kilogram, were: soft bread, 50; rye bread, 89; cornflakes, 53; Rice Krispies, 247; popcorn, 416; chips, 450; crackers, 547; crisps, 1,200, and Ryvita, 1,200 to 1,800. Cooked meat had far lower levels: fried chicken contained 39, and meatballs 64. But raw and boiled foods had no traces of the chemical."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2002/aug/15/food.foodanddrink
 
I didn't consider that a cheap shot-it just seems that everyday we are told that virtually everything we eat can cause cancer of some sort or the other(A subject close to my heart)-in this instance sat fats were implicated and I was highlighting just one other everyday food that has 'supposed' risks along with others.
 
The diets in the Epic trial reflect the various populations.
The averages are on this site
http://epic.iarc.fr/SNIPE/snipe.php

I really can't think why acrylamide has come into it this thread ..............
but as it has. Perhaps we better be aware that coffee contains very high levels. Smoking is another cause of major exposure http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/ChemicalContaminants/ucm053549.htm
and sadly those barbequed, and grilled meats may also have their problems.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cooked-meats

This link above is from a general US site which is a good starting point (well referenced) into what we know, what may be true and importantly what we don't know, with summaries of the research into the various risks including genetic ones.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes
 
Back
Top