Bioidentical hormones..is anyone taking after breast cancer?
Comments
-
gentian Yes you are right. Progestin is what is said to be the bad stuff. I was under the impression that what chef127's sister was getting was progesterone. If Provera is progestin then who knows. Perhaps even the synthetic progesterone can have some positive effect.
All I can say for certain is that the research papers I listed are about progesterone.
I will most definitely let you know how my discussion goes with the onc. No matter what I will be getting my hormone levels tested - if he won't do it I will get the gyno or somebody else to do so. I am just tired of being told what to do by doctors who really don't have the answers themselves. Nobody does.
Kathy
0 -
Back when I was given a scrip for tamoxifen, I asked my oncologist's nurse about getting my estrogen levels tested. She said, 'oh, we only test for things that are cancer-related.' I bit my tongue and wondered silently why estrogen levels are NOT cancer-related when I had a dx saying my tumor was feeding on it??? When I asked the onc the same question, he said he didn't find the information to be helpful. To this day, I am baffled by this. I'm expected to take a drug that blocks my own body's estrogen from connecting to the receptors, but my levels of estrogen in the first place are of no interest? This makes no sense to me then or now.
Since that time, I've learned about places on the internet where you can order your own labs. We are no longer dependent on doctors with blinders on to order our tests. There are several places to choose from -- directlabs.com, healthcheckusa.com, life extension foundation at lef.org, or canaryclub.org. The costs are out of pocket, but it at least counts as a medical expense at tax time. When you place an order for the labs you want, you'll receive paperwork that you take with you to a local lab in their network, such as labcorp. They'll draw the samples and send them to the facility designated in the paperwork. Results are sent via email.
0 -
Chatsworthgirl and Althea
I went the route of having my hormones tested (saliva) and I had been told my by compounding pharmacist that it is the most accurate way to test for estrogen and progesterone. It was not inexpensive nevertheless I wanted it done before I started Arimidex, I used ZRT Labratories. My onc was totally uninterested in the results. I did see a hormone specialist at Cleveland Clinic (wanted to ask her about progesterone) and she basically told me I had wasted my money on a saliva test and that in no way should I use progesterone however she was pushing DHEA and told me to get it from their compounding pharmacy. WTF. Isn't DHEA a precursor to estrogen and progesterone and maybe other hormones??? I smiled, took the script, and never went back to her. My breast surgeon is at the Clinic and she is stellar. Empathetic, funny, and drop dead honest. My surgery was in 2009 but I still go once a year to the Clinic for an MRI and then meet with her for an examination.
My point is that no matter what kind of testing we have done for hormone levels there will always be some doc that will tell us it was and is worthless. I think getting rid of all hormones is as weird as having too much. It would be nice if they, meaning the docs, would agree.
0 -
Suzanne Somers had Stage 1 BC. She underwent a lumpectomy and then rads.
0 -
It seems the med.community doesn't understand the why, what, and how our hormons work so the only treatment they are willing to try is to take them away. That is still fooling with our hormone system. Its a shame that we have to do our own research to try and figure out this complex system. I don't think I will agree to arimidex or any other AI or tamox. They work at keeping the CA at bay but the price is sooo high. Balancing them makes more sense.
I don't even know if if can find a dr who is willing to work outside the box for BC. Do I have to lie about my BC dx to try to balance my hormones?
Is it possible that our hormones went berserk when the CA occured? Many woman are dx'ed at the onset of meno when hormones are way out there. Do they stabalize and that won't occur again? Not very scientific but logical.
0 -
Interesting thread. I suffered many misscarriages (5) all at about the 4 month mark. My progesterone levels were low. I also took HRT, estrogen patch and progesterone (no progestin). My Onco does run blood tests on estrogen levels at every appointment. My estrogen level is low (below 30), but not zero yet. Could be because I'm not as faithful as I should be about the AI. Or it could be because I gained a bit of weight recently. What I'd like to understand is how low do they want our estrogen level to be. I am only 46 and my estrogen level is now at menopaise range but do they really want it to zero? Does anyone have research or feedback from their Onco on how low they actually want the estrogen to be based on age of patient. I'd love that kind of information.
You guys are great reseasrchers, thanks for sharing all of this information.
Bevin
0 -
I am also puzzled. I took bio identicals for about 6 years. My lump had existed for 25 years in total and was diagnosed as fibrocystic. Yet it was the progesterone that would make it ache and burn (which indicated growth) and for a while I stopped it and just took the esterogen and had no burning sensation. The a NP decided I should have way more progesterone and I had read SS books and thought it was a good thing to try. Sure enough, the burning and ache came back and shortly after a thermogram revealed red hot in the lump area. The NP again raised the progesterin and within a couple months my breast lump grew larger and dimpled at the nipple. And you know the rest, surgery and a cancer diagnosis.
I am seeing a top notch Integrative Doctor now and he said rather than kill my esterogen he plans to eventually put me on a low does esterogen to balance the bad esterogen. Am I afraid? You bet. Am I afraid not to? You bet. So once again this cancer diagnosis has me, Circles, running in Circles...
0 -
bevin
5 misscarriges, I'm so sorry you had to endure that. Do you have any children now?
I think the objective of HT is to rid your body of ALL estro. I don't want mine to be eradicated. Balance it. Unfortunatly the drs don't know how. Oh well, back to the drawing board,
Stay well.............................Maureen
0 -
Thanks Maureen, fertility issues exist in our family. I have 1 lovely child now a wonderful product of donor eggs. Thank god women are willing to assist others in trouble!! I was able to finally carry with much estrogen and progersterone supplementation including vaginal suppositories and progesterone shots. Still delivered very early - my water broke at 6 months prgnant , child delivered at 7 mos gestation but is wonderfully healthy now.
I hate the thought of estrogen being completely zero'd out- 4 mores years to go and I need to be more compliant. I have a bad habit of splitting my pills hoping to lessen SE's but give some benefit of reduced estrogen levels. I know I know ... really bad to do.
0 -
Circles
It is very interesting to read your last post. There is a study done by Michigan State University that speaks of inflammation of breast tissue and progesterone. It is one of the very few studies I have read that implicates progesterone use and breast inflammation. It is one of the big reasons why I am afraid to start natural progesterone (although on nights when I just can't seem to get to sleep, I admit I have used a small amount rubbed into my hands). I am very interested in what your integrative doc says and hope you will report back as you go through this therapy. I don't blame you for being afraid, who of us isn't, no matter what therapy we are following.
Bevin
I, too, and sorry your suffered so many miscarriages. Were you on BHRT at the time you were going through this.........or on just natural progesterone? As far as the numbers for estrogen, it is my understanding that different oncs use different numbers. Mine does not even run those test and I often wonder why; I need to get an answer on that the next time I go instead of just wondering.
0 -
What delimma! My bc was probably caused by 20 plus years of birth control and then another 20 years of straight premarin HRT. I was on BHRT for only 9 months before dx, but I was taking two hormones I had never taken before...DHEA and Progestrone...hummmm. I doubt the BHRT was responsible for the bc, but it could have caused it to become invasive..meaning it was DCIS and then spread, becoming IDC. Both DCIS and IDC were found in my final pathology.
I'm sure not happy with my hot flashes and insomnia, but I'm reluctant to go back on BHRT until I do more research about the pros and cons...so here I am at 71, just now going through menopause:(
0 -
Around and around. I have researched until my eyes ache. Hormones are a puzzle that nobody seems ot understand.
I did read about a research that used high doses of estrogen that killed breast cancer cells. Then there are the studies that progesterone does that. The complicated nature of hormones and the individuality of each of us makes it practically impossible to figure out who would benefit from one or the other.
Circles Were your hormone levels tested prior to beginning the bioidenticals? Were they tested prior to being given the progesterone? I would be interested if you had that data.
But, once again I must say that despite all of the controversy the medical establishment has decreed that it's OK to completely block estrogen. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't so there is no absolute proof that this is the ticket to a cure but they prescribe it anyway. Then there is the use of Megestrol, a progesterone, that is used on women who no longer respond to Tamoxifin. So what leads them to the conclusion that giving progesterone will help? Progesterone is given for infertility and uterine hyperplasia. Why?
I am struggling to figure out what I should do. I don't know if my consult with the onc and all the research I present will do me any good in this regard but I might get closer to making a decision one way or the other about Armidex.
Suzanne Somers was lucky with stage 1 and remains lucky. I will give her snaps for doing everything she can to boost her immune system. After all that is the body's defense mechanism and if it's strong you have a better chance of fighting off even cancer.
There was some reporting a while back about autopsies that revealed that women and men had had various diseases during their lifetimes but they died of something else. In other words they had diseases that were erradicated by the immune system and they never knew they had them.
Kathy
0 -
chatsworthgirl - I am post menopausal and I am on tamoxifen. I had to quite the Arimidex because of the side effects. I am more comfortable (mentally) using tamoxifen because it only blocks the estrogen from the breast tissue and does not totally eradicate estrogen from the body. Perhaps this is a choice you could consider. It is pure hell trying to decide when you feel your life depends on your choices, isn't it?
0 -
genetianviolet: That is the first I've heard that tamox blocks estrogen only from the breast tissue. If that is the case I might consider it. My onc said if I could tolerate the birth control pills, then I could probably tolerate tamox because their makeup is the same. I'm post menopausal as well. I don't mind a few hot flashes, but I don't want to dry up like a prune!
Kathy: The immune system is the key to fighting disease...which is why it is so important to have it at optimal levels. I've worked so hard to build mine up and I don't want to do anything to tear it down.
0 -
Kaara - It is my understanding that tamoxifen blocks the estrogen receptors in breast tissue. If you google it, you will find a better description than mine. Although generally used for premenopausal women, it can also be used post menopause; I am 71 and have been on it for over 2 years. Good luck, let us know what you decide.
0 -
Hi everyone
I have been reading everyone's posts and would like to jump in. I too have been reading and reading in hope of finding the info that says you should do this this and this. But as all of you say it is impossible. My story is this. I had a right breast mastectomy about 15 yrs ago. Normally I would have been able to have a lumpemctomy and radiation but due to the fact that I had had radiation 16 years before the breast cancer for Hodgkins. So the mastectomy, no chemo. Now in Feb I had a left breast mastectomy also for the same reason that I could not have radiation. My research told me the radiation that I had some years was the reason I got breast cancer. My oncologist confirmed that was very possible. So my thinking is if I got the bc from radiation and not hormones why prescribe Arimidex. Now, I am 76 years old. I do not want to take it.although I have taken it now for about 3 1/2 months but I am wondering how much estrogen can I have at 76! Any comments from any of you ladies would be great. Sorry for the long post. Rosieo
0 -
genetian: Thanks for the update...I'm not doing rads, so this might just do the trick on the conventional side, along with my complementary diet and supplementation program. I love this site!
Rosieo: I think our bodies can still make estrogen from fat, particularly that around the middle, so it would depend on how much you have. I am not heavy but had excess fat around my middle, so I am on a quest to get rid of it. When tested I had low estrogen levels even with BHRT, but somehow my bc is estrogen driven! Now I'm off BHRT. Hello menopause at 71:(
0 -
Chat, I only had hormones tested the first time around, then about 6 months before the progesterone increase. I was 44 and meno. First time I was low esterogen, after they only said my esterogen was fine but my hot flashes were horrible so I kept complaining,. I don't think they ever checked progesterone. But at same time I had thyroid problems, Now Hashimotos. Not sure what it all means but if you have a piece to this puzzle please please suggest what you think. I;m so lost.
0 -
Rosieo
I, too, have read that the extra fat carried around the middle of our bodies makes estrogen. I am 71 and a relatively thin person and yet I was prescribed Arimidex. All was good for the first three to four months and then side effects started (hip/knee pain) and by the end of six months it had escalated to the point that I stopped using it. I am now on tamoxifen and although I hate taking that pill, the side effects are less than when on arimidex. I totally understand you wondering about just how much estrogen we really have. There certainly seems to be a big piece of the puzzle missing; it has to be so much more complex than just estrogen.
I am sorry to hear that you have had to deal with this diagnosis all over again.
0 -
Hi Ladies
Kaara: Yes I know I too should lose some weight. (Got lots around the middle too) I would also like to get my hormones tested. I wonder how to go about that?
Geneitan: Well we will see what the Arimidex brings for me as I am only taking it for about 3 1/2 months. I took Tamoxifen years ago when I had the first bc and mastectomy. That was around 15 years ago. I took it for 5 years and really never had any problem with it. My oncologist said he prescribed the Arimidex because I had already had the Tamoxifen before.
Rosieo
0 -
Helllooooo to you all!
I rather wish Dr. Lee had lived longer, because even though his work was incomplete it at LEAST was an effort by the medical profession to think about it (rather than just plow ahead with physical destruction and annihilation).
My PCP works extremely hard to cover as much as possible the cases that are very complex and difficult (where people have multiple different things going on, with one problem requiring a medication that another problem is worse with, etc. etc.) AND has to manage people AND has to handle the bureacratic crap from all directions, so his imperfections pretty much are understandable to me. He is a primary care provider so is doing what is really the "garbageman's" job among doctors. His solution is one of sheer desperation: For specialized stuff, "stabilize and ship 'em off to the specialist". I'm positive I would do likewise. But what that does is to put a certain stamp of approval on the specialist. A person who has had my PCP for a long time and knows how careful he tries to be, is going to favor whatever specialist my PCP likes. (Which is what I did.) The specialist he recommended had a top rep in the NW and is god to most doctors and patients. He is a decent and dedicated human being, but he was truly awful for me.
What does all this have to do with bioidentical stuff?
Bioidentical is somehow considered "too simplistic" by such providers to be a good answer to such complex problems.
I just wonder how we are ever going to get to the point where any of these medical providers stand back and listen to common sense.
A couple of years ago when I saw my PCP, he wanted me to start a statin due to slightly high total cholesterol level. I was the one looking at him like he had 2 heads. I'm doing all things proper with diet and exercise and am overweight but not obese. I flatly refused to take it without better reasoning behind it. My NP was willing to have me do the CRP test, which I know measures cardiac inflammation and I was very happy to do it because I wanted to know myself how I was doing. My PCP was so sure it would come back high risk. It came back not high, not medium, but LOW risk. He wandered into our next visit and very quietly, without looking me in the eye, said, "You don't need to take a statin." That moment was priceless. I let it hang in the air a few moments without any response. We have known each other for more than a decade. I don't think he misunderstood.
As a very fit stage 1 bc patient at time of diagnosis who went through treatment that then resulted in deterioration of my muscular system due to the repeated steroid use, and ended up 25 pounds overweight due to chemopause and the lack of adequate testosterone to maintain a muscle system, in 2009 I realized something very easy to comprehend was getting buried in that treatment for stage 1 breast cancer patients.
Where is the cost/benefit analysis for that therapy, given that weight gain increases the risk that is intended to be decreased by the treatment? I could understand the logic if there was any effort made to include weight as a risk factor calculated into our diagnosis and treatment but that isn't being done as part of it. So the result is that some portion of the level of risk for the patients treated was not actually justified, if it left them back at the level of risk or higher than where they started because of extra weight gain.
In 2009 when it was obvious to me that exercise and diet weren't keeping up very well with the weight gain from chemopause at 7 years out and chemopause was accelerating, I suggested metformin. At that time I did not know that trials for breast cancer patients were just beginning to test out my suggestion. I can't participate because "I am too far out from diagnosis". But I did the routine -- saw my NP, who referred me to the cancer center dietitian and I saw him for over a year and then got a referral to an endocrinologist, who at my request gave me a low dose of metformin. Even though I am still overweight, It has been a godsend. Along with the diet and exercise I had been doing all along, it has finally brought chemopause to its knees and I am no longer gaining weight. This was NOT something any medical provider had come up with for me.
I would love to figure out some way to have more balanced hormones. Given the blank looks and failure by providers to grasp such simple concepts that patients do have, I would suggest that what we desperatly need on our tumor boards are fewer physical "mechanics", and instead at least one endocrinologist WITH the same level of authority on the tumor board as the oncologist.
A.A.
0 -
If you want to have your hormone levels checked, you can go to any bioidentical doctor for that purpose. It probably won't be covered by insurance. It's a simple blood or saliva test. My doc was part of bodylogic and they have doctors all over the country. Whether one will actually prescribe bioidentical hormones, knowing that you have bc is yet another story. Mine told me when he refused to renew my script that he valued his medical license and although he didn't believe that bioidenticals cause bc, he couldn't go against "standard of practice". He told me that we would revisit in a year if I was given the all clear.
AA I agree...there aren't any studies on this and probably won't be. I assure you, if men had this problem, there would be loads of studies! After all, we have viagra, and it's covered by insurance, while my provider wouldn't pay for my bioidenticals!
0 -
I think that the cause of my BC is absolutly due to my hormones being out of balance. I spent 2-3 years with changing menstral cycles and that is unquestionally hormone related. It never occured to me to seek help with that. I had a lump in my breast since I was 20 so when meno finally hit me and the lump started to change I ignored it, thinking it was just part of the meno. Hence the bad dx.
It was cleanly removed via partial mast. except for the skin that showed cancer still present. I am currently doing the Rad Tx because of that to void a mast. I refused chemo. Now I'm expected to mess with my fragile hormone system. I didn't know that BIHT drs. existed. I'll find one and if I foget to mention my BC dx in order to balance my hormones its on me. Bodylogic. thnx
I believe that hormone balance is the right tx for me
A.A. I have been reading your posts for a month now. I don't always understand 100% of your points but I have learned alot. If the drs took as much interest as you do I think we could be much further along to the cure. I'm sorry the CA journey sucked for you but many of us are reaping the benefits of your research. ALL my treatment decisions are on me. If there are consequences I'll deal with them.
0 -
chef127: It's a delimma for sure, but be careful about how you proceed. Have you read Suzanne Sommer's book, Break Out? She takes bioidenticals, but follows a very strict diet and takes all kinds of supplements that help to prevent bc recurrence. It's part of a complete program. You can't do just one thing and expect it to work..all the pieces have to fit in the puzzle.
0 -
Kaara,
I have changed my diet . A complete turn round. My diet was a complete disaster pre dx. I'm still working on that lifestyle which became a habit. however i'm semi vegetarian, NO Proessed sugar or meat(nitrates), lots of greens, budwig protocol, alkalized h20, nuts & seeds, vegan protien. etc.
Supplements, D3, curcumin, juiceplus, DIM, metformin, chromium pic., Beta-1,3D glucan, C, PAWPAW CELL for 3 months, to follow rads, and then cesium? or protecel after that for a year. Its a start. Will get a NP, do accupuncture and take it from there. I did read SS Knockout, but I'll get Break Out and learn more. I know that just doing radiation is not enough. The most crucial thing is life style change. Mine was sooo bad. Its already a BIG improvement, I know it still needs tweaking. The alternative seems over txing for me. I have 2 other autoimmune diseases and don't want to make them worse.
I have to do what I feel my system can handle. I'm not burying my head in the sand like my onco said. If I could forgo the rads I would. I'm not careless or ignorant, but depleting my hormones seems dangerous IMO. QOL is important.
Be Healthy and Well, thank you Kaara............................................Maureen
0 -
AA, I'm going to follow some more of your posts. You seem to be doing the research I so desperatly seek. Since going off my bio identical HRT I also suffered some weight regain. Granted, I have a tendancy to gain easily anyways but I had good success with Atkins diet. However, I have always had to fight the regains here and there, but I have noticed without my bio-identicals the weight doesn't come back down. Metformin seems to be keeping my weight from increasing but I find myself stuck with an extra 15lbs I do not want or need. Not to mention it seems my appetite is in less control without benefit of following Atkins. I'm trying to follow the plant based diet but I am starting to wonder if it is simply too many carbs for me. I felt I did better on a meat based diet but here I am with BC. Like Chef, I had a lump of 25 years that ended up somehow as BC. I got that lump while taking birth control pills, weather or not there is meaning to that.
I have a letter my Integrative Doctor sent out to an Ococologist who contacted him, stating NOT to give his patient with BC bio-identicals. I'm going to dig it out and post it here in a little while. You may find it valuable as a missing piece of the hormone, BC puzzle.
0 -
Circles,
I have been taking metformin for a long time. It reduces blood glucose levels. However for me it makes me hungrier. I take in more calories but the metformin keeps it in check. I'm relativly thin and I am diabetic I do not gain or lose weight. Maybe because of the metformin.
My BC problem began with my hormone inbalance IMO. It needs balancing. Now that I am meno maybe they are where they should be. Testing will help in the decision making.
0 -
Here is the letter: (dated March, 2001)
Dr. (Onocologist),
Thank you for your kind letter concerning this mutual patient with a distant past history of breast cancer. As you noted, she did have a 24 hour urinary sex hormone profile which showed low levels of testosterone and DHEA. However, her total esterogens were actually quite normal, The value that was of the most concern was the "Estrogen Quotient", which was low at 0.56, with a desired value of greater than 1.0.
I appreciate your professional concern and your hope that I am not "providing hormones to patients who have had breast cancer without strong consideration" of my actions. You noted that this patient is quite willing to work with the relative absence of these hormones "if there might be some deletrious effect should she take hormones". You have strongly urged her not to take any hormones due to the worry of "stimulating latent breast cancer cells".
I can appreciate your professional position and opinion concerning the issue of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) in patients with a history of breast cancer. As I understand the situation, conventional wisdom and current "standard of care" dictate that these women should not be given any HRT whatsoever because: 1.) Women given conventional HRT have a higher risk of breast cancer, and 2.) Breast cancer cells exposed to conventional HRT show increased growth in tissue culture.
I have great respect for these facts and personally would never give a patient in this situation conventional HRT. The NIH website at cancernet.nci.gov is a bit more lenient, stating "Still another area of controversy centers on whether women women who have had breast cancer can take HRT, especially since treatments for breast cancer can often lead to early menopause in younger women. Use of HRT in breast cancer survivors is widely discouraged because of the concern that exposure to estrogen in HRT would increase risk of recurrence. Some scientists question the validity of this concern, since the prognosis of women who took HRT before developing breast cancer seems to be better than that of women who did not. Women with a history of breast cancer should talk to their doctor about HRT so that they can make an informed decision.
Therefore, the NIH believes that it is the patient's right to make their own informed decision concerning the use of HRT after breast cancer.
However, what if giving a woman no treatment is theoretically increasing her risk of breast cancer recurrence as comapred to other available treatments? Should I not offer her treatments which have reasonable evidence to suggest that they will not only be harmless, but may actually decrease the risk of breadt cancer? Within the directive of "Primun Non Nocere", or "First do no harm", the act of withholding treatment may actually be harmful.
When working with breast cancer patients, I am currently aware of three very important hormone ratios which can impact the growth of breast cancer cells:
Progesterone: Estrogen
Estriol: Estrone plus Estradiol (Eq=E3/E1 + E2).
2-OH-estrone : 16-alpha-estrone.
Regarding the ratio of progesterone to estrogen, a recent double blind, placebo-controlled, randomized in vivo study found that estradiol stimulated increased proliferation and hyperplasia of breast duct epithelial cells (a reliable marker for risk of breast cancer), whereas natural progesterone prevented breast cell profliferation, thus protecting against the risk of breast cancer. (Chang KY et al. Influences of percutaneous administration of estradiol and progesterone on human breast cell cycle in vivo.
Regarding the Estrogen Quotient, it should be recalled that not all estrogens are equivalent in their action on breast tissue. Estradiol is the most stimulating and estriol is the least but they compete for the same receptors. Unfortunatly, most women who are obese, postmenopausal, or taking conventional HRT have more strong estrogen than weak estrogens, reflecting in an Eq <1 are much more liekly to get breast cancer. In addition, women receiving endocrine therapy for breast cancer were more likely to go in remission if that therapy raised their Eq (Lemon HM et al. Reduced estriol excretion in patients with breast cancer prior to endocrine therapy.
Regarding the ratio of 2-OH-estrone to 16-alpha-estrone, which is new to me, I can inform you that a poor 2/16 ratio (lower 20H: higher 16-alpha) has been shown to be carcinogenic. Extracts of cruciferous vegtables such as 13C and its more absorbable metabolite DIM apparently improve this ratio thru up-regulation of the CYPIA2 liver enzymes involved in the metabolism of estrogens.
In fact, DIM has been shown to induce a favorable 2/16 ratio and induce apoptosis in breast cancer cells. In addition, 13C also improved 2/16 ratios and induced a complete regression in 50% of patients with cervical dysplasia of CIN II-III.
Therefore, the two strong estrogens, estrone and estradiol, are potentially carcinogenic and are present in these women if we "do nothing", as they are converted from the adrenal hormones by aromatase enzymes in fat cells. However, estriol and progesterone, which are protective against cancer and dominate during pregnancy, are left deficient in the post meno 'un-replaced state".
With this knowledge in hand, and knowing that this patient has a very low Eq, the ethical path before me is to offer her strategies to improve these three important hormonal ratios in an effort to theoretically reduce her risk of recurrence. It is my understanding that her current ratiios, if left unattended, may have the "deleterious effect" of actually increasing her risk of a recurrence by " stimulating latent breaast cancer cells". So, to do nothing results in exactly the effects that you fear.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My fingers nearly bled typing all this, lol, so please forgive any typos...
--Circles
0 -
Circles: Dig that letter out and post it...I would love to read it!
chef127: Good for you...diet and supplementation is so important in the fight against any kind of disease, not just bc. BC was a real wake up call for me, and my boyfriend as well who has MS. We are both following a restricted diet.
Anyone who wants to drop pounds effortlessly should just take all white stuff out of their diet...sugar, flour, white rice, pasta, grains, etc. Stick with fruits, veggies and lean proteins. The white stuff all converts to sugar and you have no idea how many empty calories are in those kind of foods. We are actually on gluten free right now which means all grains and wheat are eliminated as well.
I've never been overweight but had excess fat around my middle..it just melted away! I went from a size 8 to a size 4 in less than three months, and for the first time I have a defined waistline! We are never hungry on this diet...can eat all we want. A lot of our food is eaten raw in the form of salads and veggies and fruits. It was recommended by our naturopathic doctor.
This is going to be a great week for me....absolutely NO doctor appt's!! Have a good day everyone!
0 -
Kaara
Gluten free is a stretch for me. It would be a real effort to eliminate it completely. Whole wheat products have taken the place of pasta, rices, and breads. The white stuff is GONE. I have read about the benefits of a gluten free diet, and congrats for achieving that. I also have MS and I'm sure the GF diet will help there as well, from all I've read. Maybe in time, ONE STEP AT A TIME.
My son went on a raw diet for several months, down to the olives he ate. and said he never felt better. He gave me a dehydrater and recipes for raw crackers and snacks, all GF..................Now to get started w that.
0
