Pages

Showing posts with label IGF-1. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IGF-1. Show all posts

Sunday, 22 September 2019

Even in The Face of Impossible Odds – Proof You Can Beat Cancer

Jane McLelland was supposed to die in 12 weeks. At least that’s what the statistics say when cervical cancer has spread to a woman’s lungs.
By Lee Euler / March 3, 2019
But this 35-year-old UK physiotherapist, wasn’t ready to give up on life when she got the bad news in 1999. She had too much to live for. She refused to accept her prognosis. Instead, she threw herself into research and came up with a plan.
It worked. Here’s what she did. . . and what might help you, too. . .
Jane decided she would starve the tumor with anti-cancer nutrients and herbs, and cut off its supply lines until it shrank and died. At the same time, she would keep her healthy cells and organs well nourished.
It was a daunting task, but all seemed to be going well until she was hit by a new, massive blow. In 2003 she was diagnosed with therapy-related leukemia, a little known late-stage side effect of the chemotherapy that she had unwisely decided to undergo years before when she was first diagnosed. This “side effect” is almost always fatal.
Her situation seemed hopeless. But in 2004 the results of the protocol she started five years earlier were in. The cancer was gone. Jane remains cancer free to this day.
Poor experience with physicians
Jane’s problems actually began way back in 1989 when some mildly abnormal cells were found. After treatment she was told repeatedly during the following five years that there were no more abnormalities.
But she was diagnosed with cancer in 1994 just the same. Her gynecologist turned out to be totally incompetent, a fact that became obvious a few years later when there was a national recall of over a thousand of his patients.
She also had a bad time with her surgeon. She hadn’t borne children but she still had hopes of raising a family in the future. Yet her request to freeze some of her eggs before chemotherapy and radiation was brushed aside.
Her experience with her oncologist was no better. She found him to be “brusque, dismissive and scornful” of other options she suggested. In general, she found the oncologists she met to be arrogant and dogmatic, unwilling to consider anything but their “gold standard” treatments — and certain they know what’s best for you.
Five years after she first learned she had cancer, and after all these negative experiences with conventional cancer treatment, she was told her disease had progressed to stage 4 – the “death sentence” I described at the beginning of this article. That’s when she realized she would have to become her own expert if she was to have any chance of survival.
Taking the first steps to regain health
She started by making changes to her diet, even though the medics said this was useless.
She learned that cancer feeds on glucose, so it made sense to her to opt for a healthy low carbohydrate diet where foods that would spike blood sugar and insulin-like growth factors were eliminated. She also kept saturated fats to a minimum, avoided foods that could trigger inflammation, and reduced her overall calorie intake.
Then she changed her oncologist. This was essential. Jane found someone who would be a collaborator, not a dictator.
Because certain enzymes and other factors are linked to inflammation and fuel cancer growth, it made sense to take something that would inhibit them, like low-dose aspirin. She put this to her thoracic surgeon (who operated to remove a third of her lung), but he thought not. There wasn’t enough evidence to support its use, and it could be risky, he suggested.
She ignored his advice and took it anyway as well as other anti-inflammatories — ginger, curcumin and omega 3 fish oils.
Jane also made regular visits to an integrative doctor who specialized in cancer.
Stepping up natural treatments
He prescribed folate, because methotrexate, the chemotherapy drug she’d taken when first diagnosed, would have depleted it. Folate is an important building block of DNA.
He also recommended B vitamins to detoxify excess “bad” estrogen (estradiol), which stimulates tumor growth, and niacin to starve cancer by reducing fat.
She also drank green tea, green juices, and a juice made from apple, carrot, celery and beetroot.
Her choice of anti-cancer supplements included mahonia aquifolium extract, EGCG from green tea, gymnema sylvestre, hydroxycitrate, pycnogenol, silibinin (milk thistle), ellagic acid (from strawberries), resveratrol (from red grapes), glucosamine sulphate, nattokinase, and CLA (conjugated linoleic acid).
The supplement program aimed to accomplish several things.
First, it targeted and blocked different tumor pathways and growth factors. Second, it reduced the likelihood of cancer cells getting stuck in blood vessel walls where they could establish themselves and grow new tumors. Third, it would make chemotherapy more effective.
To boost the immune system, she took other supplements. Medicinal mushrooms, including maitake-D fraction extract, beta-glucans, MGN3 (a rice bran extract), DHEA and melatonin. She was also advised to eat all the day’s food within a narrow time frame so as to mimic fasting and help raise immunity.
Reluctantly agrees to chemotherapy
All Jane’s instincts told her high-dose chemotherapy was entirely wrong, yet despite grave misgivings she agreed to it.
Even though her oncologist accepted it was a crude and blunt tool that caused a lot of collateral damage, she had nothing else to offer this patient.
But after several months, Jane was not prepared to put up with its debilitating effects any longer and managed to persuade her oncologist to lower the dose over the next four months.
Nine months later, well past the date when she was “supposed” to be dead, she was alive and sported blood markers that indicated no detectable cancer in her body. But she knew it was very likely the cancer would come back, so she maintained the protocol and added to it.
Time for IVC and UBI
Jane now visited a different integrative doctor in order to receive intravenous vitamin C (IVC) and Ultraviolet Blood Irradiation (UBI).
The latter involves taking a syringe full of the patient’s blood, exposing it to ultraviolet C light, then reintroducing it into the body. This technique stimulates a powerful immune response, kills pathogens and improves the abnormal micro-environment around cancer cells.
At the same time, Jane added shark liver oil to her regimen as well as genistein, quercetin, chromium picolinate and vitamin K3. She also focused on establishing a good balance of bacteria in the gut as this is so important for a healthy immune response.
She had some bad news when test results from her first integrative doctor found a large number of parasites called Blastocystis hominis in the gut. Treatment involved intensive therapy over several months with a lot more supplements and dietary changes.
Chemotherapy-induced leukemia
All seemed well for the next four years, but in 2003 she was suffering with fatigue and night sweats. Tests run by a third integrative doctor she consulted suggested she now had acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
This was almost certainly a direct result of chemotherapy and radiation treatments which damage the bone marrow. Therapy-related blood cancers have an extremely poor prognosis.
The treatment prescribed for AML was yet more chemotherapy, which she considered madness, so she decided to step up her arsenal of helpers instead.
Diet, supplements and other natural therapies kept her cervical cancer at bay, but for AML, additional big hitters were required.
It was time to investigate drugs. . .but not the ones oncologists hand out.
Beneficial pharmaceuticals
Many approved drugs used for a variety of purposes also have anti-cancer activity. They are not approved for cancer, but any doctor can prescribe “off-label” drugs if they are so minded.
The first promising pharmaceutical she came across was the blood clot inhibitor, dipyridamole. According to the medical literature, this has powerful immune-protective and anti-cancer properties.
The next was lovastatin. As well as lowering cholesterol, it was found to cause pronounced apoptosis in her type of leukemia. She discovered that a combination of lovastatin with the anti-inflammatory drug etodolac multiplied the anti-cancer effect five-fold.
Each drug was low in toxicity and starved the cancer of major metabolic drivers in different ways.
Months later her blood markers were back in the normal range and she has been cancer free for almost 15 years.
A combination of approaches is needed
Jane’s recovery is truly remarkable considering she was diagnosed with cancer in the last century. She had to act as her own guinea pig to come up with a constellation of therapies to target cancer from all angles.
Jane has continued to research better approaches to treating cancer and now advises other cancer patients.
She believes today’s entire focus on genes in conventional research is wrong. It certainly has a place, but it should be combined with treating the altered metabolism that’s common to all cancers.
She writes, “In the mad dash to get rid of a tumor, the patient is over-treated with high levels of either chemotherapy, radiotherapy or targeted therapies. This approach is doomed to fail — it only makes the patient more resistant to future treatment.
“Focusing on the DNA does not affect the cancer ‘stem cell’. Cancer returns harder and more aggressively than before. The cancer mutates and eventually becomes resistant to these ‘targeted’ treatments.
“Treating the cancer metabolism on the other hand, alongside targeted approaches, will reach the stem cell and offer the real opportunity for a cure.”
Our last issue discussed an herbal extract that has so many applications, you could call it a wonder drug (if it was a drug…) If you missed this valuable news, it’s running again below.

References:

  1. How To Starve Cancer by Jane McLelland, Agenor Publishing, 2018
https://www.cancerdefeated.com/even-in-the-face-of-impossible-odds-proof-you-can-beat-cancer/

Sunday, 10 December 2017

How obesity causes cancer, and may make screening and treatment harder

Today, almost two in every three Australian adults are overweight or obese, as are one in four children. Obesity is a disease itself and a risk factor linked to ischaemic heart disease(the leading cause of premature deaths today in Australia), stroke (the third leading cause), and musculoskeletal conditions (the second major cause of disability), among others.
March 20, 2017 6.26am AEDT
This rising obesity burden is the outcome of a host of factors, many of which are beyond the control of the individual. It is having a devastating impact on the health of the nation. What’s often overlooked, though, is the link between obesity and cancer.
Cancer is a disease of altered gene expression that originates from changes to the DNA caused by a range of factors. These include inherited mutations, DNA damage, inflammation, hormones, and external factors including tobacco use, infections (for example, viruses such as HPV), radiation, chemicals and carcinogenic agents in food.
Strong evidence also links obesity to a number of cancers. These include oesophageal adenocarcinoma, bowel cancer (the third leading cause of preventable death in Australia), cancer of the liver, gall bladder and bile ducts, pancreatic cancer, postmenopausal breast cancer, endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, and multiple myeloma (cancer in the plasma in the blood).
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Highly suggestive evidence exists for a further eight cancers.

How does obesity increase cancer risk?

There are many complex ways obesity is thought to cause or increase the risk of cancer.
Increased body fat is associated with increased inflammation in the body, increased release of oestrogens (in part from the fat cells themselves) and decreased insulin sensitivity associated with raised insulin production.
Insulin, “insulin-like growth factor-1” (IGF1) and leptin are all elevated in obese people and can promote the growth of cancer cells.
Secretion of the hormone insulin is usually tightly controlled and a healthy part of our body’s sugar-regulation processes. But it can be significantly elevated in people with obesity-related pre-diabetes or diabetes due to insulin resistance.
This state of elevated insulin levels in the blood can act as a growth signal for tumour cells. This increases the risk of cancers of the colon and endometrium (the lining of the uterus), and likely of the pancreas and kidney.
Insulin-like growth factors (IGFs) regulate cell growth, differentiation and death, and IGF-1has been associated with prostate, breast and bowel cancers.
Leptin, a hormone implicated in hunger and satiety, can stimulate proliferation of many pre-cancer and cancer cells. Increased leptin levels in obese people are associated with bowel and prostate cancers.
Sex steroid hormones, including oestrogens, testosterone and progesterone, are crucial to healthy body development and sexual function, but are also likely to play a role in obesity and cancer. Increased levels of sex steroids are strongly associated with risk of developing endometrial and postmenopausal breast cancers, and may contribute to other cancers such as bowel cancer.
Fat tissue is the main site of oestrogen production in the body for men and postmenopausal women (in premenopausal women the ovaries are the major producer). Obesity can predispose premenopausal women to polycystic ovarian syndrome, which causes elevated testosterone and therefore could contribute to cancer risk.
Obesity also causes inflammation in the body. This means the body’s immune system is consistently more active than is normal in healthy weight people.
Evidence for a role of sex hormones and chronic inflammation in the relationship between obesity and cancer is strong. Evidence for a role of insulin and IGF is moderate. A range of other mechanisms are still under investigation.

Where does obesity lie on cancer-risk scale?

Overall, obesity-associated cancers represent up to 8.2% of all cancers in the UK. For comparison, smoking is responsible for about 19%.
Of all deaths from cancer in the USA, excess body weight is close behind smoking as the attributable cause, at 20% versus 30%.

Does obesity affect the screening and detection of cancer?

Focusing on just two types of cancer, breast cancer in women and prostate cancer in men, some evidence suggests that obesity can delay the identification of cancer through screening. This does not reduce the importance or accuracy of screening tools or programs.
For breast cancer, the most common form of cancer in women in Australia, the good news is that screening accuracy is similar across weight status. The Swiss national health survey found the accuracy of mammography is maintained in obese women - with similar ability of the tests to detect cancers, but reduced ability to ensure the positive result definitely means cancer. This meant obese women had a 20% higher false positive rate than normal weight individuals, but does not suggest any cancers were missed.
The troubling news, though, is studies suggest obese women with breast cancer detected through mammogram tend to present to their doctors later, and when the cancer is more serious, than their healthy weight counterparts. The exact reasons for this are not clear, but may include difficulties in breast self-examination and delayed health-seekingSuch findings reinforce the crucial importance of strategies to encourage appropriate cancer screening and timely medical follow-up among overweight and obese women.
For prostate cancer, the most common form of cancer in Australia, large studies suggest a link between obesity and decreased risk of low-grade or early prostate cancer, but increased risk of advanced disease.
The reasons are again thought to be numerous, but one potential reason may be linked to greater difficulty in diagnosing prostate cancer in overweight men. While this is thought to possibly delay diagnosis and treatment, it is unlikely entirely to explain the links between obesity and prostate cancer risk.

What risks does obesity pose in the treatments of cancer?

Obesity can impact cancer treatments and their success. Obese patients have a significantly higher risk of heart attack following surgery, as well as risk of wound infection, nerve injury and urinary infection. Obesity alone increases the risk of poorer health outcomes following surgery, and morbid obesity increases the risk of death.
In cancer treatments, one study has shown significantly increased surgical complications and prolonged hospital stay with morbid obesity in bowel cancer. Another suggests obesity may reduce chemotherapy efficacy in breast cancer, with lower disease-free survival rates.

Is this risk reversible?

By 2025 it’s estimated that more Australians will be obese than normal weight. At the same time, cancer is a leading contributor to early deaths and disability in Australia and the major cause of years lost from people’s lifespans.
The question is not whether obesity can cause cancer; it is how we can better prevent or mitigate this important risk factor. Reassuringly, evidence suggests that weight loss may reduce or reverse many of the above processes and their associated risks.
While obesity is just one of the drivers of the cancer burden in Australia, it is preventable and doing so would bring other enormous health benefits.
https://theconversation.com/how-obesity-causes-cancer-and-may-make-screening-and-treatment-harder-73596

Tuesday, 21 June 2016

Milk: It doesn’t do a body good

Image result for milkIf you’re of a certain age, you probably remember the ad campaign from the dairy industry, the one with the tagline “Milk, it does a body good.” And you probably also remember those cute magazine ads where some celebrity had a milk moustache, like a three-year-old.


19 June 2016
Newsletter #614
Lee Euler, Editor

If you’re of a certain age, you probably remember the ad campaign from the dairy industry, the one with the tagline “Milk, it does a body good.” And you probably also remember those cute magazine ads where some celebrity had a milk moustache, like a three-year-old.
Well, in a way the campaign was appropriate because age three is about when you should stop drinking milk. After the toddler stage, it doesn’t do a body good. In fact, it does a great deal of harm. Get this stuff out of your diet, for the following reasons. . .
Milk is linked to a slew of diseases and conditions, including prostate and ovarian cancer. Add to the list weight gain, diabetes, constipation, IBS, bloating and gas, allergies and skin conditions. . .
But don’t expect to hear this from your doctor, the media, or Uncle Sam.
Instead the milk industry makes these dubious claims, with the blessing of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. . .
  1. It’s the consummate comfort food – wholesome and quintessentially American.
  2. It reduces bone fractures and prevents osteoporosis.
  3. It’s your best source of calcium.
  4. You need it for vitamin D.
  5. It’ll improve athletic performance and is the perfect post-workout recovery drink.
  6. Everyone should consume at least 24 ounces per day.
The truth may be far less savory.
What about milk’s reputation as “Nature’s Perfect Food”? Dr. Mark Hyman, author of The Blood Sugar Solution, says that’s only true if you’re a cow. So it may be time to kill this “sacred cow.”
In terms of our evolution as a species (or, if you’re a fundamentalist, “the way God made us”), we were never meant to consume the milk of another species. Our bodies are programmed to consume only human breast milk, and only till about age two.
Milk’s hidden cancer connection
Science suggests there’s a link between dairy products and increased risk of prostate and testicular cancers, and possibly breast and ovarian cancer.
In the case of prostate cancer, several studies find an association to milk consumption. The Harvard Physician’s Health Study of 20,000 male doctors found that those consuming more than two dairy servings a day had an astounding 34 percent greater risk of prostate cancer than did those consuming little or no dairy.1 Other studies confirm that.
Dairy boosts insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), which promotes cancer cell growth.
IGF-1 is linked to breast cancer as well.
Calcium may be another culprit in prostate cancer. Too much can lower cancer-protective vitamin D.
As for ovarian cancer, galactose (a component of milk sugar lactose) may trigger the disease. An analysis of studies found that for every glass of milk (or 10 grams of lactose) consumed, ovarian cancer risk rose by 13 percent.2
On the other hand, a 2001 Norwegian study found that milk consumption reduced breast cancer risk in premenopausal women. But by only a tiny fraction… and premenopausal breast cancer is rare.
In Asia, where milk consumption is rare, the rate of breast cancer is lower than in the U.S. or Europe. There are probably other factors involved – lower red meat consumption, higher iodine consumption from sea products, who knows what else – but less milk probably translates to a lower cancer rate.
A hormone cocktail…
This dairy-created disaster may be linked to hormones. With every glass of milk, you get a chemical cocktail of some 60 hormones, including bovine growth hormone (rBGH), estrogen, progesterone, and more.
In 1970, one cow produced 9,700 pounds of milk in her lifetime. Today that same cow produces 19,000 pounds. This may sound great, but it’s not. Talk about factory farming!
That cow is being doped up on growth hormones that become a part of your “refreshing” glass of milk. Bovine growth hormone is a chemical additive, of course, but the natural components of milk are also troubling. . .
Casein is a protein found in all milk, human or animal. It’s linked to cancer and other chronic diseases. Dr. T. Colin Campbell (Cornell University) found that casein promotes cancer in every stage of development.
Apparently your immune cells attack casein proteins as foreign invaders. Here’s the real bummer: Milk proteins are similar enough to your own body’s proteins to confuse your immune cells into attacking your own body.
Casein is also exceedingly hard to digest. It sticks together like glue – as suggested by the cow on the front of Elmer’s glue. In fact, it’s a component in some glues.
What’s more, the milk sugar called lactose can’t be broken down beyond infancy – except for certain people of northern European descent who retain that ability into adulthood. You’ve probably heard of “lactose intolerance” – one of the most common causes of GI-tract problems. You can mitigate lactose intolerance by supplementing with the enzyme lactase – the baby hormone that most people no longer have after early childhood.
But the best move is to simply avoid lactose, i.e. milk.
Cultured dairy breaks down proteins we can’t naturally digest, enlisting the help of the bacterium Lactobacillus.
There are more reasons to consider ditching dairy.
Linked to type 1 diabetes
The scientific literature is clear that milk can trigger destruction of insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells in genetically predisposed people.
A study of 1,113 at-risk infants showed that those receiving special insulin-free cow’s milk developed 61% fewer beta cell autoantibodies by age 3 than did those on regular cow’s milk.
This seems to prove the problem with drinking milk of another species. The protein in cows’ milk – especially the beta-casein A1 molecule – is dramatically different than that found in human breast milk.
Dr. Mark Hyman also cites a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association linking milk to weight gain, diabetes, constipation, bloating and gas, irritable bowel syndrome, allergies, eczema, and increased fracture risk (even though milk is rich in calcium).
Wait… you’re saying I’m MORE likely to suffer a fracture?
It’s been hammered into our heads that we should drink at least three glasses of milk a day to prevent bone fractures.
You’ve seen the “Got Milk?” ads, right?
Walter Willett, M.D. and chairman of the nutrition department at Harvard School of Public Health, calls that heresy.
When he and his team reviewed six studies of nearly 200,000 women, they were shocked.
Not only was there zero evidence milk was preventive for fractures, but get this: a 60,000-person Swedish study found that women drinking 21+ ounces per day had a stunning 60 percent higher risk of hip fractures. And hip fractures can be deadly.
Remember, you can’t digest it
Despite the propaganda of dairy industry commercials, it’s a proven fact most people cannot digest dairy.
Today, an estimated 62.2 million Americans will consume dairy they cannot digest. Does that strike you as a healthy thing to do?
In fact, lactose intolerance is so common and the dairy industry so heavily promoted that most people never connect the dots between dairy and their gassiness, bloating, diarrhea or other symptoms — let alone cancer, which doesn’t develop until years later.
That’s besides full-blown dairy allergies, which can cause hives and other rashes, vomiting, and even anaphylactic shock.
What about raw and organic milk?
That’s the $64,000 question.
Most studies use conventional milk, so we don’t have much hard evidence about raw.
On the one hand, ditching huge amounts of pesticides, herbicides, and growth hormones can’t be all bad. But the lactose, insulin, and casein can still be a problem. Anecdotally, a couple of people I know with lactose intolerance have told me they don’t have a reaction to raw milk.
That may be, but there are so many other questionable ingredients in milk, I think it’s still a risky food to eat.
To find out if raw milk is even available legally in your state, go to http://www.realmilk.com/state-updates/. In my state, Virginia, it’s next to impossible to get. You pretty much have to own your own dairy cow.
Some doctors suggest taking a two-to-four-week hiatus from all dairy, reintroduce it (raw organic, if possible), assess how you feel, and decide from there if you can safely consume milk.
Personally, the sum total of dairy I use is half-and-half in coffee (which I rarely drink), plus a rare treat of ice cream, along with a very limited amount of cheese. These are all special treats, not daily items in my diet. And if I had cancer, I wouldn’t even touch the rare treat.
Here are some practical ways to slash your dairy load:
  1. Replace milk or half-and-half with coconut milk in recipes.
  2. Get calcium from dark leafy greens like kale, turnip greens, beet greens, broccoli, dried beans, almonds and almond butter, chia seeds, coconut milk, and quinoa.
  3. Try your hand at nut-based “cheeses.” Vegan cookbooks can guide you.
  4. Drink water instead of milk. Save cheese for special occasions, like maybe your periodic pizza fix.
  5. If you must have dairy, make it cultured, preferably raw (i.e. not pasteurized), non-homogenized, and organic.
  6. I’m told you can make your own coconut milk “ice cream” and “whipped cream.” I haven’t tried it myself.
  7. Try sheep or goat milk and cheese.
Our last issue talked about what might be the most unlikely cancer risk you’ll ever hear. But it’s for real. If you missed the news, we’re rerunning it just below.

This Cancer Risk Factor Could Be
Genetic, Environmental or Both –
That’s The Long & Short of It

Here’s a fact that has fascinated scientists for decades: Your risk of cancer is associated with how tall you are.
No one is quite sure why. Is it influenced by our genes, our environment or both? Even after hundreds of studies the jury is still out. But what is now accepted is that the link is real.
What’s more, the risk has been growing for the last 150 years, because on average people have been getting taller. Here’s the full story. . .
As height increases, so does cancer risk
Colorectal Cancer: In a meta-analysis of 16 studies, participants in the top height categories had between 20% and 60% increased risk compared to those in the bottom height categories.
For instance, in a study of over a million Norwegians, 6,397 men developed colon cancer and 4,393 developed rectal cancer. The figures for women were 7,620 and 3,482.
They were divided into five groups according to height, ranging from the shortest one-fifth to the tallest one-fifth. That put about 200,000 men in each group.
Men in the top height group had a 37% increased risk of colon cancer and a 17% increased risk of rectal cancer compared to those in the bottom height group. For women the figures were 35% and 18%.
In another group of 13 studies that combined the results of 5,287 cases of colorectal cancer, there was a consistent height/cancer association with the tallest men and women having a 31% increased risk compared to the shortest.
In April, 2016, Guillaume Onyeaghala of the University of Minnesota reported on a new study at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research. It showed that the group in the top quarter of leg length were 42% more likely to get colon cancer than those in the bottom quarter.
And those with the very longest legs (35.4 inches) had a 91% greater risk than those with the shortest legs (31.1 inches).
Prostate Cancer: Most of the 22 studies analyzed reported a 20% to 40% increased risk in those in the top height categories compared to the bottom.
In a study of 22,071 US male physicians, there were 1,047 cases of prostate cancer. The doctors who were more than 6 feet tall had a 26% greater risk compared to those under 5 feet 7 inches.
In another study of 47,781 US male health professionals, 1,369 were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Those 6 feet 2 inches or taller were found to be at a 37% greater risk of this common cancer than those 5 feet 8 inches tall, or less.
The researchers also reported “that tallness had a strong direct association with risk of metastatic disease,” with an increased risk of 68%.
Breast Cancer: In a group of 24 studies there was an increased risk ranging from 10% to 60% in the tallest height categories compared to the shortest.
In a study of 62,573 women aged 55 to 69 from the Netherlands, 626 had breast cancer after a four year follow up. The researchers found “a significantly positive association between adult height and breast cancer.” The risk for women over 5 feet 9 inches was double that of women who were 5 feet or less.
Endometrial/uterine cancer: Above average versus below average heights of 570,000 Norwegian women were compared. The 2,208 women with uterine cancer who were taller than average had a 20% greater risk.
The conclusion of another study that compared women with endometrial cancer with those free of the disease (controls) concluded that “women with endometrial cancer were significantly taller than control women.”
Other cancers: Increasing height has been found to increase the risk of a number of other cancers.
In 2010 the British Journal of Cancer published a study which showed that for every additional two inches of height the risk of developing testicular cancer increased by 13%. The relationship has also been found in cancers of the blood, lymphatic system, thyroid, ovary and some others.
Are the studies reliable?
One of the problems with conducting population studies is that it isn’t always clear what is being measured. For instance, taller people will tend to weigh more, so it may be weight that correlates with cancer and not height.
Higher socioeconomic status is also associated with greater stature. To put it bluntly, rich and powerful people also tend to be taller, on average. Perhaps such people are more health conscious and are more likely to request screening, which detects cancer at an early stage.
The number of potential biases in such research (confounding factors) can seriously skew the results.
The very best studies use very large population sizes and take as many confounding factors into account as they can. However, most studies have suffered to some degree from such biases.
The biggest studies confirm the link
The biggest study of its kind involved over five million Swedish people over a 50-year period.
The researchers discovered that for every four-inch increase in height, the risk of developing any form of cancer increased by 11% in men and 18% in women. The risk of malignant melanoma increased by 32% in men and 27% in women. The analysis took education and income into account.
The Million Women Study of 2011 is the most reliable of all the studies because it included 1,300,000 women and took a huge number of factors into account.
For every four inches above 5 feet, the cancer risk increased by 16% for 10 different cancers. Women in the study who were more than 5 feet 9 inches tall were 37% more likely to develop cancer than those under 5 feet.
The researchers took into account year of birth, socioeconomic factors, alcohol intake, body mass index, physical activity, age at puberty, number of pregnancies, age at first birth, menopausal status, use of hormone replacement therapy and smoking.
Finally, a study of 788,789 Koreans that took into account age, body mass index, female reproductive factors, and behavioral and socioeconomic factors found that every two inch increment in height was associated with a 5% higher cancer risk for men and 7% for women at all cancer sites.
How height increases cancer risk
The evidence for the height/cancer link is convincing, but the reason for the connection is not known.
Dr. Jane Green from Oxford University, who was lead researcher in the Million Women Study, said, “Obviously height itself cannot affect cancer, but it may be a marker for something else.”
What is that something else? Nobody knows for sure, but various ideas have been put forward.
These include:
  • Genetics – 80% of height variation in Western societies is thought to be accounted for by 180 separate genetic markers that could also increase cancer risk.
  • Organ mass and skin surface area – the organs and skin surface area of taller people are greater in size. More body cells may make for a greater likelihood of mutation.
  • Infections – some pathogens are known to cause cancer. A lower infection load in early childhood could increase risk of cancer if the infections are experienced later in childhood or as adults. Fewer infections in childhood may also lead to underdevelopment of the immune system.
  • Birth weight – risks of prostate and breast cancer have been linked to higher birth weight, which in turn is associated with greater height.
  • Nutrition – higher calorie intake in childhood and adolescence or greater intake of milk proteins
  • Growth hormones – insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) plays a fundamental role in body growth. Levels of IGF-1 increase in puberty and drive skeletal growth. An excess of this hormone and/or a decrease in its main binding protein, IGF-3, has been strongly linked to many different cancers. Cow’s milk contains high levels of IGF-1.
In a recent paper published in the journal Lancet, four medical professors wrote that for every 2½ inches in height, cancer mortality increases by 4%. They believe this is caused by too much high calorie food, in particular milk, dairy and other animal protein during fetal and child development and its influence on IGF-1.
In their view, “Limiting over-nutrition during pregnancy, early childhood and puberty would avoid not only obesity but also accelerated growth in children – and thus might reduce risk of cancer in adulthood.”
If you are especially tall, there is some good news. You have a lower risk for cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.