Does stress cause cancer

In a recent post, Dr. Travis Bradberry discussed the impact of a stressful job. According to Dr. Bradberry, analyses of multiple studies have established that the stress from unstable and/or demanding jobs leads to poor health. But does this include cancer?
 

There has been a lot of confusion whether stress causes cancer. A search of evidence-based medicine resources will inform you that if there is any evidence for such connection, it is slim and weak. The difficulty of proving causation comes from the many factors that may influence cancer development, as well as from the fact that the development of cancer takes years, and measuring stress during decades of life is challenging. Some researchers have proposed that stress allows for cancer development by weakening the immune system. This hypothesis is based upon the current knowledge that a functional immune system might be able to launch a response against cells with mutations. The evidence for the direct cause and effect in this scenario is yet to be provided.
 

However, one link between stress and cancer is quite tangible. It is based upon the length of the telomeres. What is this, you may ask. Our genes are made of DNA, and this DNA forms the chromosomes in the cells of our bodies. Each of our chromosomes is protected at both ends with sequences called telomeres. As our cells duplicate (divide), the telomeres shorten. Shortening of the telomeres is equivalent to aging and it is not a good news: once the telomeres are of critical length, our cells stop dividing (this period is called senescence). However, changes (mutations) in a few genes may allow the cells to continue dividing. During such divisions, the chromosomes without their protective telomeres are subject to damage. The loss of chromosomal integrity may lead to the birth of cells with abnormal growth, and eventually, to cancer.
 

The described process partially explains why we are more prone to develop cancer at older age. The other pathway through which age contributes to cancer is the accumulation of random changes in our DNA during cell division; some of these changes (mutations) could contribute to cancer. Stress may not affect this mutational pathway; however, it may precipitate the aging (shortening) of the telomeres and thus, increase the risk of impaired chromosome integrity. Stress could do this by affecting the activity of an enzyme called telomerase. When functional, this enzyme counteracts to a certain extent the telomere shortening in special (adult stem) cells in our bodies. Stress hormones (e.g., cortisol) slow down the activity of the enzyme telomerase, making it more ineffective in preventing the telomere shortening. The fact that psychological stress shortens the telomeres faster than expected for a particular age was demonstrated with two groups of mothers: mothers of healthy children (low-stress group) and mothers of children with chronic illnesses (high-stress group). The study established that compared to the low-stress group, the high-stress group of mothers exhibited shortening of the telomeres that was equivalent to 9 – 17 additional years of age. Therefore, high stress may bring people closer to the catastrophic event when the chromosome integrity is endangered.
 

To summarize, the more stress we experience, the more cortisol we release, the more ineffective the enzyme telomerase is, the shorter the telomeres become, and the chance of chromosomal damage increases. Once our chromosomes and certain genes on them are damaged, there is a high risk of cancer development. In a future study, I would like to see a comparison of the telomere length between two groups: people with low-stress jobs and people with demanding and/or uncertain jobs.I bet the second group will exhibit shorter telomeres after adjusting for age. 

Until such study is conducted, we should remember that cancer is a result of the combined assault of age, environment, lifestyle choices, inherited genetic changes, and that stress may precipitate the process of cancer development. So, breathe deep, meditate, re-play the best moments of your life in your imagination, seize the moment through mindfulness, and laugh with the Horrible Bosses movies.

Fatgripz vs. Grip4orce: Both Are Useful

For forearm and grip work, there is value in using a thick bar from time to time.  Because of this, there are products on the market that enable the user to transform their normal thin bar to a thick one. Two major competing products are Fatgripz and Grip4orce, which approach this need in different ways.  These items can be purchased on Amazon here and also here.

There has been discussion as to which is better.  Some argue that both have their place, and in this post, I’ll explain why I agree with that, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each product, and how the strengths and weaknesses of each are inter-related.  I have, and have used, both, so I have some degree of personal experience with these items.

First, let's discuss Fatgripz, the better known of the two.  Fatgripz is a very well made, high-quality, and sturdy thick rubber product, a point in its favor. It works by being put on the bar by the user, where it snaps into place securely. Once on the bar, it stays there, and must be forcefully removed by the user.  In other words, this product stays securely on the bar on its own and does not require the user to hold or squeeze the product to keep it affixed to the bar.

This characteristic is both a strength and weakness of the product. It is a strength because the strong and relatively secure attachment of Fatgripz to bar allows the user to do a variety of thick bar exercises without having to constantly squeeze the bar; it allows a greater degree of freedom to concentrate on the exercise itself rather than grip per se. Of the two products, in my opinion Fatgripz is better suited for doing routine thick bar work. Keep in mind however that my own use of this product has been for curls only and has been relatively infrequent.  I do not have personal experience using it for presses, although others do use this product for those exercises.

The weakness of the product derives from its strong attachment to the bar. It is somewhat difficult to get on and very difficult (at least for me) to remove. It is therefore not well suited to situations where you want to quickly move from thin to thick and back to thin bar exercises.  Fatgripz is better suited for circumstances where you want to keep a bar in the thick mode for a period of time, rather than just for one or a few exercises.  In addition, in some cases (see below) you actually do want to forcefully squeeze the bar, and while you can squeeze with the Fatgripz, it is not necessary; in contrast, Grip4orce requires squeezing the bar to keep the product in place, which is more effective as an inducement to squeeze tightly.

Grip4orce, which does not have the same sturdiness of Fatgripz, is designed for a different approach.  This product is placed on the bar and is held in place by the active gripping of the user. In other words, one must constantly apply a firm squeezing grip to hold the product to the bar. The advantages of this are two-fold. First, the product is very easily and quickly place on, or removed from, the bar, making rapid switching from thin to thick (and back to thin) bar work fast and simple. Second, for those exercises for which squeezing the bat is paramount, such as the power wrist curl described in one of my previous posts, Grip4orce is ideal.  It is the equivalent of the wrapped towel in the original exercise, but more effective and far more convenient.

The negatives of the Grip4orce derive from its advantages. It requires active gripping and concentration to be held in place. Therefore, while it is great for wrist curls, I would be very hesitant to use it for any movement that could result in injury if the bar fell from your grasp. I myself would never consider using this product for any sort of presses (military or bench) for example. The question I would ask is: if my grip failed, would the outcome be serious?  If so, then this is not the product to use for that exercise.  But I use it for the power wrist curls, and it works great for me for that.

In summary then, both products are useful, and have their place for forearm development.  Fatgripz is better when you want a thick bar for doing extended workouts including various routine movements where you do not want to worry about maintaining a tight squeezing grip. Grip4orce is better for keeping a tight squeezing grip for specific forearm work and is well suited for quick switches between the thin and thick bar modes, although I would not use this product for any movement where this is danger if grip gives out and/or danger if the bar slips out of the Grip4orce and falls somewhere.  As always, safety first, and do not start an exercise program without first consulting with your physician. As one example, if you have some injury or other medical condition that affects grip strength, the exercises described here would be inappropriate and should not be performed.

Cancer, obesity and home cooking

The list of cancers associated with obesity is expanding. According to the most recent analyses, obese individuals are at higher risk of ten types of cancer.
The best approach to controlling weight is to eat at home and know what is in the dish. This is why we should teach ourselves and our children how to cook. As a busy mother with a job, I do not have time to cook every day. I cook only on weekends and freeze. The most appealing recipes to me are the ones that are simple (with less than ten ingredients), do not have any exotic components, and result in healthy meals that freeze well.

I will be sharing some of these recipes, and today I will start with the recipe “Monastery Beans”. I am not sure whether a monk created this recipe; however, it is simple and healthy.                                                                                     
                                                     MONASTERY BEANS
Soak one pound of white beans in cold water overnight. On the next day, throw the water and cook the beans with one onion, one carrot, and a pepper (all sliced thinly). To cook, add water (the beans to water ratio is usually 1:2). When the beans are ready, add dry peppermint, fresh or dry parsley and salt to taste. Optionally, add winter savory and hot pepper.  The beans could be served with a bit of olive oil and paprika. The dish is delicious with some crumbled feta cheese on top and a fresh tomato salad on the side.

Tom Brady's Good Sense

Football player Tom Brady has made (in my opinion) reasonable comments about healthy eating:

New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady lashed out at Coca-Cola, calling the soda "poison for kids," while accusing other food companies of lying to Americans in a recent interview.

"You’ll probably go out and drink Coca-Cola and think, ‘Oh yeah, that’s no problem.’ Why? Because they pay lots of money for advertisements to think that you should drink Coca-Cola for a living? No, I totally disagree with that," Brady said in an interview with Boston sports radio station WEEI.

"The fact that they can sell [Coca-Cola] to kids? That’s poison for kids," he said.

Brady also ripped into Kellogg's Frost Flakes cereal, saying he couldn't believe that Americans actually think it qualifies as food.

"I think we’ve been lied to by a lot of food companies over the years, by a lot of beverage companies over the years. But we still do it. That’s just America," Brady said. "We believe that Frosted Flakes is a food."

"You keep eating those things and you keep wondering why we do have just incredible rates of disease in our country," he added.

Of course the companies in question were not pleased:

Coca-Cola and Frosted Flakes later hit back at Brady.

"All of our beverages are safe and can be enjoyed as part of a balanced lifestyle," Coca-Cola said in a statement reported by Fox Business. "We offer more than 200 low‐ and no‐calorie beverages in the U.S. and Canada and a wide variety of smaller portion sizes of our regular drinks,” the spokesperson added. “As a responsible beverage company and marketer, we prominently provide calorie and sugar information for our beverages so people can choose what makes sense for them and their families."

No one questions whether the beverages are “safe” (in the sense that consuming them constitutes an imminent health danger) but whether they are healthy, and whether the consumer would be better served drinking something else (like water) rather than this product.  Asking people to “choose what makes sense for them and their families” seems to me a bit disingenuous, given that, given the obesity epidemic, people clearly are not making the right choices, and also given that children can buy and consume these beverages without necessarily having a fully developed capability to make an informed choice.

This video is of relevance in understanding the agenda of food companies and their claims about their commitment to consumer health. 

After 125 years of advertising sugary, calorie-packed beverages and greatly contributing to the obesity epidemic, many found Coca-Cola’s “willingness” to step forward and play an important role in the epidemic laughable and ironic.

And then we read Kellogg’s take on this issue:

Kellogg released a statement saying its cereal "is a delicious and nutritious breakfast."

"Numerous studies show that a cereal breakfast is associated with lower BMIs (body mass index) in both children and adults. As a matter of fact, a serving of Frosted Flakes with skim milk has just 150 calories and delivers valuable nutrients including calcium, B vitamins and iron," the statement reads.

Breakfast cereal associated with lower BMIs?  Is this at least partially a function of people eating breakfast, and that eating breakfast – even one not optimal – is better than not eating breakfast at all and gorging on doughnuts later in the day?  Further, there are clear differences in types of breakfast cereals. There’s a difference between, say, Shredded Wheat and Frosted Flakes in their nutritional profile.  And do people really eat the “single servings” that food companies list on their packaging, or do they routinely eat several times more per sitting?  And, yes, while these cereals may be fortified with vitamins and minerals, there are healthier breakfast options that provide these nutrients without the added sugar.

If you do not get cancer, you are not going to die from it…

AICR, Cancer Prevention: Putting it Together

The estimate of the American Cancer Society is that in 2015, 312,150 men and 277,280 women in the U.S. will die from cancer. This death toll is equivalent to that resulting from three 747s airplanes crashing DAILY.  If this hypothetical flight tragedy were to take place every day, and we knew how to prevent up to 75% of the passenger deaths, do you think that we would not have acted immediately?  And yet, despite the fact that we know how to prevent up to 75% of all cancers from occurring, we, as a society, do not act upon our knowledge.  By not implementing cancer prevention, we consciously fail more than 1,000 people every day.

What is cancer prevention? It means blocking or eliminating the factors that cause the disease, or detecting the disease before it becomes incurable. It has been estimated that we can prevent up to 75% of all cancers with what we know today. Therefore, even without further advancement in cancer research, we could have a major control over the disease. Why are we not doing it?
 

One answer comes from the recent PBS documentary“The Emperor of All Maladies”.  At approximately minute 41 in part three, Dr. Robert Weinberg, one of the most prominent cancer researchers today, states that although prevention is one of the most powerful approaches against cancer, researchers like him tend to disregard prevention because it is not “intellectually stimulating and exciting.” Further, he explains: “Persuading somebody to quit smoking is ultimately a behavioral, a psychological exercise, has nothing to do with molecules and genes and cells. And so people like me are essentially uninterested in it, in spite of the fact that stopping people smoking will have vastly more effect on cancer mortality than anything I could hope to do in my own lifetime.”

In addition to not being “intellectually stimulating,” cancer prevention is not financially stimulating.  Dr. Vogelstein and his colleagues think that: “The reasons that society invests so much more in research on cures for advanced cancers than on prevention or early detection are complex. Economic issues play a part: New drugs are far more lucrative for industry than new tests, and large individual costs for treating patients with advanced disease have become acceptable, even in developing countries. “We should applaud the courage of these cancer researchers, who finally named one of the major reasons for the lack of cancer prevention: lack of profit.  


Profit and myopic focus on cure rather than prevention dictate the effort of most U.S. cancer researchers, the pharmaceutical industry, the government-supported National Cancer Institute, and even national “non-profit” organizations that many of us support, such as the American Cancer Society (ACS) and the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).  The small fraction of their budgets dedicated to prevention proves that cancer prevention is the “unwanted child” of these organizations. In 2015, AACR cancelled their annual “International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research.” I suspect that the attendance became so low in the past few years that it makes no sense to organize this meeting on an annual basis. According to ACS, approximately 13.6% of its budget in 2012 went for cancer prevention information and education; meanwhile, 26% went for supporting the functions of the organization. Even our taxpayer/government-supported National Institutes of Health do not emphasize cancer prevention.

The only prominent U.S. organization that still takes the war on cancer seriously is the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR), with 100% of its effort dedicated to prevention.  AICR (in partnership with the World Cancer Research Fund International) is one of the few world organizations that consistently reach out to the population with recommendations on cancer prevention.

If the structure of our society is geared toward treatment rather than prevention, and yet, only prevention could make a major difference, what should we do? Should we start a relentless campaign on educating everyone about healthy lifestyles? Should the government and the health insurance companies offer incentives for cancer prevention adherence or impose disincentives for non-compliance? What is the right direction?

Why I Stopped Drinking Orange Juice

After getting blood work results with just-at-the-borderline readings for some parameters, I revamped my diet. One change was eliminating my daily full glass of orange juice in the morning, which at the time felt like a big sacrifice, since I was an orange juice fan, and had been drinking one glass per morning since childhood. I also thought drinking orange juice was healthy.
 
I then read up on dietary sugar intake, especially fructose, which can be especially damaging. Fruit juice is high in sugar, including fructose; in addition, the juice does not contain the fiber of actual fruit, which slows down digestion and slows down the release of sugar into the blood.
 
Thus, orange juice is not good for you, and can be considered the equivalent of drinking soda.
 
What about vitamin C intake? How to replace the juice? I've increased my consumption of fruit and vegetables that have vitamin C (in its natural form, along with fiber), and also take part of a vitamin C tablet (the whole tablet has too much vitamin C, an excess compared to required dosages). The tablet can be dispensed with if you are eating sufficient foods enriched in vitamin C; if you have any question about whether your intake is sufficient, you can take one-half of a chewable vitamin C tablet for that day to be on the "safe side."
 
In summary, unless you have a legitimate reason why you need a quick sugar boost, such as correcting an episode of hypoglycemia in diabetics, drinking your sugar/carbs is not a good idea.

Two Types of Exercise

How much aerobic exercise is required for fitness?  I agree with the consensus, at least 30 minutes of walking per day is good for you. If the weather is good, do it outside, if possible. In periods of bad weather, I'll walk for 30 minutes inside the house, watching TV, listening to a podcast, or just thinking about things. get those 30 minutes or so. I'll do some bursts of jumping rope a several days a week, and, at work, climb stairs (usually two at a time), to get some aerobic exercise.

Anaerobic exercise is important as well. Doing some weightlifting work, twice a week, works for me. Every once in a while, take a break from the weights to let body and mind recover, and then start the next cycle.

This combination of aerobic and anaerobic exercise, coupled to a healthy diet, will work wonders. An improved diet (a topic of other posts here) and regular exercise has reduced my blood pressure (having one of those use-at-home blood pressure and heart rate units for home monitoring is a good idea).