Skip Navigation.

April 2002 Vol. 7 No. 4

 “The great thing in this world is not so much where we are but in what direction we are moving”.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Table of Contents:High Fat Diet May Contribute To Breast Cancer Risk
The Glycemic Index
Cigarettes Cost U.S. Additional $7 Per Pack Sold in Medical and Other Costs
Fish Oil Reduces Risk of Irregular Heartbeat

High Fat Diet May Contribute To Breast Cancer Risk 

 The results of a new study indicate that a high fat diet probably plays a supporting role in the develop ment of breast cancer.  The study findings are the latest round in a scientific debate about the link between breast cancer and dietary fat.  

UK researcher Dr. Richard A. Wiseman, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, examined “all relevant epidemiological and biological evidence” pertaining to the development of breast cancer, in an effort to pinpoint a single cause responsible for the majority of cases.  Although estrogen is a promoter of breast cancer, according to the data, it is not the main cause of the disease, and it appears that the diet plays an even greater role then previously thought.

Dietary factors and especially saturated fat consumption are associated with breast cancer, and dietary fat intake may cause depletion of an essential agent that is normally protective against breast cancer.

A deficiency of this yet-to-be discovered agent, either by inadequate intake or depletion via a high-fat diet, combined with age and estrogen, permits breast cancer to develop at significantly greater rates compared with women in countries that have a diet low in saturated fat.
[Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2000; 54:851-858.]

http://www.afpafitness.com/search/search.html Type in Cancer Battle Plan, Cancer and Foods

www.afpafitness.com/newsletters/MayNews99.htm
www.afpafitness.com/newsletters/MarNews99.htm

THE GLYCEMIC INDEX 

The ideal high-carbohydrate food has not only plenty of satiety value and nutrients but also as little an impact on blood sugar as possible. This is why scientists came up with the glycemic index, a way of rating foods according to how fast and how high they raise blood sugar (glycemia: glyc = “sugar or glucose”; emia = “blood”).

When the glycemic indexes of foods were first measured in 1981 by the Canadian research team of David Jenkins and Thomas Wolever, the results were not at all what people expected. Up until that time, it was assumed that starchy, high-complex-carbohydrate foods would not raise blood sugar as much as sugary foods, but Jenkins and Wolever found that some starches raise blood sugar almost as much as a load of glucose. Surprisingly, the glycemic response to potatoes and white bread were similar to sweets and sugary cereals. On the other hand, beans, lentils, and dried peas were found to elicit a low glycemic response; pasta and rice were ranked somewhere in between.

After many more studies and much debate, it became clear that the effect of foods on blood sugar depends on many factors. As we have seen, there is the important soluble-fiber effect of slowing carbohydrate absorption rate, which explains why foods like beans and oats have a low glycemic index. And then there is the question of how rapidly a starch can be digested. Starches are called complex carbohydrates because they are made up of many glucose molecules all linked together. The glycemic index studies showed us that the way the glucose molecules are linked together determines how fast we can digest them. Some, like potato starch, are so rapidly broken down by digestive enzymes that they cause a rise in blood sugar that is almost indistinguishable from that of pure sugar.

The way a starchy food is prepared also affects how rapidly it is digested and absorbed: Pasta cooked al dente (still firm) raises blood glucose more slowly than does overcooked, mushy pasta; mashed potatoes raise blood sugar more rapidly than do cubed and boiled potatoes. To make matters more complicated, subtle differences, such as the ripeness of a banana, can double the glycemic index. Moreover, people don’t usually eat just one food at a time, they eat a mix of foods; and the fat content of a meal also slows carbohydrate absorption.  
With all of these complicating factors, it’s not surprising that the value of teaching people about the glycemic index became a subject of hot debate among diabetes educators.  Experts in the United States, led by dietitian Ann Coulston and diabetes researcher Gerald Reaven (who first described insulin resistance syndrome), finally succeeded in keeping the glycemic index from being required in diabetic teaching. They made it clear that it was unnecessary to impose yet another diet worry on people with diabetes, because their blood sugar levels are the sum total of so many factors.

Indeed, other research suggests that the insulin response to what we eat is the underlying determinant of blood sugar levels overall. In a nutshell, it appears that diets high in good carbs - those high in fiber - require less insulin to dispose of blood sugar than do those high in the not-so-good carbs. In fact, eating a diet high in cereal fiber (whole grains) has recently been found to protect against both obesity and type 2 diabetes in the CARDIA Study. When researchers tracked changes in fasting insulin levels and body weight in 3,709 adults for a seven-year period, they found a strong association between eating refined carbohydrates and increased weight and fasting insulin.

The findings of the CARDIA Study are consistent with the Nurses Health Study, which found that  women who ate the most low-fiber, high-glycemic-index foods, such as white bread, colas, jams, and potatoes had 2-1/2 times the rate of type 2 diabetes as the women who ate the most high-fiber, low-glycemic-index foods.

So it seems that when you look at the big picture, as researchers did in these large health studies involving thousands of people, the way to eat carbohydrates is with as much of their original fiber as possible. Focus on eating carbohydrate foods that contain fiber, and you blood sugar will be all the better for it.
Source: “The Other Diabetes: Living and Eating Well with Type 2 Diabetes” by Elizabeth Hiser

Cigarettes Cost U.S. Additional $7 Per Pack Sold in Medical and Other Costs  

Whenever a pack of cigarettes is sold in the US, another $7.18 is added to the taxpayer’s bill in terms of medical costs and lost productivity according to the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention.

About 22 billion packs of cigarettes are sold in the US each year, costing a total of $157 billion in health-related costs, according to estimates based on 1999 smoking habits.

Cigarette smoking continues to be the principal cause of premature death in the United States and imposes substantial costs on society.

In 1995-1999, the years CDC researchers studied, more than 260,000 men and 178,000 women died every year due to smoking, either from lung cancer, heart disease or emphysema.

About 600 baby boys and 400 baby girls died each year during that time period because their mothers smoked during pregnancy, according to CDC estimates. And about $366 million — or $704 per pregnant smoker — was spent in 1996 caring for infants injured by cigarette smoke.

Overall, smoking killed nearly half a million people each year in the late 1990s, including about 35,000 people who died of heart disease due to secondhand smoke.

The economic costs of smoking totaled $3,391 per smoker per year.

The estimates did not include deaths attributable to cigars, pipe smoking or smokeless tobacco. Also, the CDC researchers point out that the deaths and health effects in the late 1990s were due to cigarettes purchased and smoked in the past, when smoking rates were higher. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2002;51:300-302

Fish Oil Reduces Risk of Irregular Heartbeat  

Previous studies have suggested that fish oil supplements may reduce the risk of an additional heart attack or stroke in patients who have recently experienced a heart attack. Now new study findings reveal that the supplement also reduces the risk of sudden death.

The findings show that this reduced risk was evident after as few as 3 months, which seems to support the hypothesis that adding n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids — commonly found in fish and fish oil — to a healthy diet may lower the risk of fatal arrhythmia, an irregular heartbeat that in severe cases can lead to cardiac arrest.

Reduction of sudden death appeared early after start of treatment. This seems to support the idea that omega-3 fats could be due to an anti-arryhythmia effect.

The study included 11,323 patients who had suffered a heart attack within the previous 3 months. All of the patients received the same preventive care and ate Mediterranean-style diets rich in fruits, vegetables, olive oil and fish. But some patients also consumed 1 gram of the fish oil supplements per day.

During the 3.5-year follow-up period, 1,031 individuals died.  Patients who took the fish oil supplements appeared to be at a 41% lower risk of death from any cause after only 3 months of treatment, study findings indicate.  After 4 months of treatment, these patients also appeared to be at a significantly reduced risk of sudden cardiac death. And by the end of the study period, patients treated with fish oil supplements were 45% less likely to die suddenly from a heart-related cause.

One capsule of a fish oil concentrate daily for 3.5 years resulted in a very significant reduction in sudden cardiac death. Thus, a simple and safe change in diet can potentially produce a large public health benefit.
Circulation April 2002;105