skin cancer

[Myca]

I was reading about skin cancer, food and toxins. If skin cancer is caused by bad food and toxins being released due to exposure to the sun, why are fair skinned people more affected?

[juliew]

and why do babies get burned if they have clean cells...?

[Sugar Snap Pea]

Skin cancer: genetic predisposition.

[Raw Angel Mom]

I read that the sun block lotion are very toxic and could be one of the cause of skin cancer. I am a fair person and i don't wear sun block lotion anymore neither sun glasses. If you eyes are directly exposed to the light, they will regulate your body's protection better. If you wear sun glasses, it won't know the amount of sun your body is exposed.

I haven't have a sun burn ever since i followed that advice. I do know my body's limit and won't stay longer that i should but i noticed that i can stay much longer now. Our body is truly wise, i feel also raw food is helping. I noticed also that since i do raw food, i don't have problem anymore with mousquitos. They use to bit me like crazy.

[rawbabymama]

and why do babies get burned if they have clean cells...?

Sun burn, like frostbite, can happen to anyone from overexposure - fair skinned people and babies have less natural protection. Skin cancer is different...it is caused by a mutation which can be triggered by a variety of circumstances (genetics, toxins, etc).

Babies' cells aren't clean...toxins are stored in fat cells, and women's bodies always keep at least around 15% body fat (if they are fertile) - I think it probably takes a long time for the body to replace this stored fat+toxins with new fat from raw foods; in addition, the environment we all live in, regardless of which part of the earth we inhabit, is filled with toxic chemicals thanks to our wonderful industrial spirit. (Ok, I am more than just a little bitter). Even a baby born to a raw mother will not be fortunate enough to be completely toxin free. We just have to accept it and do the best we can.

[freshlight]

I read that the sun block lotion are very toxic and could be one of the cause of skin cancer. I am a fair person and i don't wear sun block lotion anymore neither sun glasses. If you eyes are directly exposed to the light, they will regulate your body's protection better. If you wear sun glasses, it won't know the amount of sun your body is exposed.

I haven't have a sun burn ever since i followed that advice. I do know my body's limit and won't stay longer that i should but i noticed that i can stay much longer now. Our body is truly wise, i feel also raw food is helping. I noticed also that since i do raw food, i don't have problem anymore with mousquitos. They use to bit me like crazy.

wow, this is so interesting! Thanks for posting it. I didn't know that about the sun glasses. Have fun in the sun:)

[Revvell]

IMO, the sun draws out the cancer and can also heal it yet, instead of allowing that to happen, people blame the sun for the cancer. It's like blaming the alarm for the fire.

I use no sunblock but, I'm not stupid. Hanging out in the sun for too long (whatever that is to each individual) is dangerous. I've seen some of my black friends get sunburned.

I do get out in it EVERY day; I use pure, unadulterated shea butter during and after. NEVER use sunblock. If I'm out longer than I "should" be, shirts, pants, hat.


I was reading about skin cancer, food and toxins. If skin cancer is caused by bad food and toxins being released due to exposure to the sun, why are fair skinned people more affected?

[rawbabymama]

IMO, the sun draws out the cancer and can also heal it yet, instead of allowing that to happen, people blame the sun for the cancer. It's like blaming the alarm for the fire.

I use no sunblock but, I'm not stupid. Hanging out in the sun for too long (whatever that is to each individual) is dangerous. I've seen some of my black friends get sunburned.

I do get out in it EVERY day; I use pure, unadulterated shea butter during and after. NEVER use sunblock. If I'm out longer than I "should" be, shirts, pants, hat.

Interesting thought about the sun drawing out the cancer.

I also use shea butter in the sun. I had a slight sunburn a couple times last summer when it was 100 degress & I went swimming at noon - this year I'll be sure to drink lots of carrot juice, eat plenty of strawberries, and cover up my face and shoulders when the sun is staring me down.

[T-Bird]

I read that the sun block lotion are very toxic and could be one of the cause of skin cancer. I am a fair person and i don't wear sun block lotion anymore neither sun glasses. If you eyes are directly exposed to the light, they will regulate your body's protection better. If you wear sun glasses, it won't know the amount of sun your body is exposed.

My mother lost half her nose to skin cancer - she did not use sunscreen most of her life.

My dad lost his vision to macular degeneration - but not until his 80's. My mom think because he spent so much time out in the sun without sunglasses.

I have my father's eyes (blue and nearsighted, mom's fam is farsighted) and my nose gets burnt at 6pm waiting for a bus for 10 minutes.

I will be protecting both my skin and eyes.:)

I have irish skin and eyes - and I'm not living in ireland - so measures need to be taken IMHO.

When I was kid out playing - I didn't wear sunglasses - and I got burnt to a crisp - once my nose was peeling about 4 layers of skin and it was meat under there - it was horribly painful. So I don't buy the eyes will regulate deal.

A friend went to mexico - she burnt so bad she had scars.

You need consider the latitude your skin was genetically designed for, and where your living.

[T-Bird]

Babies' cells aren't clean...toxins are stored in fat cells, and women's bodies always keep at least around 15% body fat (if they are fertile) - I think it probably takes a long time for the body to replace this stored fat+toxins with new fat from raw foods; in addition, the environment we all live in, regardless of which part of the earth we inhabit, is filled with toxic chemicals thanks to our wonderful industrial spirit. (Ok, I am more than just a little bitter). Even a baby born to a raw mother will not be fortunate enough to be completely toxin free. We just have to accept it and do the best we can.

But even hundreds of years ago - women took great care of skin to keep it out of the sun.

[rawbabymama]

But even hundreds of years ago - women took great care of skin to keep it out of the sun.

Different reason...they did it so they wouldn't look like the servants - you know, brown.

[T-Bird]

But there were reasons they didn't want to look like the servants - just look at the skin of someone who spends a lot of time in the sun - weatherbeaten, craggy, wrinkled, spotted.

[rawbabymama]

But there were reasons they didn't want to look like the servants - just look at the skin of someone who spends a lot of time in the sun - weatherbeaten, craggy, wrinkled, spotted.

You may be partially right, but I am going to keep my big mouth shut on the research I have done on skin color, patriarchy, etc. ~~~zipped~~~:)

[cara4art]

Sunblock toxicity issues aside, skin cancer is no joke, as T-Bird illustrates. And since we are dealing with stronger sunlight than formerly, over-exposure and some sun-related cancers can happen to almost anyone, fair or not. If one has naturally very fair skin, one should really be careful about one's tolerance for exposure, which is not much at all for lighter, pinker skin types. In this case, cover-ups, hats, sleeves, seeking shade, and staying OUT of the sun after those few safe minutes are up - all non-toxic ways of protection. Save the sunblock for those situations where you know you are going to be out for awhile, and it's too hot to wear much, otherwise do the old-fashioned stuff. Look for natural sunblocks if you can, and reapply often. Granted, one can live clean, detox, etc. as systemic toxicity ties in a lot to skin cancers, but the truth of the matter is that you do have to pay attention to your skin's limits.

[T-Bird]

Sunblock toxicity issues aside, skin cancer is no joke, as T-Bird illustrates. And since we are dealing with stronger sunlight than formerly, over-exposure and some sun-related cancers can happen to almost anyone, fair or not. If one has naturally very fair skin, one should really be careful about one's tolerance for exposure, which is not much at all for lighter, pinker skin types. In this case, cover-ups, hats, sleeves, seeking shade, and staying OUT of the sun after those few safe minutes are up - all non-toxic ways of protection. Save the sunblock for those situations where you know you are going to be out for awhile, and it's too hot to wear much, otherwise do the old-fashioned stuff. Look for natural sunblocks if you can, and reapply often. Granted, one can live clean, detox, etc. as systemic toxicity ties in a lot to skin cancers, but the truth of the matter is that you do have to pay attention to your skin's limits.

My mom had 2 surgeries following the mohs surgery - total of 3. They took some ear cartilage and some other tissue from somewhere else. she complains that's it's not exactly right - and I tell her:

"Any nose is better than no nose"

she had waited too long to see the doctor - and he said it was just on the cusp of not being able to be reconstructed via plastic surgery.

She had on bandages after the initial surgery, and they put something under her skin to stretch out the skin so they would have more to work with and did the plastic surgery 3 weeks later. She peeked under the bandages - unfortunately. This was an extremely vain woman - her looks meant everything to her. The horror of what she saw under those bandages - I worried she would kill herself - honestly. I told her to just hang on till the plastic surgery.

Here's a story of a young raw vegan woman with breast cancer....
http://cousinsiv.com/comm_bif.htm

Just saying.....

[T-Bird]

oh - and just to clarify, my mom is not irish, here skin is not as fair as mine.

[rawmiss]

Here's a story of a young raw vegan woman with breast cancer....
http://cousinsiv.com/comm_bif.htm

Just saying.....

Diet is not the solution to everything, yes, that could have been due to her bra (if she wore one) constricting the lymphatic flow. So that's not a sign that raw didn't work. IMHO
http://www.all-natural.com/bras.html

Bras and Breast Cancer
by Ralph L. Reed, Ph.D.

"Although I am an environmental chemist (Ph.D in biochemistry), I have been doing a lot of literature research on breast cancer since I saw an article on the National Library of Medicine database over a year ago. That article documented an increase in breast cancer rates between women who do wear bras versus those that do not.

That Harvard study fascinated me and I searched the medical literature for possible explanations. In January 1996, I discovered the book by Singer and Grismaijer and their explanation of impaired lymphatic flow intrigued me. I have since read everything that I can find on lymphatic flow. What I have found has amazed me, but that is another story. I can supply you with lots of info if you like. In essence, what Singer and Grismaijer found was that the odds of getting breast cancer dramatically increased with bra-wearing over 12 hours per day.


Women who wore their bras 24 hours per day had a 3 out of 4 chance of developing breast cancer (in their study, n=2056 for the cancer group and n=2674 for the standard group).

Women who wore bras more than 12 hour per day but not to bed had a 1 out of 7 risk.

Women who wore their bras less than 12 hours per day had a 1 out of 152 risk.

Women who wore bras rarely or never had a 1 out of 168 chance of getting breast cancer. The overall difference between 24 hour wearing and not at all was a 125-fold difference.

The results of this study are compelling, even considering that it was not a "controlled study" for other risk factors. Bear in mind that known (published in medical journals) risk factors for breast cancer are mostly in the range of less than three-fold differences. It should also be noted that Singer and Grismaijer surveyed bra-wearing behavior of the past, which is excellent for a disease with such a long development period. In their book, the authors show how most of the known risk factors can be related to bra-wearing behavior and/or the lymphatic system.

For example, breast feeding and pregnancy cause full development of the mammary lymphatics. Also, women of higher economic status have higher breast cancer rates, and one would expect that they would wear their bras more hours per day. Women who excercise have lower risk, which could relate to better lymphatic circulation (and I would add, more breast movement).

To this discussion, I would like to add that lymphatic circulation in many tissues (especially the primary lymphatics) are highly dependent on MOVEMENT. When you sit for a long time on an airplane flight, your feet and ankles can swell, because lymphatic circulation goes to near zero. COLOR="Blue"]Wearing a bra, especially a constricting one with underwires, and especially to bed, prevents normal lymphatic flow and would likely lead to anoxia (lower than normal oxygen content), which has been related to fibrosis, which has been linked to increased cancer risk. [/COLOR]
Women evolved under conditions where there was BREAST MOVEMENT with every step that they took when they walked or ran. My reading of the scientific literature about lymphatic flow shows me that this may be as important as the constriction factor. Every subtle bounce of the breast while moving, walking, running, etc. gently massages the breast and increases lymphatic flow and thus cleans the breast of toxins and wastes that arise from cellular metabolism.

Of course, there may be other mechanisms for the damage that bras apparently cause. One such mechanism could be temperature. Breasts are external organs and have a naturally lower temperature. Cancers can be temperature-dependent. Breast cancer is hormone-dependent. Temperature can alter hormone function. Breast temperature changes throughout the monthly cycle.

All these facts are from the medical literature. By whatever mechanism, someone will eventually explain why Singer and Grismaijer found a 125-fold difference in cancer rates between bra-free breasts and those constricted by 24-hour-per-day bra-wearing."

[T-Bird]

The results of this study are compelling, even considering that it was not a "controlled study" for other risk factors.

Yeah - like maybe women who wear bras also wear antiperspirant or something? Correlation does not mean causation, and I require a more conclusive study to put any faith in.

I wear a bra 24/7 and I don't intend to stop. I don't think it is increasing my cancer risk at all as it is comfortable. I find it painful and awkward to not wear one. Maybe if you're an AA or A it will work for you.

Is underwear causing cancer? shoes? How about thongs, is anal cancer increasing for the younger set?

These and many other pressing issues answered soon.....

[rawbabymama]

Every one is different on the bra issue... For me, when I wear my bra for too long, my breasts are swollen and heavy, to the point of the skin being tight, like when I used to have too much milk and needed to nurse. I assume this is lymph. It is painful for me, so I am bra free in my home (unless I am taking pictures) and I wear a bra to go out. I work from home, so this is ok for me. I prefer to let my breasts be free, as nature intended, as much as possible. It feels so much better.

[T-Bird]

I prefer to let my breasts be free, as nature intended, as much as possible.

And I prefer perky!:D

[rawbabymama]

And I prefer perky!:D

LOL! Mine were always very large, so they have never been perky, not since they were round...I guess you can't miss what you never had.

But I do love bras with a lot of lift, so when it comes to going out out, I prefer perky. For some reason, free breasts in clothing don't look nearly as nice as they do without clothing. :p

[rawmiss]

Yeah - like maybe women who wear bras also wear antiperspirant or something?

That's interesting, so if bra-wearing women are more likely to use anti-perspirent then the wearing of the bra would also be affecting the breast cancer rates for anti-perspirent users. Future breast cancer studies will need to take into account both factors.

But I thought that the point the article made that "movement" keeps the lymph glands pumping and that the bra stops the movement (and in some cases is kind of like a tournequet reducing the flow of fluids to the breast) gave this study a little credence IMHO.

[T-Bird]

But I thought that the point the article made that "movement" keeps the lymph glands pumping and that the bra stops the movement (and in some cases is kind of like a tournequet reducing the flow of fluids to the breast) gave this study a little credence IMHO.

Perky little boobs on a 13 yo don't move anymore than a 40 yo's strapped into a enell sports bra. It's only after gravity related changes that the boobs move more and more through the years.

Size makes a huge difference on what kind of movements are going on.

And speaking of SIZE - Fatter women have larger boob, and fat is known as a cancer risk. Women with smaller boobs (think debra messing) have no reason to were a bra. But what would be the real cause - the weight or the bra? I'm thinking weight.

So if weight and bra use is correlated, and weight is a known cancer risk factor, and bra use is higher for overweight women due to larger breast size overall......this is a very tricky statistical relationship to tease out - and the authors CHOICE to include NO other possible variables is HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS.

Does anyone think that they had nothing but cancer status and bra use? To go to all that trouble and expense to collect data and not even weigh the women?

The tourniquet idea carries more of a possibility to me - however then you get into issues of bra fit. And again - larger breasts and fatter women would tend to have more constriction than smaller women or tiny boobs. Think of someone like jillian michaels - all muscle, I'm sure no bra would penetrate those muscles to impinge on the lymph system......

It was also pointed out that exercise decreases cancer rates. Only an AA would exercise without a bra, for goodness sakes!


Also - just looked up a map of the lymphatic system. The lymph nodes and lymphatic vessels appear to be in the area least constricted by the bra.

And finally::(

Also wonder why the results are not published in a peer reviewed medical journal?

[Raw Angel Mom]

Here are some articles about the sun. I don't go on the sun at high peak. I try morning and afternoon.

I feel this is important to discern and do research. Keep in mind the soap we use or body wash may contain dangerous substance, or water contaminated with chlorine or worst chloramide is bad news. Also, our body does use our skin to release toxin, so our diet could have a roll as well or even what we breath. I am no doctor and i try to go with common sense and what works for me. I know i need to make effort to go in the sun but i go while walking or doing out door work. I don't go to try to get a tan and i will listen to my body when this is enough. I found a man living on water and sunlight. Apparently according to him one hour upon sunrise or before sun set, there isn't any UV, but again this is up to us to do research about that. I personally feel that i need to get as much sunlight i can to make up for the lost of vitamin d that i don't get on winter. I do believe that many abuse the sun and it will age your skin. Everything in moderation, here is one article that i found. Again i welcome everyone with discernment.

http://www.rense.com/general75/uv.htm

The Truth About Skin Cancer
It Is NOT Caused By The Sun
You NEED Sun For Vitamin D
Dr. William Sears
AskDrSears.com
2-3-7

Decades In The Dark


After over 20 Years of Deceit, New Evidence that Dermatologists and Sunscreen Makers Are Making Us All Disease Magnets

Bad but widely accepted advice just might be killing you slowly if you buy into what they say about the dangers of our native sun.
They want you to avoid sunshine... slather on chemical sunscreen if you go outside... stay indoors during peak sun hours... wear long-sleeved shirts and sunglasses even when it's not sunny... and strive to cut your sun exposure to none.
Abide by these instructions and it could spell disaster for your health. By following their "no safe level of sun exposure" rule, you'll put yourself at higher risk for deadly cancers, heart disease and more.
It's time to set the record straight. Real science supports more, not less, sun exposure. If you know how to safely take advantage of the sun, you'll live a happier, longer life for it. You'll see how to enjoy the warm, golden, mood-lifting rays of the sun once again.
The True Crisis is a Deficiency of Vitamin D
When the sun's rays strike your skin, an amazing hormonal reaction begins. Your skin absorbs the light and uses it to make vitamin D3. Think of it as the human version of photosynthesis.
Next your liver and kidneys metabolize the vitamin D3 into an active hormone called 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D3. It's quite a mouthful, but this substance plays an important role in almost every system of your body. For example:
a.. Vitamin D helps build healthy bones. Vitamin D deficiencies contribute to osteoporosis, other bone-weakening conditions, and unhealthy teeth.


b.. Vitamin D helps keep the immune system tuned. Vitamin D deficiencies promote a number of painful autoimmune conditions like rheumatoid arthritis and lupus.


c.. Vitamin D helps keep your circulatory system healthy. People with heart disease commonly have a vitamin D deficiency.


d.. Vitamin D helps keep cells healthy. There is a link between higher rates of several deadly cancers and vitamin D deficiency. Sunlight is the best source of vitamin D available. Because of the dire warning about the sun, many doctors recommend you avoid sunlight. This well-meant advice about sun-avoidance is creating an epidemic of vitamin D deficiency.
Twenty percent of children and adults up to age 50 don't get enough vitamin D every day. After fifty, deficiencies affect as much as 95% of he population.1
Let the Evidence Shine... You Need More Vitamin D
Many studies show that vitamin D provides a myriad of specific health benefits like:
a.. Research reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition correlated widespread vitamin D deficiency with osteoporosis, increased cancer risks, heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and diabetes. Increased, but safe, sun exposure is a way to counteract vitamin D deficiency.2


b.. Studies show that vitamin D reduces the risks of colon cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and ovarian cancer. Your risk of mortality from each of these deadly cancers falls as your vitamin D levels rise.3


c.. More research shows that adequate vitamin D levels help to control blood pressure levels in patients with high blood pressure. It also helps control blood glucose levels in patients with adult-onset diabetes.4
The most natural and effective way to get adequate vitamin D levels is from sunshine. You want to be sure you get enough sunlight, that you get safe sun exposure, and that you know how to give your vitamin D levels a boost when sun exposure isn't enough.
Sunshine: Get What You Need to Prevent Deadly Disease
The big concern most people have about sun exposure is skin cancer. The vast majority of skin cancers are basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas. Both of these cancers need attention and you want to avoid them, but they are not deadly cancers.
The third type of skin cancer-melanoma-is very serious and can be deadly. However, safe sun exposure can help protect you against this skin cancer. Research shows that people who get regular sun exposure as part of their jobs are less likely to get melanoma skin cancer than people who work inside all the time.5
So, let me give the rules of safe sun exposure to you in three basic steps.
1. Expose as much of your skin as possible. A swimsuit is perfect. And go without sunglasses.


2. Depending on your pigmentation, go out in the sun for at least 10 to 20 minutes, two or three times a week. If you are fair-skinned, your body can make enough vitamin D in just minutes. If you have darker skin or a deep tan, it will take longer for you to get the vitamin D you need.


3. Do not allow your skin to burn. This is very important. A sunburn will damage your skin, can contribute to all three types of skin cancer and cause aging changes in your skin. You want to get your vitamin D safely... that means getting out of the sun or putting on protective clothing before you burn.
If you live in the southern states, then this is all you need to know to keep your vitamin D levels high year round. However, if you live anywhere north of Georgia, then you need to give your body a vitamin D boost in the winter months. The low angle of the sun during those months prevents the vitamin D synthesis that your body needs.
How to Get Your Vitamin D in the Winter
Between late fall and early spring, if you live in a northern state, there just isn't enough UV light reaching you to make adequate vitamin D. The government recommended amount of vitamin D every day is 400 IU. Yet research shows that your body will use 3000 IU in a day, as long as it is the natural form of vitamin D, cholecalciferol.6 When you choose a supplement, avoid the manmade form of vitamin D, ergocalciferol.
Short of sunshine, the best natural source of vitamin D is cod liver oil. A single tablespoon of cod liver oil contains 1360 IU of natural vitamin D. In the table below, you can see other sources of natural vitamin D and how they match up to cod liver oil.
Food Source Amount Vitamin D
Cod Liver Oil 1 tablespoon 1360 IU
Make cod liver oil a part of your daily supplement routine each and every winter and make safe sun exposure a habit all year round. Make sure you get a brand that is free of mercury and PCB's. You can get Dr. Sears' Label by clicking here.
1 Raloff, Janet. "Understanding Vitamin D Deficiency," Science News 2005;
167(18)
2 Holick MF. "Sunlight and Vitamin D for Bone Health and Prevention of
Autoimmune Diseases, Cancers, and Cardiovascular Disease," AJCN 2004;
80(6): 1678S-88S
3 Garland CF, et al. "The Role of Vitamin D in Cancer Prevention," AJPH
2005; 12/27/2005
4 Zittermann A. "Vitamin D and Disease Prevention with Special Reference
to Cardiovascular Disease," Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2006; 92(1): 39-48
5 Nelemans PJ, et al. "Effect of Intermittent Exposure to Sunlight on
Melanoma Risk Among Indoor Workers and Sun Sensitive Individuals,"
Environmental Health Prospectives 1993; 101(3): 252-55
6 Heany RP, et al. "Human Serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol response to
extended oral dosing with cholecalciferol," Am J Clin Nutr 2003; 77(1):
204-10

------------------------
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/02/19/sun-skin.aspx

Discovering the Truth Behind the Sunshine/Skin Cancer Myth

Sun Tanning

Contrary to popular belief, exposing skin to the sun may stop certain cancers from growing, including skin cancer.

While previous studies have implied this protection comes from skin cells (damaged by the sun) committing suicide, cutting the risk of cancer, two studies propose the reduced cancer risk stems from an increased production of vitamin D made by sun-exposed skin.

The two studies found:

*

Sunshine helped beat the deadly skin cancer malignant melanoma: Melanoma patients with increased levels of sun exposure were less likely to die than other melanoma patients; also patients who already had melanoma and a lot of sun exposure were prone to a less aggressive tumor type.
*

The sun helped with non-Hodgkin lymphoma: The risks of developing cancer was reduced by 30 percent to 40 percent when exposed to UV rays from the sun and sun lamps; findings were based on interviews with more than 3,000 lymphoma patients and 3,000 healthy members of the public.

Despite findings, experts do not promote extremely high levels of sun exposure, as too much sun could also cause cancer. Therefore, it is important to remember to cover up during peak sunshine hours, seek shade and wear factor 15-plus sunscreen.

[rawbabymama]

"Fatter women have larger boob, and fat is known as a cancer risk."

This could be true...but thin women get breast cancer all the time. There are many other factors they needed to consider, such as genetics/family members with breast cancer, birth control use, smoking, diet, drug use (recreational & prescription), breastfeeding (which can protect the woman from breast cancer) etc.

I go by what I feel. As a woman with at least a DDD no matter what weight I am, I have to say my breasts have always felt heavy, swollen and painful when I removed them from my bra - and I feel nearly nothing when they are in the bra. To me, the bra has always felt cosmetic - like high heels, or a corsette. When I was 18, I actually went around 24 hours without a bra for a very long time. My friends and coworkers convinced me to wear a bra again, stating my breasts would droop if I didn't. I wore a bra - for about 4 hours per day, and my breasts are the same as they were then, just a bit bigger thanks to breastfeeding.

All the women in my family have huge breasts, regardless of their BMI (I used to prance around with upside-down 7-up bottles when I was a kid, making fun of my mom), and, so far, no breast cancer (knock on wood). I attribute this to breastfeeding, being nonsmokers, eating lots of mangoes and papayas (Cubana!) and genetic luck. :D Instead, we have diabetes and skin cancer! :eek:

I say, cut risks where you can, but if the bra makes you happy, that is cutting a risk right there, since unhappiness can increase stress, which is a risk factor.

It's all a crap shoot...and the interpretation of the numbers is definitely biased by who funded the study. (goes back to reading the study about chewing gum funded by Wrigley).

Best Wishes,

Michele

Ps - thanks Raw Angel Mom for posting that article.

[rawmiss]

It was also pointed out that exercise decreases cancer rates. Only an AA would exercise without a bra, for goodness sakes!
Good point, even a site that promotes being bra-less says to exercise in a bra:
http://www.007b.com/bra_sagging.php
"Sports bras and jogging
There is one more notable study concerning sagging and bra wearing, which found that jogging caused breasts to bounce enough to sretch the Cooper's ligaments inside the breast. Naturally, stretched ligaments would cause the breast to sag more.

The lesson to take home from this study is that if you engage in jogging or some other type of very active sport, sports bras are recommendable."



Also wonder why the results are not published in a peer reviewed medical journal?

It looks like they tried to get it peer reviewed but no one was interested:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Bras-and-the-Breast-Cancer-Cover-Up&id=795041
"Before writing our book, we sent details of our research to the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, President's Cancer Panel, American Women's Medical Association, National Organization for Women, National Women's Health Network, and National Women's Health Resource Center. There was no response. Not one. Given the lack of interest, we decided to publish our findings in a book, getting the information directly to the women who needed to hear it."

Also, I think you would probably agree with me that a bodice such as this
http://www.fortdowning.com/Bodice_Picture_Mvc-004s.jpg
would be more healthy support than a bra since there would be less constriction.

[Revvell]

Despite findings, experts do not promote extremely high levels of sun exposure, as too much sun could also cause cancer. Therefore, it is important to remember to cover up during peak sunshine hours, seek shade and wear factor 15-plus sunscreen.

What is a "high level"? Yes! Be sure to wear that carcinogenic sunscreen!

Good article until we get to that. :rolleyes:

Cover up makes sense; go inside; get in the shade; use shea butter but NO sunscreen! That stuff is dangerous! I'll bet they're HIGHLY recommended by doctors because they know what the stuff is capable of. (Creating more income for them!)

Revvell (http://LetsTalkRaw.com)

[Raw Angel Mom]

What is a "high level"? Yes! Be sure to wear that carcinogenic sunscreen!

Good article until we get to that. :rolleyes:

Cover up makes sense; go inside; get in the shade; use shea butter but NO sunscreen! That stuff is dangerous! I'll bet they're HIGHLY recommended by doctors because they know what the stuff is capable of. (Creating more income for them!)

Revvell (http://LetsTalkRaw.com)

I don't use sunscreen either but i thought it was interesting what they have to say in this article.

It makes sense to listen to our body and not to allow ourself to burn ever.

For sun peak, this is lunch Time. In eatern time, since this is not the normal time for us the peak would be 1pm where our shadow is the shortest. If i am out at peak time, i am just careful. While i was at the play ground last year with my daughter, i saw a sea gull looking up at the sun set constantly.

[T-Bird]

It looks like they tried to get it peer reviewed but no one was interested:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Bras-and-t...r-Up&id=795041
"Before writing our book, we sent details of our research to the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, President's Cancer Panel, American Women's Medical Association, National Organization for Women, National Women's Health Network, and National Women's Health Resource Center. There was no response. Not one. Given the lack of interest, we decided to publish our findings in a book, getting the information directly to the women who needed to hear it."


No interest from any of these organizations?

Now this REALLY makes me question the methodology used, and I was suspicious before. I am pretty against the medical establishment on a number of issues, but they would not ignore these findings if the methodology was sufficient to support the results.

I guess I should cop to being a statistical consultant. I don't work in the medical field, but I know the difference between what a study can and cannot demonstrate. Stats 101: correlation does not imply causation. All the have is a correlation.

We all know - you can get a statistic to say anything you want. Doesn't mean that the statistic tells you anything real.

[rawmiss]

If you have to wear a bra, it seems that a sports bra is the best option. Thank God that's been the only bra I could stand to wear in all the years that I wore bras 24/7. Now, when I do wear bras for an event, it's a sports bra with a thick padded cup to hide the nipples.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Breast-Cancer-Clothing&id=2029643
"For women who are not comfortable without their bras, they can choose sports bra instead. Under-wired brassieres are a big 'no' and so you must wear yoga tops or support camisole as a substitute."

However, are sports bras loose enough to keep the Cooper's ligaments exercised and stop boob droop? I don't think so and I read an account by someone who claimed to wear sports bras 24/7 and complained of serious boob droop.

[T-Bird]

I wear an underwire 23-24 hours a day.

When I exercise - I put a sports bra over the underwire. I tried the sports bra alone - but the was too much movement and it was very uncomfortable.

My "endowments" are pointy - like pyramids rather than a roundish shape. So I'm sure the effects of gravity would be more pronounced. Maybe that's why I find being without a bra extremely uncomfortable. I end up sitting with terrible posture like a hunchback without one. Trying to alleviate the gravity effects I suppose...

[rawmiss]

I find going bra-less uncomfortable and irritating too and do that hunchback thing too. I wish there was some middle ground, I'm going to look for those "yoga tops" that the article mentioned and see if I like them. I never knew of their existence before today but I guess they are like athletic camisoles. I can usually get by bra-less through the winter easily because there are so many layers of clothing/coats I can hide under. But you can't do that in summer. :)

[rawlight]

It looks like they tried to get it peer reviewed but no one was interested:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Bras-and-t...r-Up&id=795041
"Before writing our book, we sent details of our research to the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, President's Cancer Panel, American Women's Medical Association, National Organization for Women, National Women's Health Network, and National Women's Health Resource Center. There was no response. Not one. Given the lack of interest, we decided to publish our findings in a book, getting the information directly to the women who needed to hear it."


No interest from any of these organizations?

Now this REALLY makes me question the methodology used, and I was suspicious before. I am pretty against the medical establishment on a number of issues, but they would not ignore these findings if the methodology was sufficient to support the results.

I guess I should cop to being a statistical consultant. I don't work in the medical field, but I know the difference between what a study can and cannot demonstrate. Stats 101: correlation does not imply causation. All the have is a correlation.

We all know - you can get a statistic to say anything you want. Doesn't mean that the statistic tells you anything real.

Or you can understand that the above named organizations have a lot to lose if we ever find a cure for cancer, diseases in general and deciding to put our health in our own hands. That these organizations have disregarded this work and so many others of this type speaks volumes as to their fear and bias.

That's another way to look at statistics....:)

[LilacLavender]

Re; Revvell and the article that pointed out the danger of too much sun...

I agree that "too much" needs to be defined properly. However, they do have a point. Once upon a time, our natural ozone layer was intact, and it served to block the rays from our sun that are harmful to us. Now, that natural protection is gone--we have destroyed much of it with pollution, etc.

Instead of getting just the good rays like we used to, we get the good and bad rays together, and unfortunately in order to limit the bad rays, you have to limit sun exposure altogether. It's not an ideal situation, and it's not quite black and white here.