$817,000

[Wifezilla]

Oh what the heck. Here are the studies. Ignore them if ya want...

"Abstract
OBJECTIVE:

High carbohydrate intake has been hypothesized to be a risk factor for breast cancer, possibly mediated by elevated levels of free insulin, estrogens, and insulin-like growth factor-1. Therefore, we conducted a population-based case-control study among a Mexican population characterized by relatively low fat and high carbohydrate intakes.
METHODS:

Women ages 20 to 75 years, identified through six hospitals in Mexico City (n = 475), were interviewed to obtain data relating to diet (using a food frequency questionnaire) and breast cancer risk factors. Controls (n = 1,391) were selected from the Mexico City population using a national sampling frame.
RESULTS:

Carbohydrate intake was positively associated with breast cancer risk. Compared with women in the lowest quartile of total carbohydrate intake, the relative risk of breast cancer for women in the highest quartile was 2.22 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.63-3.04], adjusting for total energy and potential confounding variables (P for trend < 0.0001). This association was present in premenopausal and postmenopausal women (for highest versus lowest quartile, odds ratio 2.31, 95% CI 1.36-3.91 in premenopausal women and odds ratio 2.22, 95% CI 1.49-3.30 in postmenopausal women). Among carbohydrate components, the strongest associations were observed for sucrose and fructose. No association was observed with total fat intake.
DISCUSSION:

In this population, a high percentage of calories from carbohydrate, but not from fat, was associated with increased breast cancer risk. This relation deserves to be investigated further, particularly in populations highly susceptible to insulin resistance."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15298947

 

[OrganicKale]

Or, we could just change the OP's original topic.

 

[Wannabefree]

Or, we could just change the OP's original topic.

The topic is the costs incurred with having an incurable disease. I think information to avoid that particular disease is just fine.

 

[abifae]

I think avoiding a disease is pretty cost effective.

I also know that the nurse who taught my CNA class said that because so many cancers and heart diseases ran in her family, she was low carb so she would have the best chance possible for staying healthy.

As for medical costs themselves, I think that would get TERRIBLY political, so I won't go there.

 

[Wifezilla]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3141390/?tool=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17999389
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21448680 (a call for more studies because of the link between metabolic disorder and cancer)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17498513

I wrote this a few years ago...
"A new report from Duke University ads further evidence to the theory that carbohydrates fuel cancer growth. While previous studies showed that carbohydrate restriction could slow prostate cancer in an animal study, they were not sure if it was the weight loss these animals experienced that was slowing the tumors, or if was the carbohydrate restriction that was responsible.

This new study was designed to keep the weight of the test subjects the same. When mice on a no-carbohydrate/very high fat diet were compared to mice on a low fat/high carb diet or a high fat/high carb diet, the no-carb mice fared much better.

According to Stephen Freedland, M.D., Duke Prostate Center urologist and lead investigator on this study, "The mice that were fed a no-carbohydrate diet experienced a 40 to 50 percent prolonged survival over the other mice." (full report)

Clinical trials in humans are scheduled to start within a few weeks. I do not expect the results to be any different in people than they found in the mice. With the small mountain of other evidence (1, 2, 3, 4) showing that high blood sugar and/or high insulin levels fuel cancer growth, this is just additional confirmation that the standard high carbohydrate diet recommended by diet experts, medical professionals and government agencies is making people sick.

It also shows that obesity and a high fat diet ARE NOT the cause of cancer. Obesity is just another side effect of a bigger problem... impaired glucose metabolism and/or elevated blood sugar and insulin levels. As for dietary fat, it has been a part of the human diet for millions of years. To blame it for cancer and obesity that have only been epidemic in very recent history shows a level of intellectual dishonesty I just can't begin to understand."

Continue reading on Examiner.com More evidence carbs fuel cancer - Denver Low Carb | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/low-carb-in-denver/more-evidence-carbs-fuel-cancer#ixzz1WHA8B06d

I think avoiding a disease is pretty cost effective.

So did I

 

[OrganicKale]

so, how does all this impact the cost of treating cancer once you get it?

 

[Wifezilla]

If you are doing things on a daily basis that feed your cancer cells, do you think it is going to cost more or less to treat? If you are actively feeding cancer cells will you have a higher or lower chance of requiring treatment again?

 

[FarmerChick]

please don't make this thread all about low carb and such eating....I had enough of that on all threads and would appreciate it kept out of this one. thanks all


I was rambling about high costs to treat medical conditions once you get them....of course prevention is ideal...but ideal doesn't happen to everyone, everyday now does it?

 

[Wifezilla]

I think my previous reply covered it.

 

[FarmerChick]

I am glad your friend is ok. That is what is important. Mom is a survivor for 17 years now

17 years is wonderful!
It is all about the survival after the illness and I am very glad your Mom is doing well!!!

My friend is doing very well also for all the horror she has been through. Recovery can be very tough!