My Hypothesis About Sudden Unexplained Weight Gain in Cancer

Learning and brainstorming.

With a continuation of that thought.  I want to brainstorm about the identification of the biome within. I stated in my conclusion that as I looked at the publication about HAP's with the specific proteomics and metabolomics used to remediate or degrade environmental or manmade things in industry, that many of these organisms were familiar from wound cultures. I didn't know what that meant.

In one of the other articles, it stated that once S.yanoukiae was identified tissue was evaluated to see if they're were other organisms. Other organisms were found. We are teaming with bugs in areas once considered sterile. For those organisms to survive in this isolated or closed environment of tissue, they have learned to survive and multiply. How? What's is that they metabolize i.e. eat to sustain their life.

Breadcrumb. Syanoukiae is found naturally in soil.   Likely it's food needs are meet from stuff in the soil. I need to go find that. The fact that it uses HAP's may be an adaptive thing. Maybe HAP's occur naturally in nature. So that when one source of food isn't present the organism can switch to something else.

Breadcrumb. Proteomics need an expanded definition same with metabolomics. specifically if any other than S. yanoukiae have been identified

Breadcrumb. relationship to infection

Typing and saving

Loverly, When I now there is going to be more info, I researve a box so I can have all the info in the same area versus separated by boxes/posts

SummerAngel What a lovely screen name Your observation I believe is correct compared to the total population. That's why each member's post of an observation is important. In order to get someone to study it. Until a full blown either new study or using a meta-analysis of existing studies, I/ we won't know.

If it does exist, it's a sign/symptom that can be used for patient evaluation. I just googled "Diseases that can cause unintentional weight gain" The link to Healthline identified 19. Two of which are cancer. Pituitary and Ovarian cancer.

What has been done with each of these 19 conditions is  weight gain as been identified as part of the symptomatology checklist of these diseases. But as with any disease not all symptoms are common to all patients. Think of all our BCO sisters and descriptions of how our BC was diagnosed. We have a common disease, but we didn't all have the same presentation.

Thyroid is on the Healthline list. My Endocrinologist discounted the weight gain because the TSH was within the accepted normal. If you read back to my thyroid description. I had to insist on further lab evaluation. The Endocrine discounted the abnormal Thyroglobulin(Tg) b/c if it were Hashimotos the TG and autoantibodies both would have been elevated. The Ent surgeon did change his mind about surgery because the TG was abnormal. The pathologist twice missed the cancer. It was not a microcarcinoma. It was diffusely throughout both lobes. Had I not insisted that I had cancer, the tissue would never of had a relook. The tissue would have been shelved, if not eventually trashed.

Thankfully, my ENT listened. Because of the weight gain occurrence with the first cancer I was suspicious. They're were other factors too, but that would be way to long for here.

In the overall picture, until it's looked at in light of all cancers, it's an unknown.

Thanks SunnyAngel  this has allowed for more understanding of this discussion. sassy

Oops almost forgot to link the healthline list

http://www.healthline.com/symptom/unintentional-weight-gain

Hi Wallycat,  In the scope of things unexplained weight gain hasn't been studied as it related to cancer other than ovarian and pituitary. That's the point of the hypothesis. This hypothesis defines what the basis for an inquiry. I'm not saying it is false or it is positive. As this is presented, it is saying this is open to critical analysis through the rigors of the scientific method. i.e. a study. The 1.question and the 2.hypothesis are the first to steps of the scientific method(stated in the topic box) 3.The next step is gathering data. 4.Step after that is defining the process by which the study is to be completed. 5.The analysis of the data produced from the study 6. Recognizing areas of future studies. Publication then is complete by submission to a reputable source. The study then goes through peer review. Those peers have enough knowledge in the area of study to determine if the study has met all the scientific rigors required.

What I'm attempting is to gather enough data that it will pique the interest of a researcher to develop a study. What that researcher would then do is search for as much info related to the hypothesis. Then they would go through the other steps of the method till it's complete. Every evidence based study follows these rules.

Anecdotal information is just that. It's prefaced with "I think". "This happened to me so, it must be real". Your direct statement "I personally don't think cancer causes weight gain in the true sense of that statement.". Is opinion. It's not science. Not said to be argumentative which is where I hesitate in my reply. The concept between the difference of an opinion and science must be mastered. The other statements in your post are related entirely to other subjects. i.e drugs. If you take a drug and that drug is known(clinical trial data or after market accumulation of data by FDA) has a weight gain as an effect or a side effect that's explained. Postmenopause doesn't relate to the hypothesis. Yikes that sounds harsh. Sorry, there is just no way else to say it.

All the info re: the Microbiome and HAP's may seem off topic. But the Biome has been shown in many articles here to have an affect on weight. How the biome affects weight in a precancerous situation is an unknown. Perhaps extending to post diagnosis, but don't know yet until the data collection is done.  I am pursuing an accumulation of information as part of the data collection. I admit I'm having fun with creating more Hypotheses. AND have a couple more stewing, but I can't write them until I have a good grasp of the material. So perhaps with those posts I should identify them by a header " Learning". I'm effectively using this area as a storage unit for the data.

Sorry about the blue box, I was going to copy something and then couldn't get it to go away. Personally I'm always curious about blue boxes.

I tried every which way not to offend Wallycat. I'm glad you are here.

Wallycat, I tried, I so didn't want to piss you off.  Now that I know you understand the scientific method. We can talk.  I wish you would have identified that up front.  Once a hypothesis is formulated and the study is created you gather the data. Upon completion you look at the data and apply it to the study parameters. It either proves the hypothesis or disproves it. That's why I stated "I'm not saying it's false or positive". The data does that as long as the researchers aren't biased. I'm sure you've read many a study where you can pick up on bias and the study made it through peer review. What bothers me is I've read to many lazy studies.

Our histories on application of method might be just a bit different. So, please, let this go by b/c we aren't that far apart on this. We agree the hypothesis has to be disproved(you), me(disproved or proved) Either way they're is a result.

The history on weight loss and science is overwhelming. Hard to miss, we see it too graphically in diseases that cause weight loss with progression to a cahexic state.  Recognized in the medical literature and records for millennia back to Hippocrates. As time went on the cause of weight loss became clear as conditions of the body were related to dysfunction of specific organs. I agree. They're approximately 600 ICD9-10 codes for weight loss and cachexia(overlap, I didn't study) Those disease states are the ones I was trying to get rid of when I deleted. I felt they didn't flow where the conversation /discussion was directed.

What I'm suggesting is that science hasn't researched sudden weight gain as I am hypothesizing b/c it has been discounted by bias. If it doesn't fit into known parameters it doesn't exist.  I'm not talking slow weight gain over the years. I'm not talking sudden weight gain where an underlying cause can be found. I'm talking weight gain UNEXPLAINED  by anything known.  That's why it needs a study. Each that has told their story here and on the other thread wondered. What did this unexplained weight gain mean. Some mentioned it to their docs. Some didn't. Each that mentioned were discounted. It was easy, didn't fit a known parameter, the doc ignored.

 I'm trying to bring forward a question and hypothesis that goes against the accepted thought. Specifically, a sudden unexplained weight gain and cancer is then found. They're is no accepted definable disease relationship, no change in diet, no change in exercise. How do you explain the weight change. This is a question that hasn't  been studied.

We would have advanced nowhere ever, if the accepted was maintained as the status quo.

With the early research on the biome, it's a perfect time for this to be considered. The biome is turning the accepted upside down. The gut affecting distant organs. Oh my.  A resident biome in tissues of a closed system. Oh my. Then b/c of chasing an understanding of a bacteria identified in breast tissue that is associated with Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons(PAH's) studies are found that have identified these in tissues.

 Hey, prior to last week, I knew snipets. I now know why California has passed laws about outdoor fire pits--I was going to put a fire pit in and had to research it---found all kinds of negatives. But what was written about fire pits, didn't explain the danger. I now can define the danger as inhaled PAH's from the combustion of wood. Chit, I can now go on for ever so long.  I seriously wish I didn't know what I've learned on so many levels. Have to admit, I'm stupid in this way. As an aside comment, I felt the same way after researching  and writing disaster plans.

YAY "Feel free to be argumentative. The more people throwing things at this problem, the sooner something good can come out of it. I cheer you on!" We aren't adversaries, we are compatriots. Welcome aboard. Now I ask your help Please, review everything from start to finish. You have a science mind. Need you.

Okay I'm done. Poor computer is done in. When the typing get's dragging, I know it needs a break.

Not well right now, be back when I am

Tarheel what a nice thought. Feeling better thanks Computer took  a serious dive after that whirlwind day of learning and seeing the connections between the breadcrumbs on the trail. This week taking a road trip to see a couple of BCO sisters. Not sure how much or any time will be spent on learning and thinking. But will get back to this. They're so many breadcrumbs to follow.

Marley thanks for posting. Interesting--very, a whole new loaf of bread to follow. Once I get back to normal (shut up Chevy), I'll make it part of the search.

Lot's of laughs, how often to we get to use a word like--heretofore. 

Hi Amy, Yes a retrospective study perhaps would be easy. If it included the questions re: a weight history. I arbitrarily used two years. The study done by the nutritionist was on the right track. If she did a relook at her data to see if ay time intervals were used in the people that were pulled from the overall group.

Initially when I first wrote the topic I attempted to contact the coordinator of the Women Health study. The specific name escapes me at the moment(it's in the bib). Never got a return call. My intent was to maybe contact the author, but the more I read her study, the less I felt she'd be open(my bias showing?). Also, I figured the coordinator might know of other researchers that may be open to a different idea. I know in my previous work life in a special area, we all knew who was into what on a national level.  

Weight history questions:(brainstorming)

 Was there a point in time of your life that your weight changed and never returned to a previous level?

What was your weight in childhood? Adolescence? Young adult hood? Middle age? Post menopause?

Were you ever told you were over weight during any phase of life in the previous question?

Has there been any time period in your life that you have gained weight?

Did you gain weight with pregnancy?  How much?

Did you loose the weight after delivery?  Over what period of time?

How would you describe your weight control? Is weight control an important part of your life?

Did you breast feed? How long? How many children?

How often do you weigh yourself?

Is their any time you would describe your weight as out of control? What did you do? Did it work?

What was your weight five years before cancer diagnosis? Two years? One year?  One month before? One month after? One year after? two years after? five years after?

Did you have any change in eating habits noted in weight gain period? What were they?

Is there and foods that you avoid because you seem to weight gain more when you eat them?

Do you have any food intollerances? Do you have any food allergies?

Do you drink alcohol? What kind? How often? Do you notice a weight gain when you drink alcohol? Weight loss when you drink?

Do you know what empty calorie foods are? Are you aware that empty calorie foods can lead to weight gain?

Do you exercise? Type? How much? How often? Is this a life long pattern

What exercise did you do in the same 5yr>2yr>1yr>1month before cancer?  What exercise 1 month>1yr>2yr>5yr. after cancer.

Do you feel you had an unusual weight gain before cancer diagnosed? Describe?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If anyone adds questions I will add them to the list

kayb, sorry it's taken me so long to get to reading the study you brought, about "Obesity, Diabetes, and Gut Microbiota."(2nd page). I knew it would take time and a certain mind set. Into it now. You will see some random thoughts--notes

I had to substitute regular mice for conventionalized mice. Conceptually, I kept tripping over conventionalized.

Gordon's study--germ free mice(raised in the absence of microorganism) had a 40% less body fat than regular raised mice, even if the germ free mices caloric intake was 29% higher than regular raised mice. That was changed by introducing a sample of bacteria taken from the cecal area of another regular mouse.  Within two weeks the germ free mice had an increase of 57%  in total body fat, a 2-3 fold increase in hepatic triglycerides, increase in insulin resistance, without a change in amount of food or activity.

Backhed study: Germ free and regular mice were fed a high fat, high carb western diet. After 8 weeks. The germ free mice gained less weight and fat mass than the regular mice. This suggested to the researchers that something else was protecting the germ free mice.

The researchers identified three mechanisms that were the basis of the observed resistance of germ free mice to diet induce obesity. Rather than go into the whole thing b/c it's very technical., the GI and liver structures were altered to look like the regular mice. Chemical activity changed too. They determined this by dissection and measurement, and chemical analysis.

There is an obese gut microbiome that is more efficient at harvesting energy from the diet (absorbing substrates)

The obese gut microbiome has differences that change digestion

the obese gut microbiome changes substrates into different chemicals than the nonobese gut microbiome.

Need to go to a new box, box is bouncing with typing

reserved