Is Weight a Factor in Triple Negatives?

I'm a size 6 and triple negative. My onc did tell me to eat a very low fat diet. (I already maintained a fairly healthy diet).

I started a low fat diet after diagnosis too, between that and the bi-lateral mastectomy I'm pretty much skin and bone.

Quote:

---

I was on the conference tonight and one of the doctors made a reference to excess estrogene being caused by (among other things...) being over weight.
I was a size 4 before cancer and am triple negative.
Anybody else? Any comments? Just curious.
Traci

---

Since triple negatives by definition are not ER+ the excess weight / estrogen concerns aren't relevant. I have read the results of a study that seemed to support the benefits of a very low fat diet (<25% of daily calories from fat)and the effect on recurrence rates in triple negs. They don't know why but the results favored triple negs even though the going in hypothesis was that low fat diets would be most beneficial to ER+ cancers.

As I understand it, risk factors for ER+ BC include being underweight premenopause and overweight postmenopause. Go figure! Postmenopause, the fat continues to produce or harbor estrogen. ER+ cancers don't need the encouragement.

I'm sz 2-4, was 6 before Dx. Weight may play a factor but I haven't read anything to that effect for triple negatives.

I gained about 12 pounds and that is a lot for me since I am only 5'2". My pre BC size was between 6 & 8, now I am between 8 & 10. I had to get all new clothes for work and not many of my summer shorts fit. I have just in the past month started really working on trying to lose the extra weight. My last chemo was in October but I think my whole metabolism has changed, really slowed down along with an underactive thyroid now that is being treated. Wish me luck in the slim down department.

Newter

Pre-BC (1996) was 123 lbs.
After a couple of chemos 1997-2000, my weight settled in at 133 lbs.
In 2004 I was on another chemo (Taxotere) and my weight shot up to 149 lbs!!!
Luckily I lost that 15+ lbs within months and now keeping it around 133-ish. Would like to see myself back in 120's though.

Hey ladies! I was 263 pounds for a lot of years on a 5'3" frame. I lost 130 pounds, took me two years. One month after obtaining that goal, I found the lump! After 18 rounds of chemo, I have gained 30 pounds back, and a lot of that is in my belly. I am trying to lose these pounds...again!! I am triple negative, 2.5 cm, grade 3, stage IIB, lumpectomy, FEC x 6 and 12 Taxol and finally rads which I just finished this week. Also, normal mammo in Feb of 2006 and I found the lump July of 2006. Seemed to come out of nowhere! Good luck to all and hang in there.

Hi all,
I meet many cancer survivors, some with mets and some don't, some triple negatives, some not-triple-negatives. I can't recall anyone being overweight/obese.

Weight may contribute to some bc, but I think it doesn't contribute to most bc's.

I am intrigued by that study about triple negative survivors on low fat diet faring much better. It would be good to know why so.

I know nothing can be matter-of-fact, but I BELIEVE cancer begins because of a person's DNA. Sure, weight can be a fraction of why someone may get cancer, but if a person's DNA is constructed to not get mutated cells and there are no other harmful chemicals that start the ball rolling, that person will probably escape from cancer cells forming. That is why not everyone will get cancer. Even fat people. Even skinny people.
I am a competitive runner. I weigh about 100 pounds and I am 5'5. I am mostly muscle (I am not skin-in-bones). I have, however gained some weight off and on throughout my life, but nothing that was noticeable.
Now, here I am stage 3 (possible stage 4) breast cancer, triple neg, and BRCA 1+. It was in my DNA to be receptive to cancer. It was not a guarantee, but my DNA carries a mutated gene...I was most likely going to get cancer whether I was fat, skinny, tall, short....
I am telling everyone out there...IT IS IN OUR DNA! There is some truth in "only the strong survive". In nature, if there is a weakness, it will not be able to survive as long.
So, maybe WHAT we eat can get the ball rolling. Maybe HOW we live can get the ball rolling. But, cells that begin to mutate only do so when their is a weakness in the body in the first place.

The way I look at this is that there are three elements that make up the risk of cancer. 1) My genetic makeup ... which I have no control over. 2) The environment within which I live and breath and over which I have some control. 3) What I choose to do to or put in my body...what I eat and drink, how fit I am, etc. I'll do what I can to limit my chance of recurrence by eating a low-fat diet, exercising vigorously, limiting my alcohol intake and so on. The trick is to not become obsessed with that third element because it does seem a crap shoot as Brando and Pinehouse point out.

Slap him!

I Copied the following article from NoSurrender’s blog. It seems to debunk the common advice to eat a low fat diet to keep away reoccurrences….

Who knows? It seems each week a new study says something that contradicts what we THINK we know….

Just FYI…I’m a fat chick 270#. I’ve been fat since I was a kid…I have NO earthly idea what caused my cancer. I really wish a cure was a simple as what we eat or drink….

Deb C




NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Among breast cancer survivors, adopting a low-fat diet high in vegetables, fruit and fiber does not prevent the cancer from returning or prolong survival, according to a paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Dr. John P. Pierce and his associates designed the Women's Healthy Eating and Living (WHEL) trial, based on evidence that plant-derived foods contain anti-cancer chemicals.

Pierce, at the University of California, San Diego, and his team describe the intervention as "a telephone counseling program supplemented with cooking classes and newsletters that promoted daily targets of 5 vegetable servings plus 16 ounces of vegetable juice; 3 fruit servings; 30 grams of fiber; and 15 to 20 percent of" calories from fat.

Subjects in the comparison group received care as usual and were given publications from the National Cancer Institute and the US Department of Health and Human Services, describing the "5-A-Day" dietary guidelines. In addition to five servings of vegetables and fruits, the diet recommends 20 grams of fiber and less than 30 percent of calories from fat.

Between 1995 and 2000, WHEL investigators enrolled more than 3,000 women who were previously treated for breast cancer. Follow-up continued until 2006. They report outcomes for 1,537 subjects randomly assigned to the intervention group and 1,561 assigned to the comparison group.

As noted, the special diet did not prevent breast cancer from returning and it did not improve survival. Roughly 17 percent of patients in each group had their cancer return and about 10 percent in each died during follow-up.

In a related editorial, Dr. Susan M. Gapstur and Dr. Seema Khan, from the Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, compared the WHEL study findings with those of the Women's Intervention Nutrition Study (WINS). According to WINS trial results, a low-fat diet imparted significant increases in cancer-free survival, which was associated with a 6-pound weight difference between study groups at year 3.

In the WHEL study, on the other hand, weight loss and amount of daily calories did not differ between the two patient groups, and the actual percentage of calories from fat increased during the trial in both groups.

The editorialists suggest that "these results call into question the validity of some components of the self-reported dietary data," and they attribute the negative findings at least partially to lack of adherence to the diet.

SOURCE: Journal of the American Medical Association, July 18, 2007.

Holly- better yet, let US slap him!

Here's one for ya...my sis and I both ended up with triple negative Stage 3 cancer. She is 5' tall and about a size 4. I am 5'2" and size 10 (well, Los Angeles size 10...hahaha). She has been super athletic, healthy, lots of vitamins, macrobiotic diet, no drugs, very little drinking, etc. I TRY to take vitamins, walk my dog, but not as far as I should, and basically eat what I want (always organic), within reason. My sister's cancer has metastasized, mine hasn't.
We have another sister, (older), who is 5'3" and about a size 12-14, hardly ever exercises, and has always been overweight. Thank the lord, she has never come down with cancer.
It's obvious that weight has nothing to do with it, although if I'm going to do one thing, it's to try to eat more green vegetables and less sugar. At least it feels like I'm doing something to be proactive. I do agree with the gene theory.

And if I hear one more person say it's because of what I eat, or because I don't do yoga, or because I'm stressed, or because I married the wrong man, or because I work too hard, or whatever, they can kiss my buttocks!!!

And another thing while I'm ranting, Holly's doctor boyfriend needs to go back to Medical School!!!!!!!


peace,

mitzi

If you are triple negative, i dont think estrogen had anything to do with your development of a cancerous tumor, so the comment about weight and estrogen doesnt seem to have any bearing on your situation.

Hey Ravdeb,
I just finished chemo in November, Rads in January. During March I felt pretty good but I feel like I'm on chemo all over again - fatigue, muscle aches and pains, gained weight by leaps and bounds and just found out I also am hypothyroid. I'm at 39.50 for TSH and they are telling me normal is between .34 - 5.6. How long does it take for the meds to kick in? Soon I hope!!! Please tell me I'll feel "normal" soon - whatever 'normal' is!
~Laurie