Anxiety, Cancer, and Music

As some of you may know, I’m an avid music lover, so I’m always excited when I see research that confirms the therapeutic benefits of music.

A new Cochrane research review shows how music can reduce anxiety, and may also have positive effects on mood, pain and quality of life.

Evidence from 1,891 patients taking part in 30 trials was examined-13 of the trials involved trained music therapists, while the other 17 trials studied patients who listened to pre-recorded music. The results showed that in comparison to standard treatments, anxiety levels were significantly reduced by music, based on clinical anxiety scores. Music was also shown to have beneficial effects for patients with chronic pain-heart rate, respiratory rate and blood pressure saw smaller beneficial effects.

Lead researcher Joke Bradt of the Department of Creative Arts Therapies at Drexel University in Philadelphia, US., explained

“The evidence suggests that music interventions may be useful as a complementary treatment to people with cancer.

Music interventions provided by trained music therapists as well as listening to pre-recorded music both have shown positive outcomes in this review, but at this time there is not enough evidence to determine if one intervention is more effective than the other.”

Bradt continues

“It should be noted, however, that when patients can’t be blinded to an intervention, there is an opportunity for bias when they are asked to report on subjective measures like anxiety, pain mood and quality of life.”

While additional studies may be necessary to confirm some of these findings, I would emphasize incorporating some form of musical enjoyment into your daily routine, whether you’re sick or not!

Share

Cell Phones and Cancer

This is a reprint of an article from the Journal of Naturopathic Medicine that was a response to a recent study published in JAMA (Volkow N, Tomasi D, Wang G-J, et al. Effect of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. JAMA. 2011;305(8):808-813).
The bottom line is that cell phone use does indeed appear to enhance brain activity, which can potentially pose risks for cancer or other neurological complications. There are still many unanswered questions with respect to cell phone use and cancer, but this study is further evidence that this issue needs to be addressed and payed attention to:

For years, medical experts and scientists have voiced concerns regarding
the questionable safety of cell phone use, but even with the evidence
mounting, this alluring technology is hard to resist. Humankind’s
increasing use of cell phones, 5 billion users worldwide, necessitates a
thorough, unbiased look at the risks.

The JAMA study documents that cell phone exposure affects the
brain by increasing brain glucose, a known measure of increased brain
activity. Though the study does not offer an explanation of the
underlying mechanism, we do know that in other biological systems of the
body, chronic increase in glucose can have a significant effect on the
local tissues, altering cell and gene function. Notably, the study
refutes the longstanding claim by both the Federal Communications
Commission and the cell phone industry that there are no biological
effects from non-thermal levels of cell phone radiation.

The studies published on cell phone use and the possible health risks (including tumors of the brain, as well as male infertility)
are numerous, and many repudiate any risks. Among the catalogue of
studies, often funded in part by the cell phone industry, a
meta-analysis published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2006, involving 23 case-controlled studies and almost 38,000 participants, concluded there are increased health risks.
Recently a branch of the World Health Organization called The
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) convened 31
scientists from 14 countries, including the United States, and evaluated
peer-reviewed studies regarding the safety of cell phones and issued a
statement that puts exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields
from cell phone use in the same category as lead and car exhaust:
possibly carcinogenic. At what point do we acknowledge that precautions need to be taken? Our
current safety standards regarding cell phones are based on obsolete
research. They certainly don’t take into account the dramatic increase
in number of users, the increase in amount of time spent in use, and the
rise of cell phone use by young people. There not only needs to be
continued investigation into the effects on brain tissues, but also the
consequences of both heavy use and long-term exposure–parameters not yet
studied.

The concept of the precautionary principle encourages policy makers to
make decisions that protect the public from a policy or action that may
be harmful, in the absence of definitive data. In looking at the health
impacts of electromagnetic radiofrequencies from cell phones, the public
needs to be protected from the harm that may be caused by their use. It
calls to mind our history regarding tobacco, when medical professionals
awaited definitive trial data for decades, while millions of
individuals suffered predictable health consequences. By refusing to
acknowledge the possible health risks of cell phone use now, we may be
harming generations to come.

While we continue to gather information, we can counsel our patients on
the many ways to reduce overall electromagnetic radiation exposure:

  • Turn cell phones off when not in use. Cell phone emissions are
    occurring whenever the phone is on, whether it is being used or not.
  • Avoid cell phone use when the signal is weak. Emissions increase while the phone is searching for a tower.
  • Store cell phones away from the body in a purse, backpack, or briefcase.
  • Use a protective headset that puts distance between the phone and the brain, with corded earphones if possible.
  • Engage in texting in lieu of phone calls.

We can assume there will be continued development of the technology,
including safer phones and safer designs for towers. Ultimately, curbing
cell phone use–using our cell phones for truly important communications
and turning them off when they are not needed–may be the key to
reducing risk.

Share

Supplements Shown To Reduce Breast Cancer Risk

In a randomized, placebo-controlled study involving 47 premenopausal and 49 postmenopausal women, results indicate that supplementation with a herbal formula may reduce the risk of breast cancer. The women were randomized to placebo or supplementation with a mixture of HMR lignan, indole-3-carbinol, calcium glucarate, milk thistle, Schisandra chinesis and stinging nettle, for a period of 28 days. At intervention end, a significant increase in urinary 2-OHE concentration and a trend toward an increase in 2:16alpha-OHE ratio was observed in the herbal group (Meaning that the “more harmful” form of estrogen was significantly diminished after use of this herb/nutrient combination).


While this proves that various supplements can certainly be beneficial in the prevention of breast cancer, 2 of the main ingredients (HMR lignan and indole-3-carbinol) can be found in flax seeds and cruciferous vegetables, respectively. Therefore, I would encourage all women to incorporate these foods into their diet on a regular basis, as well as supplementing with some of the herbs and nutrients mentioned above.

Source: “Effects of A Breast-Health Herbal Formula Supplement on Estrogen Metabolism in Pre- and Post-Menopausal Women not Taking Hormonal Contraceptives or Supplements: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” Laidlaw M, Sepkovic DW, et al, Breast Cancer (Auckl), 2010; 4: 85-95.
Share

Breast Cancer and HRT (Once Again)

We’ve known for several years that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increases the risk of breast cancer.  Now, a new report derived from following the same population that was originally studied in the Women’s Health Initiative demonstrates even more risks associated with HRT.  The new findings showed that women who took Prempro (one of the main drugs prescribed for HRT) and developed breast cancer were more likely to have an aggressive form of the disease, and more likely to die than breast cancer patients who had never taken hormones.  One explanation for this is that HRT increases the density of breast tissue, making cancerous tumors harder to identify on mammogram and physical examination, delaying the diagnosis, and increasing the risk of death. For a more detailed article on the subject, visit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/health/20hormone.html?src=mv
Of course, there are plenty of alternatives to pharmaceutical HRT, so talk to your naturopathic doctor about safer options for managing menopausal symptoms and/or osteoporosis. 
Share

Diabetes Increases Cancer Risk

Evidence is proving that diabetes may double the risk of pancreatic, liver, and endometrial cancer, while also significantly increasing the risk of colorectal, breast and bladder cancer. It’s still uncertain whether this is due to the disease itself, or the treatments that are being used for diabetes. However, it does strongly suggest that inflammation plays an underlying role, and how important it is to detect and treat diabetic changes as early as possible. Here is an article taken from Medscape that goes into more detail about this discovery:

June 16, 2010 — People with diabetes are at increased risk of certain cancers — but why?

Could it be that some diabetes treatments trigger or promote cancer? Or do the underlying causes of diabetes also underlie cancer?

These are the questions put before an expert panel from the American Diabetes Association and the American Cancer Society (ACS).

Their conclusion: We aren’t sure.

Even so, lifestyle changes that prevent or reverse diabetes will certainly cut cancer risk, says panel member Susan M. Gapstur, PhD, ACS vice president of epidemiology.

“The full biologic link between diabetes and cancer has not been completely defined,” Gapstur tells WebMD. “But first of all we should prevent diabetes. Then we can prevent some cancers. And for those who do have diabetes, it should be controlled as much as possible through a healthy lifestyle.”

Diabetes doubles the risk of liver, pancreas, and endometrial cancer. It increases the risk of colorectal, breast, and bladder cancer by 20% to 50%. But it cuts men’s risk of prostate cancer.

People with diabetes tend to have some known risk factors for cancer: older age,obesity, poor diet, and physical inactivity. And problems common in diabetes — too-high insulin levels, too-high blood sugar levels, and inflammation — increase cancer risk.

“No matter what science ultimately reveals … we already know what we need to do to lower risk for both cancer and diabetes,” Alice Bender, RD, of the American Institute for Cancer Research, says in a news release. “Eat a healthy, varied, predominantly plant-based diet, be physically active every day, and maintain ahealthy body weight.”

Do Diabetes Treatments Raise Cancer Risk?

There is evidence, but not definitive proof, that diabetes treatments affect cancer risk.

Metformin, the most commonly used diabetes drug, seems to lower cancer risk. But there’s also evidence from some studies — contradicted by others — that insulin, particularly long-acting insulin glargine (Lantus), may increase cancer risk.

Mo
reover, there are at least theoretical concerns that other relatively new diabetesdrugs may affect cancer risk. Unfortunately, the panel found too little data to form an opinion on this question.

Because there is no definitive link between diabetes treatment and cancer, the panel strongly advises people with diabetes — except those at extremely high risk of cancer — not to make treatment decisions based on fear of cancer.

“Clearly those being treated for diabetes need to be talking with their doctors about the importance of regular cancer screenings as recommended by the American Cancer Society,” Gapstur says.

The consensus panel’s report appears in the July/August issue of the ACS journalCA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

Share

Processed Meats=Unhealthy Eats

I always try to emphasize with patients the importance of avoiding processed meats, particularly due to the increased cancer risk that they pose. Now, it’s even more clear that this advice is warranted, as these foods substantially increase the risk of heart disease and Type II diabetes as well. For more information regarding this Harvard study, visit:

Share

Local Pollution Report Card

Here is a detailed report regarding toxins and air pollution in Guilford and surrounding areas: 

http://www.scorecard.org/community/index.tcl?zip_code=06437&set_community_zipcode_cookie_p=t&x=0&y=0
Share
Share