Kidney growth (cancer?) and nutrition

[SueZQuilter]

Hi Jeff,

I have just been dealt a huge blow. My doctor has advised me that I have a large growth (7 centimeters/3-1/2 inches) in my right kidney. When I asked what treatments I could expect, he told me that the only treatment is the removal of the kidney. I mentioned this to Dr. McDougall at the Advanced Study Weekend two weeks ago and he told me of a book called "Should I Be Tested For Cancer?" by H. Gilbert Welch, which I am in the process of finishing now.

My question is, can a healthy lifestyle shrink a growth that is most likely cancerous? I know of the television cooking show host, Christina Pirello, who had leukemia and had only a short time to live. She changed her lifestyle and began eating a macrobiotic diet and has been cancer free for over 13 years.

I am continuing to eat the McDougall program, but I did realize that I am eating mostly legumes for fullness. From my research into kidney disease etc., I read that the use of legumes in the diet is not recommended because of the excessive proteins. I suspect I should switch to grains and potatoes to obtain the fullness that I require, right?

By the way, I wll be coming to the 10-day program at the end of March and will be bringing copies of the CT and Bone Scan reports and films for Dr. McDougall to review - I hope that's appropriate?

What are your thoughts on reversing, shrinking or just keeping cancerous tumors from growing rapidly by using diet and lifestyle? Is there any documented data available?

[susie]

It seems to me that everyone has been avoiding your post. I too avoided it at first. However apart from your horrible news, I too am interested in reading that book.

Now I have a friend, an evangelical minister that went down the conventional road and did just fine. He had his kidney removed and the cancer was contained and hadn'nt spread. Lately there have been a lot of internet articles about how dangerous fine needle aspirations are, which make sense to me.

What worries me these days is the treatment you receive in hospitals.

Anyway SueZ I am sending you a lot of love and best wishes your way.

You are in my thoughts, Susie

[JeffN]

Hi Jeff,

I have just been dealt a huge blow. My doctor has advised me that I have a large growth (7 centimeters/3-1/2 inches) in my right kidney.

Hi Sue,

Sorry to hear about your news and am sure it is upsetting and difficult for you.

My question is, can a healthy lifestyle shrink a growth that is most likely cancerous? I know of the television cooking show host, Christina Pirello, who had leukemia and had only a short time to live. She changed her lifestyle and began eating a macrobiotic diet and has been cancer free for over 13 years.

What are your thoughts on reversing, shrinking or just keeping cancerous tumors from growing rapidly by using diet and lifestyle? Is there any documented data available?

There are lots of stories of people reversing and/or halting cancer, and/or shrinking tumors but not much of it is actually confirmed.

However, either way, there is good evidence about the effect of diet/lifestyle on cancer incidence, occurrence and growth rates.

For instance, when I was with the last center, we published several studies that in just 21 days, certain risk factors for breast, prostate and colon cancer were reduced by around 50%.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 86: 1419, 1994; Nutrition and Cancer, 31: 127,1998; Nutrition and Cancer, 38: 158, 2000; The Journal of Urology, 166: 1185, 2001.

In 2005, we reported that men with prostate cancer were able to avoid aggressive treatment, surgery, radiation, etc., by exercising regularly, increasing their fruit-and-vegetable intake, and reducing dietary fat to 10% of total calories.

This is part of the Ornish study that was asked about which is still "in progress" and will take time as it is about watchful waiting on prostate cancer. But, so far, the results are excellent and few if any in the watchful waiting group are advancing to where they need intervention.

Journal of Urology, 174:1065, 2005

In addition, studies on prostate cancer showed that growth rate was slowed dramatically in just 12 days

Prostate, 56: 201, 2003

In another study, we showed that blood samples of men who went thru the program (14 days) were 13 times more effective at killing off prostate cancer cells than blood samples taken from the very same men before they went thru the program. (Cancer Causes and Control, 13: 929, 2002. Prostate, 56: 210, 2003)

Now, these were on colon, breast, and prostate, which are more likely to be effected by diet and lifestyle. We did not do any research on kidney cancer.

However, knowing these dramatic results have been documented should only be good news and encouraging for you.

I am continuing to eat the McDougall program, but I did realize that I am eating mostly legumes for fullness. From my research into kidney disease etc., I read that the use of legumes in the diet is not recommended because of the excessive proteins. I suspect I should switch to grains and potatoes to obtain the fullness that I require, right?

The issue around legumes is that they are higher in protein and it seems that higher protein diets, regardless if it is from animal or vegetable protein, may "feed" cancer cells, (the protein can raise IGF-1 levels) so a lower protein diet is often recommended. This doesnt mean you can not eat legumes, as part of your healthy diet, but you may want to limit them to no more than a serving or two a day at most.

I would recommend you focus more on fruits, veggies, starchy veggies and intact whole grains for your bulk.

Also, make sure you are using no oils and keep your fat intake as low as you can, but make sure you get in enough omega 3s. A TB or 2 of ground flax a day can do that for you.

By the way, I wll be coming to the 10-day program at the end of March and will be bringing copies of the CT and Bone Scan reports and films for Dr. McDougall to review - I hope that's appropriate?

I look forward to seeing you then.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD

[JeffN]

Some more hope for you in direct relation to Kidney Cancer

The inverse association with vegetable fibre may reflect a real favorable effect, or be an indicator of a beneficial role of a diet rich in vegetable on RCC risk.

Int J Cancer. 2007 Oct 15;121( 8 ):1869-72. Fibre intake and renal cell carcinoma: a case-control study from Italy.


This 1999-2003 study provides further evidence that diet may play a role in the development of kidney cancer, with a particularly strong protective association for high vegetable intake. The increased risk associated with dairy products, preserved vegetables, and red meat provides clues to the high rates of kidney cancer in this population.

Am J Epidemiol. 2007 Jul 1;166(1):62-70. Epub 2007 Apr 23. Dietary risk factors for kidney cancer in Eastern and Central Europe.


A significant inverse association with RCC was observed with increasing total consumption of vegetables and vegetable juices for males and females combined. Increased consumption for two specific vegetable groups (dark-green vegetables and cruciferous vegetables) was inversely associated among females

Cancer Causes Control. 2003 Oct;14( 8 ):705-14. Diet and vitamin or mineral supplements and risk of renal cell carcinoma in Canada.


A significantly protective effect on risk of renal cell cancer was observed with increasing consumption of fruit (P for trend, 0.05). When analyzed by smoking status, total fruit and especially citrus fruit consumption among nonsmokers showed an even stronger protective effect; the highest quartiles of total fruit, apple, and citrus fruit consumption entailed a 50-60% reduction in risk of renal cell cancer compared with the lowest quartiles. There was a suggestion of a protective effect of high total vegetable consumption.

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1997 Apr;6(4):215-23. Diet and risk of renal cell cancer: a population-based case-control study.


Summary results indicated that there was from 20% to 22% higher risk of renal cancer among those in the highest relative to the lowest category of poultry and processed meat consumption. Consumption of all meat and red meat was associated with 27% and 30% higher risk, respectively. The increased risks were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Increased consumption of all meat, red meat, poultry, and processed meat is associated with an increase risk of kidney cancer. Reduction of meat consumption is an important approach to decreasing the incidence of kidney cancer in the general population.

Cancer Causes Control. 2007 Mar;18(2):125-33. Epub 2007 Jan 22. Consumption of different types of meat and the risk of renal cancer: meta-analysis of case-control studies


This study suggests that obesity and excess energy intake are important etiologic risk factors for renal cell and non-renal cell cancer. The role of physical activity needs further investigation.

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Dec;15(12):2453-60. Obesity, high energy intake, lack of physical activity, and the risk of kidney cancer.


Fruit and vegetable consumption may reduce the risk of renal cell cancer in men.

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Dec;15(12):2445-52. Intakes of fruits, vegetables, vitamins A, C, and E, and carotenoids and risk of renal cell cancer.


The results of this study provide further indications on dietary correlates of RCC, and in particular indicate that a diet rich in refined cereals and poor in vegetables may have an unfavorable role on RCC.

Int J Cancer. 2007 Feb 1;120(3):681-5. Food groups and renal cell carcinoma: a case-control study from Italy.


Our results suggested that high consumption of fruits and vegetables might be associated with reduced risk of RCC.

Int J Cancer. 2005 Jan 20;113(3):451-5. Fruits, vegetables and risk of renal cell carcinoma: a prospective study of Swedish women.


Our findings confirmed that high-fat and high-protein diets might be risk factors for renal cell carcinoma. The data also suggest an increased risk associated with juice intake, a finding not previously reported.

Public Health Nutr. 2002 Dec;5(6):757-67. Diet patterns and the risk of renal cell carcinoma.


In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD

[JeffN]

Greetings,

This is why I now have come to see gluten as far more potentially dangerous to human beings than currently thought... I mean, maybe I'm wrong... I'm no expert...maybe it's not even the gluten in the bread responsible here, maybe just the "refined" aspect of grains, etc. But it sounds like something to be studied further to me..

Thanks for the comments.

I find them interesting and while gluten has been associated with certain issues including lymphoma, renal cancer, is not one of them. And, the lymphoma is usually a result of a mismanaged case of CD.

This is why it is important to not sort through these studies and original research (which there is so much going on and so much is available online) and also to look for patterns and trend in studies on the same topic. Skip the mews stories. www.pubmed.com is a great site for find the actual abstracts and studies.

This is also why meta-analysis studies are helpful as they study the common denominators in many studies. If one study shows something that no other study showed, than the odds are it is not going to be an issue, and may have something to do more with the way that one study was done.

In all the 100s of studies I reviewed, in the National Library of Medicine, searching for all links between any dietary component and RCC, I saw no other one linking RCC and bread and/or gluten and/or GI.

While you may find some association between the GI and cancer (and other diseases) on occasion, this has nothing to do with the GI. The reason is that many unhealthy foods have high GIs.

So, is it the GI or the unhealthy foods?

While proponents of low carb diets like to cash in on this type of news to promote their diets and say it is the GI, it is misleading.

Many healthy foods, even some vegetables and fruits, have higher GIs but in most all other studies have consistantly showed they reduce the risk of cancers. In one of the studies I quoted above, the fruit most associated with a reduced risk of RCC was bananas, yet bananas have one of the highest GIs of fruit.

So, is it the GI or the type of food.

GI is at best a marker of food, and a poor one at that, because it misses almost as most, if not more than it hits.

There have been many studies that have associated "bread" with diseases but that is not surprising when you consider that much of the bread people consume is made with refined grains, is higher in salt (per ounce than potato chips), often high in sugar, and often filled with unhealthy fats. In addition, many breads are high in protein due to added gluten.

Looking at an overview of the evidence, I would be more concerned with the higher salt content from the bread as salt intake can raise BP and higher BP is related to increased risk for renal cancer in many other studies.

I would also be more concerned with the higher protein content of the bread, than the gluten, as higher protein diets have been associated with RCC in other studies.

Thanks
In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD

[groundhogg]

Well, you're the expert, not me !

But I was not agreeing with the GI thing in the above... I was more or less saying it annoys me when researchers find associations and then attempt to explain the mechanisms with guesses...i.e., in this case, they came up with GI load, which to me is meaningless, given they also came up with fruits as helpful, and by the same logic, this just seems wrong.

I'm more interested in associations... building more research blindly follwoing the raw associations, rather than someone's interpretation or guess of what it means.

The type of bread was not specified in this study...so, thanks to whomever it was that (mis) managed that part of it, we'll never know about that part of it.

Anyway, combining other constantly emerging bad stuff about glutinous grains, this type of thing in the above study (which, admittedly, is not NECESSARILY pointing to gluten, but possibly), plus global incidence of kidney cancers (i.e., rare in Asian/African countries... more common in western countreis where gluten is eaten daily by most people, etc.--although admittedly other bad stuff is eaten too), I'm saying I believe there MIGHT be something here to be aware of, especially if every other caution is already being applied... i.e., if the person is already follwoing a low-fat, vegan diet.

I'm not saying I know... I'm just adding addition thoughts for others to think about or look up for themselves... as a friend might do, not as an expert would advise. I always appreciate seeing the scope of even mildly suspicious associations to think about if someone knows of them... waiting aroudn for scientists to officially declare one thing or another is usually a long, long wait. On the other hand, if a person did feel a need to be possibly overly cautious and remove bread or gluten, or whatever they decided from their diet, and then later on scientists declared that substance perfectly safe/harmless for their condition from repeated trials... what would be lost? It's up to each person to decide... just in case they feel they already are doing everything else right but something is still wrong. But as I said... I don't claim to be an expert...just someone who thinks she sees common threads across the globe... some may truly be causative...others may be associated only arbitrarily so. I'm not trying to be pushy with the ideas... just more getting possibilities for further thought out onto the table, in case it might help anybody at all in any way.

[JeffN]

I appreciate your input on this issue.

However, as I mentioned, you do not have to "speculate" so much as the info in available.

Wheat consumption is way down in the USA over the last century. You can see the actual data/charts online. It fell dramatically since its peak in 1880 and while it rose slightly in the 70s, is still way down from its peak, and has fallen again since the mid 90s..

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Wheat/consumption.htm

Looking at all gluten containing grains and their byproducts, we see a similar pattern. It rose slightly in the 70s, it is still way down from its peak, and has fallen again since the mid 90s.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsum ... px#midForm

In regard to worldwide intake and incidence of disease, the FAO/WHO does a great job of tracking this info and their data is also available online.

BTW, gluten and celiac is an issue and concern they are aware of as CD can cause diarrhea and malnutrition which is a main concern of WHO/FAO in many developing countries.

If this is really a concern of yours, you may want to explore their sites. Who knows, maybe you have found something that is being overlooked.

Thanks again
Jeff Novick, MS, RD

[Carol]

[quote="JeffN
The issue around legumes is that they are higher in protein and it seems that higher protein diets, regardless if it is from animal or vegetable protein, may "feed" cancer cells, (the protein can raise IGF-1 levels) so a lower protein diet is often recommended. This doesnt mean you can not eat legumes, as part of your healthy diet, but you may want to limit them to no more than a serving or two a day at most.

Jeff,

Can't figure out how to "quote" just a portion of your note, but the portion above has me confused.....sorry.

I thought in The China Study Campbell says higher protein from non-animal sources does not feed cancer cells. I mean, spinach is 50% protein and many veggies are high in protein, certainly higher than the 5% daily need, right? There was a study he did to prove that I thought.

Can you elaborate?

[JeffN]

I thought in The China Study Campbell says higher protein from non-animal sources does not feed cancer cells. I mean, spinach is 50% protein and many veggies are high in protein, certainly higher than the 5% daily need, right? There was a study he did to prove that I thought.

Can you elaborate?

Hi Carol

I think you are confusing absolute numbers with relative numbers and that is the mix up.

Spinach may be fairly high in protein, as are many vegetables, but they do not provide the majority of calories in most peoples diets due to their extremely low calorie density (about 100 calorie/pound). How many pounds of spinach, or collards, can someone eat in a day. To get to 2000 calories, it would be like 20 pounds!

So, if you did eat a lot of spinach in a day, for those calories, you would get a high percentage of protein, but it would not be a lot of total calories. It would be a higher relative percentage of a lower total amount.

Beans, on the other hand, are more calorie dense, around (600-700 calories/pound), so around 6-7x what most vegetables are, and can, supply a good deal of someones calories, and in turn, someones protein. While I doubt many people do it, or would do it, you theoretically could get most all of you calories from beans, without much difficulty.

The China Study is a great study, but no one study ever "proves" anything. Some people may say that, but no researcher will ever say that. Studies gives us information and clues and trends and patterns into what is happening. There are also many different types of studies, from epidemiological to randomized controlled trials, to prospective and retrospective, etc and they all have their strengths and weaknesses.

Hi protein diets, even from vegetable protein, can have consequences. In most cases, vegetable protein is much healthier and safer than animal protein but it is not always true. There are some rare exceptions.

Are you familiar with the evidence that even Soy protein can increase IGF-1, which has been shown to increase growth rates of cancer? And, increased IGF-1 levels more than casein? I know Dr McDougall writes about it as have I.

In advanced Kidney Disease, all protein is limited, including vegetable protein. While vegetable protein is much healthier for these patients, total protein is still limited.

Now, the odds of someone following a diet like the McDougall diet and getting in the amount of protein that might aggravate a cancer is extremely rare. However, why take the risk if you have kidney cancer. Just keep protein levels at what is needed, and do not overdo any food that can potentially raise the intake of protein to a higher level. That was my only comment.

On an absolute level, spinach wont do it. But, beans might.

Does that make more sense?

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD

[JeffN]

For real numbers....

400 calories of spinach would provide 53.5 grams of protein. This is just over 50% calories from protein.

400 calories of Red Kidney beans provides 28 grams of protein, which is about 30% calories from protein

So, on a per calorie basis, the spinach has a higher relative amount, 50 vs 30.

But, the 400 calories of spinach is 10 cups of cooked spinach. The 400 calories of the beans is 1.8 cups.

Most people are not going to eat the 10 cups of cooked spinach, nor could they.

But, eating 1.8 cups of beans is easy, and some people do that every day.

And, it would be much easier to eat more of the beans then any more of the spinach, if you could even eat that amount.

If you ate 4 cups of beans, which is not unheard of, that is now 900 calories, and 61 grams of protein. Still only 30%, but 30% of a higher total calories.

If you only ate 4 cups of spinach, which is much more reasonable, it is only 165 calories and 21 grams of protein.

SO, if we compared 4 cups of spinach to 1.8 cups of beans, both realistic consumption figures, which would contribute more protein?

So, in day to day life, which one is more likely to be overdone and has the greater potential of contributing more total protein?

The beans, even though they have a lower percentage of protein.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD

[Carol]

Jeff,

Yes, that does explain it better. Thank you.

I am a cancer survivor (breast) and am on this plan primarily for that very reason. I certainly don't want to sabotage my health (anymore). My last two blood work results showed elevated liver enzymes....by 10 points or less.

I don't want to steal this thread, so I will post later to you directly with some of my concerns/issues.

Thanks, again. We all appreciate your feedback and dedication.

[Windrose]

I appreciate your input on this issue.

Wheat consumption is way down in the USA over the last century. You can see the actual data/charts online. It fell dramatically since its peak in 1880 and while it rose slightly in the 70s, is still way down from its peak, and has fallen again since the mid 90s..

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Wheat/consumption.htm

Jeff Novick, MS, RD

While the consumption of wheat may be declining, the protein content of wheat has been rising. The wheat grown now is around 13% protein, up from 9% just fifty years ago.

[JeffN]

I appreciate your input on this issue.

Wheat consumption is way down in the USA over the last century. You can see the actual data/charts online. It fell dramatically since its peak in 1880 and while it rose slightly in the 70s, is still way down from its peak, and has fallen again since the mid 90s..

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Wheat/consumption.htm

Jeff Novick, MS, RD

While the consumption of wheat may be declining, the protein content of wheat has been rising. The wheat grown now is around 13% protein, up from 9% just fifty years ago.

Hi Windrose

Thanks for the info. But,I think my main point still holds true.

Let's plug in the numbers because again, we have absolute numbers (total wheat consumption) and relative numbers (percent of protein). I am assuming your numbers are protein as a percent of weight, though the results will not be much different for percent of calories.

If the protein of wheat at its peak of 225 lbs was 9%, thats is 20.25 lbs.

Today, if the protein of wheat is 13%, and the consmption is 134 lbs, that is 17.43 lbs of protein

So, even with the increase in percentage, the total is still down around 14% from what is was for most of the last half of the 19th century and the beginning of this century.

However, I will agree that wheat consumption is up since 1950 and its protein content is up, but still way below peak consumption. And, together, (increased wheat and percent protein) still much less than what is was for decades.

Thanks
In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD

[SueZQuilter]

Thank you everyone for your kind thoughts and encouraging words. I want to thank Jeff for his insight and as always his encouragement and related studies and information.

Someone asked if I had seen a specialist...I am currently seeing a urologist who has referred me to a surgeon. As you can imagine, I am not running to see the surgeon. Instead, I have been corresponding with Dr. McDougall with regard to the tumor and his thoughts on how I should proceed. Along with Dr. John and Jeff, I am understanding that the tumor may be treated by diet and lifestyle changes, things I have already put in place at this time. I will be attending the 10-day live-in program at the end of this month and I am certain that I will get all of the information that I need in order to beat this thing.

You are all so wonderful...thank you for taking the time to answer. I'll keep you all updated.