[QUOTE=MGV;164131]I read antiperspirants cause breast cancer because it plugs the pours, and that is not good for us. Whereas Deodorant just masks the smell just a bit without plugging and pours.[/QUOTE]
Common antiperspirants, as opposed to regular deodorants, function partially by clogging sweat glands in the arm pits. I agree that this doesn't seem especially healthy regardless. Some argue that the clogged sweat glands are unable to express toxins which accumulate in the breast adjacent to the sweat glands. But if antiperspirants caused breast cancer, I might expect to see men who use antiperspirants with high rates of breast cancer also. I don't see this happening. I don't know if a quality study has ever been done on this subject.
[QUOTE=MGV;164149]UNDER FORUM RULES BTW it says: Don't post spam and advertisements of products[B] or other websites[/B][/QUOTE]
People post to news articles and full scientific papers all the time. I'm pretty sure this is a "cover-your-ass" kind of rule, not a hard and fast "don't ever post links" rule. That would be way too restrictive, and quite unnecessary. People do post inappropriate things at times, but that's the nature of a public forum, and it's not the usual around here.
[QUOTE=hannahc;164257]People post to news articles and full scientific papers all the time. I'm pretty sure this is a "cover-your-ass" kind of rule, not a hard and fast "don't ever post links" rule. That would be way too restrictive, and quite unnecessary. People do post inappropriate things at times, but that's the nature of a public forum, and it's not the usual around here.[/QUOTE]
Good point . . .
"advertisements of products or other websites" = "advertisements of products" or "advertisements of other websites"
I have to admit my own struggle to remain objective and even open to the premise of Singer's book that bras may cause breast cancer. I have conflicting emotions. On one hand, I was with my much-too-young older relative when she died of breast cancer. So I'd badly like to see some leaps in progress regarding the causation of the disease.
On the other hand I have to overcome a temptation to chuck the book and its premise. Because of the context that gave rise to it, and Singer and his wife, and even me. The context is what some would call the "hippie movement" or the "environmental movement" of the 70's, With remnants lingering for another 20 years or so. Remnants, including Singer. Back then, everyone was freaking over pollution or "toxins" or anything considered "unnatural."
Just as some of us in this forum now look to Primal or Paleo to answer a lot of life's questions, back then we similarly thought that we would save the world and save ourselves by shunning materialism, pollution, and "toxins" and embracing what we thought was "nature."
What happened to a lot of us in the process is the subject of a book, "Back from the Land: How Young Americans Went to Nature in the 1970s and Why They Came Back" by Eleanor Agnew (Paperback - Sep 25, 2005) A somewhat bitter book. In the long term, everything "natural" that was supposed to work so well didn't work so well at all. Disillusioned hippie types straggled back to civilization sick, fat, hungry and poor, wondering why the "natural" lifestyle that they'd embraced didn't exempt them from health disasters as had been promised.
This era and its aftermath gave rise to some abysmally bad "science," especially in the field of nutrition.
There was a huge emphasis on eating lots of "natural" or even organic whole grains, especially whole wheat.
What is sadly almost funny in retrospect is that even as many of us were so concerned about avoiding even minute amounts of "toxins," we were truly poisoning ourselves with huge quantities of something that emerging real science is showing to be truly toxic, wheat. Including whole wheat. Especially whole wheat.
We were told and believed that wheat, especially whole wheat, was nature's ideal Superfood, even as it made us sick as dogs. Made us fat, and sick in numerous ways. Induced chronic autoimmune diseases in many. And even killed others through higher cancer incidence.
Singer's book and hypothesis are relics from the tail end of this unhappy era for science. And I don't blame Cillikat for a "please let it die" attitude. If this book and its premise some day turn out to be right, they will represent some of the little science from that movement that panned out.
Back then our conceptions of an ideal natural life and ideal natural diet failed us. But even the failures pointed toward a Primal or Paleo model as being a good lens through which to examine anything relating to diet or lifestyle. And so far, the real science is amazingly consistent in backing this Primal view.
We were products of the post industrial revolution period who knew we needed to go "back", but we didn't go far enough. Conceptually we tried to go back to the agricultural revolution, be we shouldn't have tried to stop there. Conceptually, we should have gone back to the Paleolithic period to understand what was happening to us.
Viewed through the lens of Primal or Paleo, I think the questions raised by Dressed to Kill need to be resolved. This, notwithstanding my disdain for the science of the movement that spawned the book. I don't know how those questions will be resolved, what the result will be. And I don't know what astute and prudent women should do about this in the meantime.
Paleo... It's so sad to lose someone to illness! And that it continues to eat at you, due to unanswered questions makes it so much harder. Personally, I think it's wise to keep any little bit of info in the backs of our minds to process.
The book you mention sounds interesting. I come from an area where the hippie movement has YET to disband. The "natural" scene has been part of my life, yet so has all the "unnatural". I feel as though we are coming into a new "natural" era. Not so much free love, liberate yourself and burn your bra, and smoke as much weed as possible kinds of changes. But changes where we turn on the internet, and look up the drug that your doctor just prescribed. We don't just accept mainstream ideals. We question everything. (well, this has always been done, but we have access to even more information. And this has really been only booming in the last 10 years.)
So, for example, my mother is done with her cancer removal and radiation. She is now supposed to take [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamoxifen"]Tamoxifen[/URL]. Tamoxifen has proven quite effective in the prevention of getting breast cancer again. But I'll tell you; NOT ONE doctor has mentioned all the HORRIFYING side effects. Cancer of so many other important organs. REally? A TRADE? The pharmacist hasn't mentioned it. Mom wonders if the women she's met at the support group who took it and turned around to get endometrial cancer within 2 years even tie it together. And do they wonder? How did I get that? I've been doing all these healthy things. Eating cleaner etc. But they've been taking a drug to save their boobs, but can destroy their entire female system. Now, if you've survived stage III+, I can see that it might out weigh the risk. But when you stage I? And told that you might have gone another 20 years (at the age of 62) without major evidence of the cancer. REALLY? Take more poison?
I think what all women need to do is to constantly educate themselves. Do NOT rely on your doctor for all the info you need. Consider the possibilities. Make the changes in lifestyle that are easy to do. (well some are not so easy). But it's pretty much agreed to that excess body fat contributes to all kinds of cancer. Lack of nutrients like D is finally gaining in wide spread comprehension. Smoking is NOT so good for you. Nor excess drinking. Do you HAVE to rub chemicals on your body? Do you HAVE to eat fake foods? If you must eat CW, must it be coated in pesticides and full of hormones?
I think perhaps most importantly we need NOT to get married to our ideals or create crutches. (I always think about a former boss of mine, diabetic, looked very ill. She REFUSED to give up diet coke, "hadn't she been through enough?" Like she deserved the treat that was probably making her life a living hell. It's important that be able to apply knew knowledge when it becomes available. And most CERTAINLY, should you get cancer anyway, don't beat yourself up about what you could have done differently. You will need everything you have to fight the fight. A fight that you may win or lose, regardless of your efforts. (that just sucks! I know!). Although breast cancer continues to lurk out there, we are more informed. And we know there are SOME things we can do to prevent it's arrival. (Prevention is considered way better than the cure.)
Back to CW and grains. I agree they probably should be completely removed from the worlds diet. But before that happens, we have SO MANY other areas to address. Removing grains for example would NOT eliminate all the fake sugars, fake fats, nutrition less mass produced foods for the sole purpose of filling a stomach but not meeting the bodies nutritional needs. There are steps that can happen in between that I bet would make a HUGE impact.
Ahh... I went ahead asked about the website attachements. As, although I can break the rules like anyone...not interested in pissing the forum owners off.
Here's what Mark wrote back... THANKS MARK!
1. No affiliate or referral links are allowed.
2. I understand that not all links to commerce sites are spam. It often depends on the context in which the link is posted. If the link points to a product site but is legitimately helpful and adds to the discussion instead of take away from it in most cases it will be allowed. In other words not all links are spam or ads. It also depends on the person who is posting the link. If the person posting the links has no history as a user and posts numerous links back to their own product site then those links (and their account) will usually be marked as spam and deleted. If the person that posted a product link has a long history on the Mark's Daily Apple forum, is part of the community and adds value to discussions and posts a product site link it will be more likely to get a pass.
Determining which links are spam and which aren't is subjective, and, it goes without saying, my moderator assistant and I make all final calls.
Here is some more on this from the Forum Rules:
# Linking to a commercial product/service is fine, provided it is not a product or service that competes with a product or service offered by Primal Nutrition, Inc. and it is not an affiliate program link for Mark's Daily Apple or any other affiliate program.
# Promotional text for a commercial product or service is ok, provided there are no price(s) of product(s) or service(s) listed.
Oh... cutting and pasting his response with his permission...
No bras are not cause of cancer it the the part of women,s dressing and provide some bountifulness around the figure . Use of bras are liked by the women,s in every were and women,s love to wear sexy bras with their dresses .
Well, I think the original question of this zombie thread is interesting.
I think it might be interesting to discover, but it hasn't stopped me from wearing bras. I'd been following the brafree.org advice for the last -- oh two years -- and ultimately I didn't notice any real change in my breasts.
That is to say, it says that without bras, the breasts will sag less. This was no the case in my case (could be due to size: nice healthy D-cup). They sagged the same when I would take a bra off, and then several months or years later (id on't know how long I went bra free, but ti was definitely mroe than a year), there was no improvement in sag. Put on a well-fitting bra, and voila! nice.
I tend to only wear my bras for about 8-9 hrs a day, and usually only 3-4 days a week. I go braless quite a bit and enjoy it. I have shelf bras in a lot of my tank tops (which do not provide support but are nice to have). it's comfortable.
But overall, I'm not concerned about toxin build up, or lymph build up, or whatever. I take care of my breasts and such.