The first step in finding a cure to cancer is finding out exactly what causes it. Scientists are making headway, at least a far as colon cancer is concerned, with new findings that show that colon cancer may be a disease of hormone deficiency.

The key here is GCC (guanylyl cyclase C), a protein receptor located on the intestines, which interacts with two hormones, guanylin and uroguanylin, to regulate growth of the organ. But it's thought that when colon cancer is in its early stages, these hormones are mostly absent, which gives way to the growth of tumors (for an more in-depth explanation, check out the full article here.) So then it's thought that if GCC can be stimulated, it would block tumors from growing.

This new approach to colon cancer is promising to scientists because, as clinical pharmacologist Scott Waldman, M.D., Ph.D., points out, 'it's a completely different way of thinking about the disease ... Not only does this give a new paradigm in how we think about the disease, but it gives us a new paradigm for treating the disease -- that is, by hormone replacement therapy.'

Are we living in a toxic environment? The experts at Canyon Ranch ask us to consider these facts:

• The EPA estimates that 4.7 billion pounds of toxic chemicals are released into the environment annually.
• It's likely that 25 percent of the U.S. population suffers from some level of heavy metal poisoning.
• Fourteen pounds of food colorings, additives, preservatives, emulsifiers, and flavorings are consumed per person each year.

Toxic? Maybe. At minimum, though, we are living in a world filled with chemicals, pesticides, additives, preservatives, antibiotic and hormone residues, and heavy metals. Whether consumed, inhaled, or absorbed, our bodies soak this stuff up. In order to reduce the load, and the toll it takes it takes on our health, there's something we can do. We can eat clean. Here's how:

I'm writing today to share with you a victory -- a diet and exercise victory. Let me begin with a little background.

I've always been in the normal weight range for my height. I am about 5'7" and prior to each of my two pregnancies, I weighed 142. For me, that translates into size eight clothing, size six for some oddly made-garments. I've always been generally happy with my weight, and I've never obsessed about the numbers on the scale. Yet there's been one area that's bothered me ever since my first baby was born -- my tummy. Now I like to use the excuse that my babies were big -- 10 pounds, nine ounces and 10 pounds, two ounces -- but clinging to this explanation did nothing to remove the loose skin from my middle. And for years, I guess I wasn't ready to work at whittling it away.

Enter cancer. Research shows many breast cancer patients gain weight during treatment -- sometimes up to 30 pounds. And while I never did gain this much, my weight has increased over the past almost three years. Perhaps it was hormones, the chemotherapy drugs, the anti-depressant I just stopped taking. Regardless, I didn't like the extra weight. So I tried to do something about it -- and about that pesky tummy too. And herein lies the victory.

A bundle of scientific reports indicate more than 200 chemicals, found in the air and in consumer products, cause breast cancer in animal tests.

Researchers report in an American Cancer Society publication that reducing exposure to such compounds could prevent many women from developing the disease.

Family history and genetic make-up are responsible for only a small percentage of breast cancer cases. Environmental and lifestyle factors, such as diet, are most likely involved in the majority of cases, say experts.

When my babies were born, those who promote breastfeeding as the only effective method for nourishing a child and preventing illness urged and pushed and prodded me to embrace their beliefs. I did believe them, never doubted them, and sometimes felt guilty I wasn't able to nurse my children -- a previous breast reduction surgery disabled my milk flow.

I got over it. Bottles and formula worked well for my family, allowed my husband to share middle-of-the-night feeding duties, and grew my two little boys into sturdy, healthy beings.

What I haven't completely gotten over is that breastfeeding could have done a whole lot of good for me too. It could have prevented the breast cancer I developed just after my second child stopped drinking formula from his bottle.

Research indicates breastfeeding can decrease the risk of breast cancer for women who have their first baby after age 25. I was 31 when my first child was born.

Previous studies showed that having a first baby before the age of 25 or having no children protected against breast cancers fueled by hormones. It did not, however, stop the less common, harder-to-treat tumors not fueled by hormones, like mine. It seems even breastfeeding would not have prevented my cancer.

That was then. This is now.

New studies show women who give birth after age 25 are twice as likely to develop either type of breast cancer. Therefore, breastfeeding really protects all women bearing children after 25 from both forms of the disease. It turns out breastfeeding could have helped me. But I couldn't do it. So it didn't.

What's done is done. I'll get over it. And I may just become one of those women who urge and push and prod others to embrace the benefits of breastfeeding.

Results of two studies, sponsored by the Adjuvant Breast Cancer (ABC) Trials Collaborative Group, conclude that adding chemotherapy to the estrogen-blocking drug tamoxifen improves survival for those with early-stage breast cancer. The same studies reveal preventing the secretion of estrogen from the ovaries does not offer much benefit for most women.

Researchers studied 1991 patients, ages 28 to 81. All had received five years worth of treatment with tamoxifen therapy with or without standard chemotherapy. Some premenopausal women were also treated with ovarian removal (ablation) or suppression, a technique used to stop the glands from secreting hormones.

While early results, appearing in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, fell short of statistical significance, chemotherapy still reduced the overall risk of death by 17 percent, mostly for women younger than 50 and especially for premenopausal women not treated with ovarian ablation or suppression.

I have dense breasts. And ever since the surgeon who performed my breast reduction surgery more than 10 years ago told me about the composition of my breast tissue, I have been a bit obsessed with how my breasts feel. Good thing -- because I ended up with breast cancer two years ago as a result of my own at-home monitoring. And now I wonder if my cancer was influenced by the density characterizing the tissue that fills my breasts.

Canadian researchers are reporting in a groundbreaking study that women with dense breasts, like me, are five times more likely to develop breast cancer than whose whose breasts have a lot of fatty tissue. It's long been knows that dense breasts inhibit the effectiveness of X-ray mammograms -- and perhaps delay diagnosis -- but now it's clear that breast density is a risk factor all on its own.

The first study showing low-fat diets can prevent breast cancer recurrence now reveals -- thanks to longer follow-up -- that the benefit was almost exclusive to women whose tumor growth was not fueled by hormones.

Trimming fat translated into a 66 percent lower risk of death for these women. One doctor with no role in the study says this is "as great or better than any treatment intervention that we've given" for this type of cancer, which is notoriously hard to treat.

As with all studies relating to diet, however, there is always the possibility that the benefit stems from something other than an altered diet -- like increased intake of other foods like fruits and vegetables, weight loss, or better overall health that accompanies the decrease in fat.

For women whose cancers are driven by hormones -- the majority of breast cancer patients fall into this category -- the diet change seemed to make little difference in the risk of recurrence or survival. This finding comes as a surprise to many health professionals who expected all women to benefit from a cut in fat consumption.

A new study to test weight loss, increased exercise, and low-fat diets in women with hormone receptor positive breast cancer will launch in the United States and Canada next year.

Before 2002, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was believed to prevent many conditions, and doctors routinely prescribed hormone pills. But when a 2002 study found HRT raises the risk of breast cancer, heart disease, and other problems, the use of hormones plummeted.

On Thursday, researchers reported that the rate of breast cancer cases in the United States dropped more than seven percent in 2003 -- the year after the landmark study that caused a backlash against hormones. This backlash is considered the leading cause for the now-reported decline in breast cancer cases.

Now, even more women are expected to abandon the pills. And doctors worry that women with severe menopausal symptoms -- who need the treatment -- will deny themselves the benefits hormones can offer.

There are ways to take advantage of the benefits, however, and still minimize the risks. One gynecology group shares the following suggestions.

• Take the lowest dose for the shortest time -- two or three years if possible. Start out small and add more medication if symptoms do not decrease.

• Do not take hormones to try to prevent heart disease -- because they do not prevent it.
  

• Never take estrogen without progestin if you still have a uterus. This raises the risk of uterine cancer.

• Try periodically to cut your dose and wean yourself off.

For those who don't definitively need hormone therapy, it's important to discontinue use. But some women truly do need the treatment and should not abruptly stop their therapy in light of news that is not definitive in itself. As always, consultation with a physician is the best first step.

Previous posts on the topic of HRT and breast cancer are as follows.

• Different perspective on drop in breast cancer cases
• HRT use drops breast cancer rates drop
• Hooray for HRT!?
• HRT and smoking dramatically increases breast cancer risk
• HRT increases breast cancer risks

Breast cancer survivor, actress and anti-pharmaceutical advocate Suzanne Somers, author of Ageless: The Naked Truth About Bioidentical Hormones, suggests that if she had it to do over again, she would not undergo radiation treatment for breast cancer. During an interview Somers shares information on bioidentical hormones with The Desert Sun's Bruce Fessier, Somers is quoted as saying, "The whole time I was lying on that radiation table and I was so sick from it, I kept thinking, isn't it radiation that gives us cancer? I couldn't get that thought out of my mind."

At the time of her breast cancer diagnosis, Somers researched Iscador, a mistletoe extract, and chose to include the alternative therapy as part of her treatment. Somers said she refused to give up her hormones, insisting that she knew more about hormones than the doctor treating her for cancer.

Somers has critics in the medical and pharmaceutical communities, and perhaps rightly so. Manipulating hormones with bioidentical hormone therapy is not nearly as simplistic as she makes it sound, nor is cancer.

In her defense, while she does hold some unorthodox beliefs about health and cancer treatment, she readily adds that her approach to health is not something she advocates for everyone. Even with that caveat, people must be interested in what she has to say, as most of her books become bestsellers. Without a formal medical education and scientific expertise to back up what she has to say, I am not certain why so many seem to be listening.

I understand cancer is a scary diagnosis, and current treatments including chemotherapy, radiation and chemoprevention drugs are an inexact science. Not everyone diagnosed with cancer is cured. But cancer is also not a disease that allows the patient a great deal of time to experiment with various treatments.

As a breast cancer survivor, with a keen interest in cancer and cancer treatments, I believe there is a place for some alternative treatments. I also believe, in time, that some of the current conventional treatments will be replaced with more effective treatments. I am relatively certain that Suzanne Somers is a lovely woman. However, I try to chose my authority figures and the experts whose advice I value very carefully. Your thoughts?

For women with estrogen-driven breast cancer suffering the symptoms of menopause, being prescribed traditional hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is out of the question. The risks are simply too great in introducing any estrogen into the body. There are few alternatives and many women decide to suffer with hot flashes, flushes, night sweats and cold flashes, a clammy feeling, sporadic rapid heart beat, irritability, mood swings, sudden tears, insomnia, fatigue, feelings of anxiety, dread, apprehension, difficulty concentrating, disorientation, depression and mental confusion -- without any significant relief. One of the alternatives is personalized natural hormone replacement therapy that is individually mixed specific to each woman's needs.

According to Sydney Menopause Centre at Randwick's Royal Hospital for Women director Dr John Eden, who has diagnosed two women patients with uterine cancer, believes the cancer is linked to natural hormone replacement therapy. Australian doctors are warning women to think twice before taking handmade hormone compounds prepared by chemists, due to the danger that these preparations can lead to elevated hormone levels that could lead to excessive bleeding, increased risk of breast and uterine cancer and blood clots.

"Many women think they are getting a herbal treatment and are shocked to learn they are getting a hormone treatment," stated Dr Eden. Dr Helena Teede, research director at the Jean Hailes Foundation, also added that many women were unaware these preparations were not approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

Researchers are beginning to tell us that being overweight increases cancer risks for a number of cancers. But then being overweight increases our chances of developing a number of diseases. While there are all kinds of diets, and gurus who claim they know the way, the remedy for long-term weight loss isn't going to change -- it's all about moving more, and eating less.

But what if you are moving more and eating less and the pounds stubbornly refuse to fall away? Amy Paturel, an expert in nutrition and public health, recently reviewed the top ten reasons why when you do all the right things, you aren't getting the expected results. The ten reasons Paturel discusses that can prevent weight loss are lack of sleep, synthetic chemicals in the environment, weather effects in temperatures being too hot or too cold, not smoking, prescription medications, giving birth at an older age, natural selection and overweight parents having overweight children.

Of course, this doesn't mean you are doomed to weight gain or being overweight but it might mean that you will need to take a look at some of the possible causes of why you are experiencing weight gain and not experiencing weight loss.

Paturel goes into an explanation of each of these causes in Ten More Fat Factors: It's Not Just the Cupcakes.

One of the best systematic therapies for prostate cancer is to lower the hormone levels in the patient. Lowering the hormones that stimulate the growth of prostate cancer cells usually result in the cancer shrinking or growing more slowly.

The problem with the hormonal treatments is that they usually stop working because the cancer cells become resistant over time. The researchers at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine have found a protein that is involved in the survival strategy of the cancer cell.

Researchers understanding the mechanisms that are at work in the cell that leads to the resistance of hormonal treatments is promising. This could lead to understanding why other treatments like chemotherapy also stop working over time.

University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center researchers have confirmed what more than a few cancer patients have personally believed for some time now. Stress increases cancer growth and finding ways to relax and reduce stress is beneficial to cancer survivorship.

In a preclinical study carried out on mice with ovarian cancer, researchers found that cancerous tumors grew and spread faster when the mice were experiencing increased levels of stress. According to the researchers, the conclusion of this study is the first definitive link between psychological stress and the biological processes that make ovarian tumors grow and spread. It appears stress hormones bind to receptors directly on tumor cells and, in turn, stimulate new blood vessel growth and other factors that lead to faster and more aggressive tumors.

"The concept of stress hormone receptors directly driving cancer growth is very new," said Dr. Anil Sood, the study's senior author. "Not much had been known about how often these receptors are expressed in cancer, and more importantly, whether they had any functional significance. Our research opens a new area of investigation."

The good news in this -- besides the fact that this study begins to validate what cancer survivors have been saying for years in the personal belief of the link between stress and cancer -- is that stress can be controlled and reduced by lifestyle changes and medication. In fact, the researchers found a beta blocker heart medication effectively blocked the adverse effect stress hormones had on tumor growth.

This could open new areas of research. Indeed, Dr. Sood and his team will continue to research the role of stress in cancer and examine the effects of stress hormones on cancers besides ovarian cancer. To read more about the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center preclinical study, go here.

Let's start this out by saying that Richard Young of the Soil Association, which opposes the use of hormones in farming, is not saying that British consumers are eating dangerous meat -- but he is calling for an updated and reactivated testing program that will ensure imported beef does not contain hormones linked to increased cancer risks. While the European Union has banned the use of growth or sex hormones in cattle for 20 years, cattle from many countries outside the EU, including the US and Canada, are given both naturally occurring and synthetic hormones to boost the quantity and quality of beef produced for human consumption.

The safety of hormone-treated beef that can lead to sexual abnormalities and raise the risk of hormone-driven cancers, is disputed by some in the scientific community -- and according to the Soil Association, there might be an additional business and political element at work when it states that, "The EU imposed a ban on the importation of hormone-treated beef, but under pressure from the US and Canada the World Trade Organization ruled that the ban was not based on sound science and therefore an illegal barrier to trade. As a result the EU is forced to pay more than 120 million US dollars a year in compensation."

To read detailed background information on the issue of hormone-treated beef and the concern over imported beef not being tested for growth or sex hormones, go here. We'll say it again. Young is not saying that the beef presently sold is unsafe, only that the Soil Association is calling for a testing program to ensure the safety of imported beef sold and consumed.

The Soil Association is the UK's leading campaigning and certification organization for organic food and farming.