Researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston say exercise helps combat breast cancer. Not the first time we've heard this fact. But these same researchers have something new to say -- about the reason physical activity lowers the risk of breast cancer recurrence.

Jennifer Ligibel, MD, of Dana-Farber, reports that exercise lowers levels of the hormone insulin in the bloodstream. This is significant because there appears to be an association between relatively high levels of insulin, seen in obese and sedentary people, and an increased risk of breast cancer recurrence and breast cancer-related death.

"We know that women who are overweight at the time of breast cancer diagnosis have a higher risk of recurrence than lean women, but the reasons for this have not been clear," said Ligibel.

Blogger Martha Edwards wrote about it on June 4 -- the fact that cancer cases are soon to explode in Asia, despite the obvious health benefits of Asian-based diets.

It's not the Asian diet influencing rising cancer rates, though. It's the bad Western habits Asians are adopting that will inevitably lead these folks down a dangerous road.

Smoking, drinking, and consumption of unhealthy foods -- all contributors to various cancers -- will drive Asian cancer rates up by 60 percent by the year 2020. Larger aging populations and lack of prevention and treatment in developing countries will also drive this trend.

I have heard many times that being obese or overweight increases the risk of developing breast cancer. It also has been said that it shortens the time between the return of the disease.

Why is this? It might be because of a hormone in our bodies called leptin.

Researchers are doing experiments on mice that might prove to be an important influence in developing drugs that target the mechanism that causes obese individuals to have a higher risk of the disease.

Italian researchers speaking at the Experimental Biology 2007 in Washington, DC, report evidence on how leptin, a hormone found in fat cells, significantly influences breast cancer development and progression in mice.

Leptin sends messages to the body that no more food is needed, a process that might not work well for those that are overweight or obese. Leptin also is involved with cell differentiation and proliferation in the body. Leptin has demonstrated to play a significant role in promoting breast cancer in obese women by increasing the amount of estrogen in the breast tissue.

Even though these are experiments done only on mice at this point, this learning process is what leads to new drugs and targeted therapies.

One out of three Americans will get cancer before they die. Who is at the highest risk?

Dr. David Nanus, an oncologist who has been treating cancer patients for over twenty years, says that "If you're obese or overweight, you have an increased incidence in a number of cancers". Nanus also tells CBS news that someone with a family history, someone who smokes, has a high fat diet and does not exercise are in the highest risk category for developing cancer in their lifetime.

According to the American Cancer Institute about one third of cancer deaths in 2006 were related to nutrition, physical inactivity and being overweight or obese -- and could have been prevented.

Nanus also says that "The biggest problem is the fear factor. People are so afraid of being diagnosed with cancer they wait. Even waiting three months can mean a difference between life and death.

An article recently published in the journal Cancer says that middle-aged men who are obese at the time of diagnoses of prostate cancer have a significantly worse overall survival than those who are not overweight.

Researchers from the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center recently conducted a clinical study to further evaluate potential associations between obesity and outcomes among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer. This study included 752 middle-aged men diagnosed with the disease.

They concluded that the men with the highest body fat had an approximate 2.5 fold increase in risk of death from prostate cancer. Also, the obese men had a 3.5 fold increased risk of metastasis.

This year alone, 215,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. And sadly, not all of them will be treated equally.

Researchers reported last Tuesday that breast cancer patients who are either obese or poor are more likely to receive lower doses of chemotherapy. This might be why some women relapse and others do not, according to the researchers whose findings appear in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

This treatment discrepancy seems to stem from doctors who mean well and want to save certain women from severe side effects of chemotherapy. Doctors may be under-dosing obese patients, for example, because a larger dose based on weight could lead to worse side effects. There is no evidence this is true, however.

As for socioeconomic status, researchers report doctors are assuming less-educated patients won't stick with a tough course of treatment -- and so they prescribe less, in hopes patients will complete the regimen.

Researchers found that severely obese women were four times more likely to get less chemotherapy than they need. Women with less than a high school education were three times more likely to receive low doses of chemotherapy. And women living in the South were almost six times more likely to come up short on the drugs they need to save their lives.

"We have new therapies and cures out there for many forms of cancer and sadly, sometimes we're not curing people because they are not getting the full doses that should be standard," says Dr. Gary Lyman who led the study at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York.

Once upon a time there were two groups of mice, all genetically engineered to develop prostate cancer. Each group was fed the same amount of calories. One group of mice lived in cages warmed to 80.6 degrees. The other group lived in cages kept at 71.6 degrees. The mice in the cooler quarters burned more calories to keep warm. And after three weeks, they weighed less than the toasty warm mice. They were also less likely to develop prostate cancer.

Then there were two other groups of mice, also genetically engineered to develop prostate cancer. Both groups were kept in cages with temperatures 80.6 degrees and 71.6 degrees -- like above. But these mice got to eat whatever their little hearts desired. The mice in cooler cages ate 30 percent more than the mice in warmer cages. They got just as fat as the warm mice. And they all got prostate cancer at the same rate, despite the extra calories.

The moral of the story is this -- being lean rather than obese has a greater protective effect against cancer. Excess calorie retention, rather than consumption, raises cancer risk. This moral stands in contrast to what most researchers believe -- that a restricted diet cuts the risk of and slows the growth of cancer and this is directly related to calorie intake.

Tim Nagy, Ph.D. and professor of nutrition sciences at the University of Alabama, Birmingham and lead researcher on the mice story says when you eat more calories than you burn, you store the extra calories as fat. It's the fat cells -- not the extra calories themselves -- that affect cancer risk.

It's not a good idea for humans to chill themselves to avoid cancer, Nagy says. But perhaps people could get the same effect by exercising more since that, too, burns calories.

Nagy's study appears in the January 1 issue of the journal Cancer Research.

Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, MD, is the deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society. He is also a blogger and authors his very own blog -- called Dr. Len's Cancer Blog.

Dr. Len writes on his blog about all sorts of topics related to cancer. He shares his opinion on the recent drop in breast cancer cases (December 15, 2006), he promotes the Great American Smokeout (November 14, 2006), he sounds off on lung cancer screenings (October 25, 2006), and he urges parents to always slather sunscreen on their children (October 5, 2006). He has so much more to say -- and his blog is a great stop for those wishing for more information on hot cancer topics.

As this year comes to a close, Dr. Len offers a review of what he believes were the hottest cancer topics of 2006.

Dr. Len reflects in his blog about decreased cancer death rates that represent real progress in the fight against cancer. He calls the HPV vaccine a breakthrough and he recaps the STAR trial -- a comparison of raloxifene to tamoxifen to reduce the risk of recurrent breast cancer in post-menopausal women -- with emphasis on how raloxifene proved just as effective as tamoxifen, but with a better safety profile. He calls new targeted therapies a dream -- with a hefty price tag -- sure to garner debate and discussion in 2007.

Dr. Len reviews the Surgeon General's report on second-hand smoke -- it's harmful to non-smokers, the report says -- and he marvels at the capability of science to approach an understanding of what makes a cancer cell a cancer cell. He also remarks on how remarkable it is that chronic myelogenous leukemia is in fact chronic and no longer fatal, thanks to the drug Gleevec.

Of course, there is ample attention given to the declining incidence of breast cancer, reportedly due to less women using hormone replacement therapy, and the risks weighing on those who are overweight and obese, and survivors and supporters who gathered for Celebration on the Hill -- the site of one incredible American Cancer Society event.

Dr. Len closes his review of 2006 with recognition of three celebrities who lost their lives this year to cancer -- Dana Reeve, Ann Richards, and Ed Bradley. And while he recognizes there are other lives and other stories that deserve mention, there is simply not enough time or space for him to do justice to every noteworthy item.

"What we have seen over the past year is an incredible leap forward in cancer research, diagnosis and treatment, and I suspect there are going to be even more exciting developments in the coming year," says Dr. Len who looks forward to 2007 -- a year that is sure to deliver more hope and more progress in the fight against cancer.

Calorie counting may be a bit tedious for some -- like me -- but for others, it may be just the ticket for the management of weight and overall health.

Charles Stuart Platkin, author of the new book The Diet Detective's Count Down, takes calorie counting one step further and offers the exercise equivalent of a nutritional label.

His 341-page book offers charts that detail the number of calories, fats, and carbohydrates in more than 7,500 foods and drinks and then translates these details into what it takes, in terms of minutes, to burn the calories with walking, running, biking, swimming, yoga, or dance.

Platkin, a syndicated nutrition and fitness columnist, says he is not trying to encourage people to count every calorie consumed in a day and to exercise until each calorie melts away. His goal is to help those who exceed their daily calorie budget -- the number of calories they can eat each day without gaining weight.

The Count Down goes like this -- you consume one martini at your New Year's celebration, pushing you beyond your allotted calories for the day. All you have to do is walk it off the next day in a mere 71 minutes. Or you can run it off in just 39 minutes. If a single cracker with one slice of Genoa salami and cheese tempts your palate, go for it -- then plunge into a 55-minute yoga class.

Before taking a stab at the diet detective's approach, there are several considerations to take into account. First, the book is based on a 155-pound person. A person carrying more weight would burn more calories per minute, and a person carrying less weight would burn less. Second, a person's basal metabolic rate (BMR) must be calculated -- Platkin offers formulas for this task -- so it's clear how much activity output is required by each person. And third, the exercise equivalents are based on scientifically researched metabolic equivalent tables that try to measure what is being burned versus a person's resting metabolic rate. So this is not just a crazy gimmick. It's science -- with a touch of personal perspective too.

Platkin, clinically obese for most of his life, lost 50 pounds a few years ago and came to realize that people just don't know what a calorie is. He wishes the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA) would include exercise recommendations on food labels and says, "I think that we are so confused in general as a population as to what's healthy and what's not, we confuse the term healthy with low-calorie. Sometimes they don't mesh. There's so much confusion out there that I think that it needs to be more defined. We need to have some sort of reference points so that people can make decisions before they consume."

Until the FDA delivers on Platkin's wish, he is taking matters into his own hands for those who choose to borrow from his wisdom.

Some of his wisdom includes eating calorie bargains (air-popped popcorn) instead of calorie rip-offs (potato chips) and substituting mustard for mayonnaise on a burger -- it will save 2,000 calories per month for someone who eats fast food three times per week.

Platkin's hope is simple -- he wants people to ask themselves whether certain foods are worth the cost. Is it worth a 54-minute run to burn the 510 calories in a McDonald's Quarter Pounder with Cheese? How about a 144-minute walk to rid yourself of a Subway six-inch Meatball Marinara sandwich?

It's a worthy hope, I think -- although this method is still a bit tedious for me. I think I will stick with my own formula -- eating moderate portions of what I enjoy and intensely exercising several times per week. I don't need to know how many calories I am consuming. I don't even need to know how much I weigh. As long as my clothes fit and my fitness routine keeps me sweating, I'll be a happy girl.

Eleven is the magic number.

Eleven pounds of lost weight can reduce the risk of an advanced form of prostate cancer, according to researchers from the American Cancer Society and the Duke University Prostate Center.

Researchers, who tracked the weight of 70,000 men between 1982 and 1992 and then followed them until 2003, found men who lost more than 11 pounds had a lower risk of developing prostate cancer than men whose weight remained the same.

Studies have long shown obese men are at greater risk for prostate cancer. But this study, published in this month's Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, is the first to indicate that recent weight loss can decrease risk by roughly 40 percent.

My mom's best friend died from pancreatic cancer just three months after her diagnosis with the disease. One of my co-workers lost her mother to the same disease just weeks after diagnosis. Another co-worker's husband lost his battle with pancreatic cancer after a 15-month all-out fight. And a family friend has somehow been surviving this deadly disease for years now. He's the exception, defying the odds rarely in favor of long-term survival.

About 33,730 people will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2006. Many of them -- 32,300 -- will die from the disease that is rarely caught early. Pancreatic cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer death in the United States.

Is it a sign of the times? A harbinger of things to come? A chilling move to bar patients from receiving medical care who fall into categories that make them less than ideal patients?

According to UK's Daily Mail reporting, last year it was obese patients in east Suffolk who were refused medical care involving surgery. Now, if you are a patient treated through the Norfolk Primary Care Trust or Newcastle-Under-Lyme PCT in north Staffordshire, in need of life-changing surgery and smoke, you will be denied care unless you quit smoking.

It appears to be a matter of saving money. Public health trusts are stating that smokers suffer more complications after surgery and require more care which translates into higher health care treatment costs in financial dollars.

It would be a good idea for people who are overweight to maintain a healthy weight. Being overweight can lead to a diminished physical quality of life and disease. It would be a good idea for a smoker to quit smoking. Smoking is bad for your health, no doubt. Each of us should feel a sense of personal responsibility to live as healthy as possible to avoid disease, and to a certain extent be held accountable for the choices we make. But to be denied medical care? Today it is hip and knee replacements. Tomorrow?

This new health care policy seems a slippery slope. It makes me feel uneasy -- not reflecting our most humane and compassionate nature. It raises more than a few questions. One day, will there be additional lifestyle choices added to the criteria of who is denied care? Cancer treatments are very expensive. Could we see a day, in order to keep costs down, that some cancer patients would be denied care based on lifestyle choices? More than one expert has suggested a significant percentage of cancer development is based on lifestyles. I am just wondering where this type of policy might eventually lead.

How does the policy in cutting health care costs based on a patient's weight or lifestyle habits make you feel? Would you be in agreement to deny care to someone who practices a lifestyle habit deemed unhealthy?

According to Breast Cancer UK, maintaining a healthy weight is one of the best ways to reduce the risk of developing cancer. The organization is featuring the efforts of three women and one man as they chronicle their progress in the Ten Top Tips ten week weight loss program.

Led by specialist dietician Weight Concern Alison Chipperfield, the four volunteers Liz Ainsworth, Emma Russell, Stacey Delaney and Mike Chapman will share the personal efforts of losing weight with diet and lifestyle changes in reaching a greater level of health. To follow the weekly updates, visit Ten Top Tips Reduce the Risk.

Cancer Research UK also features a Healthy Eating area of the organization's website highlighting comprehensive information and resources in cancer prevention through diet and healthy eating tips.

According to Cancer Research UK, "Experts think that about a quarter of all cancer deaths are caused by unhealthy diets and obesity. Our diet influences our risk of many cancers, including cancers of the colon, stomach, and breast. You can reduce your cancer risk by eating a healthy, balanced diet that is high in fiber, fruit and vegetables, and low in red and processed meat and saturated fat."

Through support in funding, Cancer Research UK is involved in the EPIC study. The study -- called the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) -- is an enormous undertaking involving 521,483 individuals in 10 different European countries. EPIC is unique because the populations being tracked are so diverse in eating habits. But this is precisely what gives the study the advantage it has in making comparisons and noting trends.

How can that be? I preface this post with the disclaimer that I am not a medical professional. I am open to the possibility of extenuating circumstances. But honestly, if an obese person told me they were living a healthy lifestyle -- eating nutritious meals and exercising vigorously at least three times a week -- I'd be looking over their shoulder for Alice and the hookah pipe smoking caterpillar -- because I'd be under the impression reality had just taken a wavy turn to the left.

According to the Michigan-based health-care research firm Thomson Medstat, in a survey study involving 11,000 people, the majority of obese Americans stated they are living a healthy lifestyle because of healthy living habits and over 75 percent indicated they are involved in vigorous exercise at least three times a week.

To this Dr. David Schutt, from Thomson Medstat said, "There is, perhaps, some denial going on. Or there is a lack of understanding of what does it mean to be eating healthy, and what is vigorous exercise." Ya think? I am certain I may have just alienated over 60 percent of the American population, because that is how many people in this country are considered overweight, according to the Records from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

I do not get as much exercise as I should. While I am well aware of the benefits of consuming healthy food, I will admit to the enjoyment of the occasional Little Debbie Cosmic Brownie or slice of Funfetti cake with Funfetti frosting because quite frankly, it is cheery food. But I am realistic that the ten extra pounds I am carrying around has to do with the eating more and moving less syndrome, and I cannot imagine anyone who is overweight not realizing or owning up to the reasons for the extra weight. As to extenuating circumstances all I can think is perhaps the survey questions were framed in such a way as to make the results appear as if overweight people live in some foggy realm of denial? What's your take on this topic?

University of South Australia researchers have good news for people trying to lose weight, or maintain a healthy weight, in improving their health and reducing their risks for diseases like cancer. With no other lifestyle changes, taking omega-3 fish oil supplements and engaging in moderate exercise helped people struggling with weight issues -- who are overweight or obese -- effectively burn off extra pounds.

The researchers used tuna oil and sunflower oil in the study, and compared the effects of the two oils with exercise to weight loss results. The participants engaged in exercise that is considered moderate exercise -- walking or running for 45 minutes -- three times a week for three months and were given either tuna fish oil or sunflower oil. The participants who were given tuna fish oil lost weight faster.

The researchers believe that fish oil, which is rich in omega-3, helps the body burn fat, and estimates that most people do not get enough omega-3 in their daily diet. Omega-3 is also found in wild salmon, flaxseed, and certain nuts and seeds.