Cortisol and cancer

[Smokescreen]

From what I have learned so far, stress causes release of cortisol. And cortisol causes fat gain, muscle loss, bone damage, and CANCER!

But, taking steroids reduces cortisol. So, does that mean that if I take steroids, I reduce my chances of getting cancer?

 

[BrownUniversity2]

No.

Neoplasia is not that simple. What kind of cancer are you talking about?

I have never heard of explicit valid links between cortisol and cancer first of all. Second, even if there were one, I once again ask what kind of cancer? People do NOT understand cancer. It is not a disease that develops over night, and a recent biochemist at Dartmouth explained that to me.

Instead, cancer is a disease that takes years to develop, and most people don't realize they have it until it has progressed. Each cancer is extremely specific and researchers spend their lives understanding a tiny mechanism behind one specific type of cancer signalling pathway. Therefore, every cancer has very differen etiologies, some of which are still poorly understood.

Other than the basics of eating marginally well, not smoking or drinking, and exercising a moderate amount, there are no real ways to "reduce" cancer risk. Much of it is genetically modulated.

 

[Smokescreen]

My wife was reading some book on stress. And it said that stress releases cortisol and causes cancer within time.

 

[Lowest]

Yes stress can increase cancer. Cancer is nothing more than a mutated body cell that proliferates beyond control. And what causes cells to mutate? Chemicals like cortisol, radiation, free radicals. Cortisol also increases free radicals. When those get loose, they can wreak havoc on DNA, and if one cell mutates and starts to divide out of control, that's cancer. So, in that respect, taking steroids *could* reduce your risk of cancer, as could taking supplements that reduce free radicals. However, your body's metabolism naturally produces free radicals, and if you're carrying around 50lbs more muscle than most people, you can bet your metabolism is going much faster as well, hence, it's producing more free radicals. Whether or not it's a significant amount more or whether or not your faster metabolism can cope with them, no one knows. Personally, I'd say that steroids probably don't have a noticeable effect one way or the other, but if they do anything, they'd lower the chances of cancer... except liver cancer if you abuse the orals

 

[BBC]

Yes stress can increase cancer. Cancer is nothing more than a mutated body cell that proliferates beyond control. And what causes cells to mutate? Chemicals like cortisol, radiation, free radicals. Cortisol also increases free radicals. When those get loose, they can wreak havoc on DNA, and if one cell mutates and starts to divide out of control, that's cancer. So, in that respect, taking steroids *could* reduce your risk of cancer, as could taking supplements that reduce free radicals. However, your body's metabolism naturally produces free radicals, and if you're carrying around 50lbs more muscle than most people, you can bet your metabolism is going much faster as well, hence, it's producing more free radicals. Whether or not it's a significant amount more or whether or not your faster metabolism can cope with them, no one knows. Personally, I'd say that steroids probably don't have a noticeable effect one way or the other, but if they do anything, they'd lower the chances of cancer... except liver cancer if you abuse the orals

I'm pretty sure benzo's lower cortisol levels, or at least surpress it while taking it. I'm not sure about a rebound effect though, that's why I never stop taking them.

 

[hammertime30]

Keeping your ph balance in tac decreases your chance of getting a terminal illness!

 

[goldenthree]

Cancer is basically and immune disease. You have cells all the time that fuck up and become carcinogenic, however 99% of the time your body gets rid of them. Cortisol reduces immune function significantly thus increasing cancer risk. So do free radicals(more to get rid of). This is at least what my doctor explained to me.

 

[BrownUniversity2]

Not true. The use of exogenous T in very high levels can contribute to a decrease in concomittant immune function, specifically T lymphocytes and higher levels of IgE concentrations. As a result, the use of T, could in effect, INCREASE your risk for cancer, although I don't think T use has much effect at all on cancer.

Antioxidants do help prevent cancer; HOWEVER, excess uses of certain antioxidants overwhelm the body's NATURAL production of antioxidant production, which in turn can limit the body's ability to fight off cancer. Taking high doses of Vitamin E has recently been explicitly implicated in the development of neoplasia, not a reduced risk. Simply swallowing many antioxidants is controversial at best and may only have minimal benefit in risk reduction. You cannot control your body's ability to modulate risk.

Finally, cortisol levels that are above 25 ng/dcl may contribute to increased cancer risk due to the fact that this is out of reference ranges. However, this is a non-entity because very few people have levels this high. If you have a clincially normal cortisol level, there is no evidence that suggests that levels within the range of acceptable values have any direct correlation to neoplasia risk. Please, stay informed and don't spread misinformation.

Cancer is basically and immune disease. You have cells all the time that fuck up and become carcinogenic, however 99% of the time your body gets rid of them. Cortisol reduces immune function significantly thus increasing cancer risk. So do free radicals(more to get rid of). This is at least what my doctor explained to me.

 

[geoboy]

My wife was reading some book on stress. And it said that stress releases cortisol and causes cancer within time.

probably a readers digest reduction of the fact that longterm stress reduces immune response. lowered immune response leads to higher incidence of cancer.

 

[BrownUniversity2]

But how is "stress" measured in a clinical setting? Are we talking urinary catecholamines, cortisol, EBV antibodies? Talk to McDade et al if you are interested in stress and immune function.

probably a readers digest reduction of the fact that longterm stress reduces immune response. lowered immune response leads to higher incidence of cancer.

 

[Lowest]

Actually, testosterone improves immune function in moderate doses. HRT almost always improves immune system, as well as heart health and lipids, to name a few. Anything abused can be harmful, but I know for a fact that 500mg/week of test makes my immune system better, not worse, and the same is true for almost every patient I've ever helped treat with HRT. Also, anavar, primo, deca, etc, all are used in patients who have low immune systems, and all of them improve immune function. I do see your point about massive doses, say 2g/week or so of test, but at moderate dosages it's almost always very beneficial, never the other way around.

 

[BrownUniversity2]

Are you an immunologist? Or an endocrinologist?

T therapy is only going to increase immune function if you have hypogonadism. If you increase exogenous T levels above the normal range, there is no reason to think that you will have increased. In fact, multitudes of studies say just the opposite. Check out McDade's review article on immune function. How do you know you have higher immune function when on T? Are you measuring this qualitatively in some manner like "oh, I aint gettin sick as much" or are you assessing EBV antibodies, IgE levels, cortisol, and urinary catecholamines? Only anthropologists have pioneered these approaches, so I'm guessing your answer will be an emphatic no.

Actually, testosterone improves immune function in moderate doses. HRT almost always improves immune system, as well as heart health and lipids, to name a few. Anything abused can be harmful, but I know for a fact that 500mg/week of test makes my immune system better, not worse, and the same is true for almost every patient I've ever helped treat with HRT. Also, anavar, primo, deca, etc, all are used in patients who have low immune systems, and all of them improve immune function. I do see your point about massive doses, say 2g/week or so of test, but at moderate dosages it's almost always very beneficial, never the other way around.

 

[BrownUniversity2]

Another thing I forgot to mention. Increasing T levels beyond normal does reduce immunity in large because of life-history theory. Please read up on life-history theory before suggesting that the use of supraphysiologic levels of androgens has no effect on immune function.

Are you an immunologist? Or an endocrinologist?

T therapy is only going to increase immune function if you have hypogonadism. If you increase exogenous T levels above the normal range, there is no reason to think that you will have increased. In fact, multitudes of studies say just the opposite. Check out McDade's review article on immune function. How do you know you have higher immune function when on T? Are you measuring this qualitatively in some manner like "oh, I aint gettin sick as much" or are you assessing EBV antibodies, IgE levels, cortisol, and urinary catecholamines? Only anthropologists have pioneered these approaches, so I'm guessing your answer will be an emphatic no.

 

[macrophage69alpha]

cortisol is immunosuppresive and has been directly linked to weakened immunological response to cancer cells.

Clin Exp Immunol. 2005 Feb;139(2):287-96. Related Articles, Links


Effects of prolactin and cortisol on natural killer (NK) cell surface expression and function of human natural cytotoxicity receptors (NKp46, NKp44 and NKp30).

Mavoungou E, Bouyou-Akotet MK, Kremsner PG.

Medical Research Unit, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Lambarene, Gabon. [email protected]

The surface density of the triggering receptors (e.g. NKp46 and NKp30) responsible for natural killer (NK) cell-mediated cytotoxicity determines the ability of NK cells to kill susceptible target cells. In this study, we show that prolactin up-regulates and cortisol down-regulates the surface expression of NKp46 and NKp30. The prolactin-mediated activation and the cortisol-mediated inhibition of natural cytotoxicity receptor (NCR) surface expression reflects gene regulation at the transcriptional level. NKp46 and NKp30 are the major receptors involved in the NK-mediated killing of K562, a human chronic myelogenous leukaemia cell line. Accordingly, the prolactin dramatically increased the NK-mediated killing of the K562 cell line, whereas cortisol abolished this activity. Our data suggest a mechanism by which prolactin activates the lytic function of NK cells, and cortisol inhibits the NK-mediated attack.

 

[natty]

Well I guess I'm fucked because I've been one stressed out motherfucker my whole life.

 

[Guvna]

Another thing I forgot to mention. Increasing T levels beyond normal does reduce immunity in large because of life-history theory. Please read up on life-history theory before suggesting that the use of supraphysiologic levels of androgens has no effect on immune function.

why the hell was this guy banned?

 

[Guvna]

cortisol is immunosuppresive and has been directly linked to weakened immunological response to cancer cells.

Clin Exp Immunol. 2005 Feb;139(2):287-96. Related Articles, Links


Effects of prolactin and cortisol on natural killer (NK) cell surface expression and function of human natural cytotoxicity receptors (NKp46, NKp44 and NKp30).

Mavoungou E, Bouyou-Akotet MK, Kremsner PG.

Medical Research Unit, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Lambarene, Gabon. [email protected]

The surface density of the triggering receptors (e.g. NKp46 and NKp30) responsible for natural killer (NK) cell-mediated cytotoxicity determines the ability of NK cells to kill susceptible target cells. In this study, we show that prolactin up-regulates and cortisol down-regulates the surface expression of NKp46 and NKp30. The prolactin-mediated activation and the cortisol-mediated inhibition of natural cytotoxicity receptor (NCR) surface expression reflects gene regulation at the transcriptional level. NKp46 and NKp30 are the major receptors involved in the NK-mediated killing of K562, a human chronic myelogenous leukaemia cell line. Accordingly, the prolactin dramatically increased the NK-mediated killing of the K562 cell line, whereas cortisol abolished this activity. Our data suggest a mechanism by which prolactin activates the lytic function of NK cells, and cortisol inhibits the NK-mediated attack.

Macro, I really didnt get any of this stuff. Want to bring it down a little for me?


thanks.

 

[DIVISION]

From what I have learned so far, stress causes release of cortisol. And cortisol causes fat gain, muscle loss, bone damage, and CANCER!

But, taking steroids reduces cortisol. So, does that mean that if I take steroids, I reduce my chances of getting cancer?

Cortisol is a way of life, Carthic.

That alone doesn't determine whether you get cancer of not.



DIV

 

[DJ_UFO]

No.

Neoplasia is not that simple. What kind of cancer are you talking about?

I have never heard of explicit valid links between cortisol and cancer first of all. Second, even if there were one, I once again ask what kind of cancer? People do NOT understand cancer. It is not a disease that develops over night, and a recent biochemist at Dartmouth explained that to me.

Instead, cancer is a disease that takes years to develop, and most people don't realize they have it until it has progressed. Each cancer is extremely specific and researchers spend their lives understanding a tiny mechanism behind one specific type of cancer signalling pathway. Therefore, every cancer has very differen etiologies, some of which are still poorly understood.

Other than the basics of eating marginally well, not smoking or drinking, and exercising a moderate amount, there are no real ways to "reduce" cancer risk. Much of it is genetically modulated.

Cancer is all in genetics. It's a degeneration of cells caused by eating habits/exposition to chemicals/radioactivity/electromagnetic waves, transmitted generation after generation. When bad eating habits or exposition to mentioned things above continues with generations, the degeneration of cells will lead to Cancer. How many generations after? I don't know. Maybe that depends on the amount of damage made to cells. For the "in the middle" generations, will exist the predisposition to develop some kind of cancer.

I haven't studied this. Just my 0.02 any pro please correct me.

P.S. do animals have cancer?

 

[DIVISION]

P.S. do animals have cancer?

Yes.

I've seen tumors in livestock.

Really nasty looking, the cancer is a different color than the surrounding flesh. It's a pale white color, with the normal healthy flesh being pink....so it's easy to see the cancer when they cut it out.


DIV

 

[Guvna]

up