To Evolution

What Muscles Has A Relationship With The Survival Of Breast Cancer

    Abdulaziz Sobh
    By Abdulaziz Sobh

    Categories: Health

    0/5 stars (0 votes)

    Do you want more evidence that the muscles are good? No mussels, as in seafood often served with garlic and wine, but muscles, as in strong. Well, a study published in JAMA Oncology found that women with low muscle mass were significantly less likely to survive stage 2 or 3 breast cancer.For the study, a team of researchers specifically compared patients who had sarcopenia when they were diagnosed with stage 2 or 3 breast cancer versus those who did not. Sarcopenia may sound like a kind of obscene sarcasm, but in medical speech, "Sarco" means "muscle" and "penia" means "lack or deficiency." Therefore, sarcopenia means "muscle shortage" or "muscle deficiency". As described on the website of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), many types of cancer can lead to muscle loss through mechanisms that are not yet clear. Stage 2 or 3 breast cancer is cancer that is growing but has not yet spread to parts of the body that are distant from the breast.This is how the Kaiser Permanente team, the University of Alberta, Canada and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute conducted the study. They reviewed the records of 3241 women who were initially diagnosed at Kaiser Permanente in Northern California or Dana Farber Cancer Institute sometime between January 2000 and December 2013. All had received CT scans (CT) of the abdomen at the time of diagnosis of breast cancer. that allowed the researchers to determine if they had sarcopenia and estimate the amount of fat in their bodies. (Muscle and fat look very different on a CT scan with the fat looking darker and the muscles brighter).For the study, the researchers defined sarcopenia as a skeletal muscle index of less than 40. To calculate this index, they specifically examined the CT cross section of the abdomen at the level of the patient's third lumbar vertebra (which is in the lower back). ). The skeletal muscle index is the area of the cross-section that is occupied by the muscle in square centimeters divided by the height of the cross-section in meters squared. Previous studies have shown that the amount of muscle in this cross-section of the body tends to correlate with the amount of muscle in other parts of the body (assuming the person does not have an excessively muscular or non-muscular abdomen).Then, the researchers reviewed the medical records of each patient during the entire time the patient was followed (a median of 6 years) to determine if they had subsequently survived.The main finding: having less muscle and more fat was bad. About one-third of patients (34%) had sarcopenia on their first CT scan. Those who had sarcopenia were 41% more likely to have died later than those who did not. Those who were in the upper third of the amount of fat were 35% more likely to die than those who were in the lower third. Patients with sarcopenia and a large amount of fat in the body were 89% more likely to have died.Because a study of this type cannot prove cause and effect and can only show correlations, three things could be happening here. On the one hand, it could be that some study subjects had less initial muscle mass because they had more aggressive cancers that in the end were more resistant to treatment and, therefore, more fatal.On the other hand, patients who had more muscle, to begin with, might have been better able to weather the storm of muscle loss from cancer and, therefore, more likely to survive. As the NIH website explains, the body's wear and tear that occurs with cancer are responsible for 20-30% of cancer deaths. In other words, the muscle might be a bit like a reserve of energy, fuel or sushi. If you start with more, then you can afford to lose more.Third (assuming you have more than two hands), those with a higher muscle mass may also have healthier lifestyles (eg, better diets and more physical activity) or have other things in their lives that can help it is better that they survive cancer (eg, those with friends may be more likely to play sports regularly and at the same time have better social support). Therefore, having more muscle can be a sign that a person is in a better overall situation.
    While more studies are needed to determine what exactly is causing what, keeping your muscles strong is a good thing in general. Muscle burns more calories than body fat and provides better support and protects your body. The composition of your body is as important as its weight. Do you prefer to have a car made of marshmallows or one made of steel, aluminum, copper, and glass?Therefore, maintaining an apparently healthy body weight through what you eat and drink without getting enough exercise is not enough. Being light without having enough muscle is not healthy. And simply doing aerobic exercise without doing the work to maintain a healthy amount of muscle is not enough either.Therefore, your physical activity should regularly involve some type of force work. This does not mean you have to go with Hans and Franz (or Hannah and Franziska) and pump iron until you swell everywhere. Larger does not necessarily mean better.
    Just try to do exercises that make the different muscles of your body make an effort. This can be through the use of resistance bands or lifting elements, such as light weights, your body (for example, push-ups and planks) or cantaloupes. You can even integrate strength training into your daily activities. For example, instead of just walking, it carries something (an object and not an emotion such as guilt) at the same time. Make sure you strengthen your various muscles as much as you can. Do not concentrate on muscles that are easier to see, such as biceps instead of muscles that are less obvious.