breast cancer risk, and more

How does having the kids close together help with cancer? (Or am I
misreading you?)

not sure it does, starting your family early definitely does though,
that's partly why we decided to start a family so soon (ds was born 9
months 3 days after we were married, I concieved him during my first cycle
that I was sexually active, I was 23 when he was born). But I repeat, it's
all statisics, it might lower your risk, but it doesn't prevent you from
being the 1 in a million.

I expect what Andrea was meaning was she might not have the opportunity to
have kids later, so she's having them now.

"Anne Rogers" wrote in message
...

How does having the kids close together help with cancer? (Or am I
misreading you?)

not sure it does, starting your family early definitely does though,
that's partly why we decided to start a family so soon (ds was born 9
months 3 days after we were married, I concieved him during my first cycle
that I was sexually active, I was 23 when he was born). But I repeat, it's
all statisics, it might lower your risk, but it doesn't prevent you from
being the 1 in a million.

I expect what Andrea was meaning was she might not have the opportunity to
have kids later, so she's having them now.


Yes that's exactly right Anne. I adore my kids, and it will break my heart
when I can't have any more.
If I had waited till I was in my 30's I may not have had any.
I am scared of the future, I may get the opportunity to opt for an elective
hysterectomy, rather than going through hell like my mom and gran did.

With my mom they left a small part of her ovary in to help her with
hormones, but that too turned nasty and almost killed her.
I started having my children when I was 18.

--
Andrea mom of 5 - latest addition Kamron David 6 months still nursing strong
with 2 teeth!

CY wrote:

I think the statistic is that if you nurse for 7 years your risk of getting
breast cancer is zero.

It's not zero, but there is a significant increase in risk with lack of
breastfeeding. Here are a few stats and references:
http://www.massbfc.org/pubhealth/

and more stats + risk levels stratified by age:
http://www.aafp.org/x16621.xml

The key finding is this (from the second reference above):
"The effect of lactation on the development of breast cancer has been
less clear, especially for postmenopausal disease. However, results of a
reanalysis of individual data from 47 epidemiological studies in 30
countries showed that the RR of breast cancer was reduced by 4.3 percent
for each year that a woman breastfed and an additional 7 percent
reduction for each birth. This relationship is significant and, in this
study, was seen consistently in women from developing and developed
countries, of different ages and ethnic origins and with various
childbearing patterns and other personal characteristics."

Lara

Lara wrote:

The key finding is this (from the second reference above):
"The effect of lactation on the development of breast cancer has been
less clear, especially for postmenopausal disease. However, results of a
reanalysis of individual data from 47 epidemiological studies in 30
countries showed that the RR of breast cancer was reduced by 4.3 percent
for each year that a woman breastfed and an additional 7 percent
reduction for each birth."

I always wonder how twins factor into this kind of thing. Do I get to count one
birth, or two? Or maybe a little bit more than one, but nowhere near two? Same
with length of nursing. Plus some of the effect (not all though) is due to
suppression of menses, so I got less of that as I got my periods back much
sooner than average. Ah, well. It's all done now.

--Helen

Lara wrote:

However, results
of a reanalysis of individual data from 47 epidemiological
studies in
30 countries showed that the RR of breast cancer was
reduced by 4.3
percent for each year that a woman breastfed and an
additional 7
percent reduction for each birth.

I've had 10 births
10x7%= 70%
around 10 years give or take in breastfeeding
10x4.3%=43%
70%+43%=113% so that's close enough to zero for me.


--
Andrea

If I can't be a good example, then I'll just have to be a
horrible warning.

Andrea wrote:

I've had 10 births
10x7%= 70%
around 10 years give or take in breastfeeding
10x4.3%=43%
70%+43%=113% so that's close enough to zero for me.

Doesn't work that way -- you don't subtract risk, you multiply by the fraction,
and you have to know what relative risk you're starting with. For example, say
you'd had one baby and breastfed for one year, and say you were starting with a
relative risk of one percent (I have NO idea where the relative risk thing
actually starts), you'd multiply 1% by 0.93 (1 minus 7%) and then by 0.957 (1
minus 4.3%), to get 0.89. So one child and one year of breastfeeding reduces
your risk from 1% (remember that's my made-up figure) to 0.89%. Doing that ten
times gets you down to about 0.28%.

And of course there may be other sources of risk (hereditary, environmental,
etc.) that you won't be touching at all.

--Helen