Jump to content

Skin Health - Moles


nicholson

Recommended Posts

Thoughts?  If you are reasonably conscientious about CR and nutrition and therefore figure you stand a reasonable chance of living to 100, would it be sensible to get moles removed from your skin - especially those out of range for convenient inspection - because of the risk they might become malignant?

 

Rodney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Rodney, I have many moles and some of them are atypical, and I get a few of them removed.  According to the doctors I am at a higher risk of developing skin cancer .  But it would not make sense to remove all my moles because in the majority of case melanomas arise in "normal" skin, where there was no previous mole.  

Part of my interest in the CR was born right here (i.e. to adopt a preventive strategy against cancer, even if at the moment there is not any certain link between skin cancer and nutrition).

I think the risk for each person is different, it depends on each family history, sunburns during childhood, how many moles and which kind of mole you have, etc. etc. The best indication in my opinion is to know your risk through a good dermatologist and then follow his suggestions and learn to know our skin....a good website is this one: http://www.skincancer.org/

 

Cloud

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I recall, darn Archives search function failure, Conrad Roland had good luck re his basal-cell carcinomas after he started CR plus other health-promoting treatments.  But also see:

 

The arcuate nucleus and neuropeptide Y contribute to the antitumorigenic effect of calorie restriction.
Minor RK, López M, Younts CM, Jones B, Pearson KJ, Anson RM, Diéguez C, de Cabo R.
Aging Cell. 2011 Jun;10(3):483-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-9726.2011.00693.x. Epub 2011 Apr 5.
 
Abstract
 
Calorie restriction (CR) is known to have profound effects on tumor incidence. A typical consequence of CR is hunger, and we hypothesized that the neuroendocrine response to CR might in part mediate CR's antitumor effects. We tested CR under appetite suppression using two models: neuropeptide Y (NPY) knockout mice and monosodium glutamate-injected mice. While CR was protective in control mice challenged with a two-stage skin carcinogenesis model, papilloma development was neither delayed nor reduced by CR in the monosodium glutamate-treated and NPY knockout mice. Adiponectin levels were also not increased by CR in the appetite-suppressed mice. We propose that some of CR's beneficial effects cannot be separated from those imposed on appetite, and that NPY neurons in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus are involved in the translation of reduced intake to downstream physiological and functional benefits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I tried searching the forums, and this thread seemed to be the only one discussing CR and skin cancer.  I'm just curious what the speculation (or science, even if not in humans) is pointing towards.  

 

It seems reasonable to speculate that a diet rich in phytonutrients, low in protein, etc., would reduce one's risk for skin cancer on some level.  

 

Also...

 

It seems reasonable to speculate that skin cancer (or perhaps some variations of it) are completely non-diet related.  I used tanning beds a fair bit when I was younger, which has me somewhat concerned.  Sun exposure too offers some level of risk, though I suspect far less than tanning beds.

 

Because our ancestors lived outdoors and would have spent tremendous amounts of time in the sun, it seems like the body could do just fine in the sun for long amounts of time - especially since we lived around the equator (admittedly with darker skin).  Then again our ancestors life expectancy was extremely short (20-40 years, depending on how far back you go?).  So the body might not have cared if you get skin cancer at 60, because you had reproduced long ago and were likely dead anyway.

 

What does everyone here think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hello Drewab,

 

yes, for what I know research suggests that a diet rich in phytonutrients would reduce the damaging effect of Sun on the skin.

regarding melanoma, the most dangerous type of skin cancer, it seems, as you told, that there is not any association to diet, the more certain risk for melanoma are sunburns taken where you are young.

I think that a reason for the growth of cases is that people from (at least) second part of '900 spent intermittent time in the sun, for example when I was a child with my family we used to go to holidays to sea one month a year in July or August, I don't remember any sunburns, but I think this is an important cause of my many moles. 

instead our ancestors were exposed to the Sun for all the year. In '900 having a tanned skin was fashionable just like happened for smoking... 

the sun protective creams till  a few years ago was actually only protecting against UV-B, so people could stay more time under Sun, exposing to UV-A , also responsible for skin cancer.

-Cloud

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Guest jwwright

I had two large moles removed by a dematologist from my bald head, because they bothered the grandchildren.

She would do more than that implying she didn't bother with non cancerous lesions.

I also had "sore" spots, things I could feel if touched, but did not appear unusual.

She could feel the slightly rough spots and sprayed them, but those were noncancerous also.

 

My wife's back has many "lesions" they call sebaceous, and they will not remove them anything but cosmetic.

 

I gather it is inherited because I have maybe 3, and she has >50.

I do sun my back 1 or 2 times per week when the sun is hot and bright, for 15 mins, else, i wear a cap and t-shirt outdoors.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...