do you really think diet can change our faith

Options
2»

Comments

  • BFidelis
    BFidelis Member Posts: 156
    edited November 2009

    Rabbit_fan,

    You're not going to find many people here who will judge any course of treatment thoughtfully and consciously taken on.  And no one here has said to hell with "the rules."  What is being said is that you have to be very, very careful about what you say based on statistics.  You can decrease your risk of something by 50% and that sounds dramatic.  But what if you're lowering your risk from 0.5% to 0.25%?  Yeah, that's 50%.

    And there is a real danger that disease becomes "blame the victim."  If we had done something to "prevent it" it wouldn't have happened, so we have ourselves to blame.  Who-do-we-blame is a game of politics, and many of us are tired of being caught in the political fray -- we just want a friggin' CURE.  The last time we "cured" a disease, it was polio and that was over 50 years ago.

    Do what you can to try and make each day a little better, that's all.  Be patient and kind and loving of yourself the way you would be to your best friend.  Because if your best friend wanted to make "healthy" changes in lifestyle, you'd be really, really supportive, but you would never berate her setbacks.  Just try to do better tomorrow.

    Peace,

    Beth

  • Rabbit_fan
    Rabbit_fan Member Posts: 166
    edited November 2009

    I really don't get the 'don't blame the victim' thing, which I see all over this site.  Who is actually trying to assign blame?  I've never seen any post that talks about diet and lifestyle appear to have as its goal making people feel bad about developing cancer.  All of the posts I have seen are about the option of taking some action and control.  I see that as a lot different.

    I think we all know that smoking causes lung cancer - is that blaming the victim?  Does that mean that smokers who get lung cancer "deserve" it or shouldn't get treatment?  I've never heard anyone say that.

    I think blame is irrelevent to this issue - if there is something in addition to standard medicine that I can do to improve my outcome, I want to know about it and I want to do it.  It might help and it might not.  Blame really doesn't have anything to do with it.

  • BFidelis
    BFidelis Member Posts: 156
    edited November 2009

    Dana Reeve, widow of Christoher Reeve, died of lung cancer.  Of her diagnosis she said the most difficult thing about it was that there was, in fact, a lot of difficulty in getting research funding because all lung cancers are perceived as smoking-related.  There are a lot that are not.

    I am glad you have never heard any "personal responsibility" references to breast cancer.  There are actually people in this world who believe that cancers are caused by sin!  You really are fortunate not to have encountered such people.

    I wish you extreme good health and a generous amount of happiness.

    Peace,

    Beth

  • Rabbit_fan
    Rabbit_fan Member Posts: 166
    edited November 2009

    That's a shame about Dana Reeve, but the Lung Cancer Alliance itself states that about 87% of lung cancers are caused by smoking.  What if it were unacceptable to say that smoking causes cancer because that blames the victim?  That's important information to have, so you can make an informed choice or take an informed risk regarding smoking.

    I believe in information - that's why a lot of us come here.  Like I already said, if there is something in addition to standard medicine that I can do to improve my outcome, I want to know about it.  My issue is just that inevitably when people post about studies showing a link between specific dietary and lifestyle choices, others will dismiss it as blaming the victim.  I want to empower the "victim" and knowledge can give power. 

    No one really expects to get cancer.  But once you have it, I think you're pretty likely to expect that it will come back.  At that point it feels like you have so much more at stake, and a lot of people are then willing to really try to improve their habits, if they just knew what they could do that could have an effect.

    I'm really thankful for the valuable scientific research in this area, and for this publication, http://cancer.ucsf.edu/crc/nutrition_breast.pdf, which I found on the BCO discussion boards.  It just gets annoying when people who I'm sure haven't even looked at this research try to discredit it so that others will be turned away.  Everyone can make their own choices, but they should at least hear the evidence first.

    I wish everyone on this forum good health - I think anyone here for legitimate purposes feels the same.  I just want people to have access to information that can possibly increase their chances of acheiving that good health.

    Oh and about cancer being caused by sin, if anyone said that to me that would be such a red flag that they're a total crackpot I wouldn't even give it the time of day. :)

  • Husband11
    Husband11 Member Posts: 2,264
    edited November 2009

    Its frustrating to hear about so many women who, like my wife, took good care of themselves and still got breast cancer.  I have a theory that the slice of the patient population we see on this board is not fully representative of the overall picture.  Women who come on this board are likely more type A, proactive, information seeking and take charge of their health.  That's why they sought out this board and participate in the discussions.  Accordingly, it gives a biased view of who gets BC.  What do you think?  Are the men and women of BC.org a fair slice of the population, or more tending towards self care?

  • RunswithScissors
    RunswithScissors Member Posts: 323
    edited November 2009

    Good Point, Timothy.

    I don't think it's an accurate picture at all -

    Besides those who are not proactive or interested in this kind of forum, there are lots of other reasons we don't see folks. 

    There are still lots of seniors who have no interest in learning about computers. 

    There are huge numbers of folks who are too poor to afford a computer and/or internet connection. 

    There are many, many people out there who do not have slow access or none available in their area.  (so, certain rural demographics might not tend to show up here). 

     I'm sure there are tons of examples. 

    You know, they say that's even one reason why clinical trials tend to be skewed. A certain amount of randomness is lost just by ruling out people who don't want to participate in trials. 

  • livelife
    livelife Member Posts: 38
    edited November 2009

    Thank you fellow rabbit lover- the pdf link that you included was so informative. I am really working on perfecting my diet and that was just the information that I needed

  • gfbaker
    gfbaker Member Posts: 173
    edited November 2009

    I wish I could remember the name of this study, sorry, but it was a study of diet on triple-neg bc since they have no addtl therapies. It had nothing to do with fat intake, just with eating lots of fruits and veggies. Apparently they can test this through your blood. They had 2 groups, one who continued to eat normally, and one who ate like 7 servings each of fruits and veggies. The extra veggie eaters had a 50% reduction in reoccurance over the other group. It doesn't guarantee that you won't get bc again, but eating a better diet is good for so many other reasons.

    I got a cookbook through my hospital cancer center, and I have to say the food is really tasty! No guilt with any of the recipes there!

  • Rabbit_fan
    Rabbit_fan Member Posts: 166
    edited November 2009

    Hi Daisy - if you're talking about the one where 5+ daily servings of fruit and vegetables plus walking 30 minutes 6 days/week reduced mortality by nearly 50%, it looks like that was published in 2007.  The thing that's nice about the pdf is that all of the conclusions are footnoted in the back, so if you want you can find each individual study. 

    I have seen other posts where they talk about the WINS study but I don't know much about that.  I've seen it mentioned on the triple negative forum, and I thought people did say that a low fat diet was supposed to be beneficial to tri negs.  I found a link to an article on that:  http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/WINSBreastStudy 

    I went to the Block Center in Evanston, IL, and they advocate a very low fat diet.  The pdf has conclusions from hundreds of studies, and some of them are a bit contradictory.  Maybe your dietitian would give you a copy of the study she has?  

    I think the consensus on broccoli is that it's great for you - Dr. Servan-Schreiber in his book Anticancer... says it's important to have it raw or very lightly cooked.  I've been making juice with lots of veggies including cruciferous vegetables - it turns out pretty good.

    livelife - you're welcome!  Always happy to help a fellow rabbit lover!

    About the blood testing - I recently had extensive blood testing for nutritional markers done at the Block Center.  It's pretty interesting - I was OK in some areas like lycopene, but low in others like carotenes, so I know I need to eat more orange and yellow fruit and vegetables.  They also test your ratios of good and bad fats, immune cells, and a lot more, and then recommend diet and supplements based on your results.

    And I think you're right, Timothy, that a lot of the people on this site come here seeking information.  I think maybe for some people that's how they deal with it - you feel like you're doing something, and that makes you feel better.  Other people would rather just try to ignore it as much as possible and that's how they cope.

  • AMP47
    AMP47 Member Posts: 200
    edited November 2009

    Mamamita read the China Study.  Alot of food for thought and in direct disagreement with your doctors statement. 

Categories