A must read!

Yeah, I think it all boils down to, "NO ONE KNOWS."  Stupid cancer.

SelenaWolf, you've provided a great summation.  I had not seen that particular article. Thanks for the heads-up and the link.  I do recall reading a report with similar conclusions earlier this year from a study that I think was sponsored in part by Komen. 

The bottom line in either case was that there were few, if any, single changes we could make in our lives that would significantly affect our risk of developing cancer ("significant" being used in a statistical sense).  There were lots of lifestyle choices people assumed would make a difference, or for which they thought there was evidence; but it turned out the studies were inconclusive, had been poorly designed, or had never been carried out.  There just wasn't enough scientific evidence to conclude one way or the other for most of the lifestyle choices people have been advocating to reduce the risk of cancer or a recurrence.

I do think a more global approach (diet plus exercise plus weight control plus... ?) has a greater likelihood of having an impact; but I'm not even sure that evidence is especially solid.  Cancer is definitely a genetic disease.  Some of us are preordained to be at greater risk than others.  But, there are also "environmental" variables (the word "environmental" meaning everything outside our bodies -- not just air, water, etc.) that affect the expression of those genetic factors.

Parsing out the effects of the non-genetic variables is really difficult for researchers.  If the theoretical impact of each individual variable -- say, BPA, or red meat, or an ingredient in cosmetics -- is really small, then studies investigating that variable must be tightly controlled and must involve a huge number of participants.  Not so easy, these days; and often the outcome of such studies ends up with differences that are not statistically significant.

Statistical significance is important.  Without it, the differences can be due merely to chance ... to luck.  That would be the proverbial "crap shoot" everybody is always talking about on these Boards.  For this not to be a "crap shoot," the researchers must demonstrate that a particular lifestyle decision has a stastically significant impact on our risk of cancer or of a recurrence.

There are a few things that do seem to have a statistically significant impact.  Not many, but enough so that we still might be able to contribute to our future health.  And, as you said so eloquently, the global choices of diet plus exercise plus healthy weight are just plain healthy.

otter

Eating better, eating less, and moving alot more...makes one feel good physically and psychologically.  What more could you ask?

I  have to agree that since this happens at a cellular level, those of us that get cancer had something  genetic/enzymatic at the core. Similar to the study on a protein that some have that makes alcohol more cancer provoking---so to say "we see people who drink and not get cancer" may be a very true statement since those people may not have that protein.

Some of us are intermediate tamoxifen metabolizers, some strong metatoblizers and some not at all and previously, everyone assumed "tamoxifen worked."  Now we know why some did not benefit.

It is one of the reasons (as I emailed to my onco) that I am happy to make changes difficult for me if there is a certainty to my outcome (smoking cigs) but not willing to change a lifestyle that makes me happy if the outcome is not certain (drinking wine with my dinner).

When I was practicing dietetics, I would ALWAYS tell my patients...incorporate changes you can and we will work with what you are unwilling to do since making changes does not guarantee a great outcome.  If 10 years later your changes were proved to be of no value, would you lament those 10 years?  If yes, don't make them...make changes to things you would not regret doing even if they proved unhelpful.

I quickly read through the article and it does say there IS a survival advantage with exercise, contrary to your summary. Also, the article authors ARE in favor of soy products in their conclusion, especially its synergistic effects with tamoxifen.

Can Regular Exercise Reduce the Risk of Cancer Recurrence?

While not studied in every cancer type, over 20 observational studies have examined the impact of physical activity on cancer recurrence, cancer-related mortality, and overall mortality. The research to date has been primarily limited to survivors of breast, colorectal, prostate, and ovarian cancers.

These studies demonstrate that higher levels of postdiagnosis physical activity are associated with a lower risk of disease recurrence and improved survival.

Edited to add: I did lose most of my chemo pounds, exercise daily, and eat at least 8 servings of fruits and vegetables. I'm hoping this will keep me NED longer. (I am on my 4th year of NED now, with Stage IV at the get go.) I believe lifestyle changes can bring on beneficial epigenetic influences, whether these were inherited or not, and if I were still in my reproductive years, could also be relevant to my progeny.

Thanks for the clear analysis, Outfield. I agree with you -- even the part where you said you thought I was giving the report more weight than it merits.

I think any time a group of "experts" invests this much effort in reading, evaluating, and summarizing the findings of previously published studies so that our physicians can have up-to-date recommendations based on scientific evidence (and "best clinical practices"), it's a good thing.  So, I think we agree on that, too.

And, SelenaWolf, I think the "holistic" approach you're seeing from all this is because of the nature of the beast.  Tweaking just a single variable will rarely make a statistically significant or clinically relevant difference.

otter