Well ladies its not what caused it that is the problem I should say its what you choose to do in the future. Happpy New year all.
I think we can all look for reasons as to why we have our cancer, but I know the list of reasons off by heart, and I don't have one single risk factor other than the fact I'm female with oestrogens.
However, 1 in 8 women get this disease, some of which you can put down to a risk factor eg 10% genetic, but with approx. 60% there is no reason why.
Best to just accept the diagnosis, recover from the disease, then keep as fit as you can in the future, but enjoy life on the way.
Kit - you raised the issue of casein which is a protein found in milk, cheese and other dairy products.
The findings on casein are highly controversial and we have looked at them and debated them before on this site (see the thread 'For those interested in research on diet and cancer).
The basic argument against having casein and its effect on tumours comes from a book called The China Study. (It is also in The Plant Programme.) The China Study details the findings of research on mice and rats relating to casein.
Personally I think The China Study raises too many questions which remain unanswered and I'd like to see a lot more data to be convinced. I'd like to see some simple follow up experiments to test such hypotheses - as you say, it's hard to find anything much on casein and its interaction with cancer cells.
Hope that helps, Elinda x
Well said, hymil! The most sensible post so far!
I'll just have to stop stressing out about all this 40% c**p because it raises more questions than it answers. We just need to look after ourselves and hope and pray that we will be OK.
Well I just read an old article, must have been about 12 years old, saying that the biggest avoidable cause of breast cancer was (then) thought to be abortion. No mention of the hormone swings involved, and how that could be mitigated after the unwanted pregnancy had been dealt with, just an implied slur on the lifestyle choices - or failures to choose - of the women involved (Hallo, don't men come in to the cause of the pregnancy too?) and yet another threat to their future wellbeing at the very time they are already most vulnerable.
I think 40% of stress if not 94% is caused by reading these articles.
Choccie muffin, you made a very good point it is "Causes we can control" that is relevant, the biggest risk factors for breast cancer are overwhelmingly our sex, and then our age. Quitting chocolate biscuits has a negligible effect compared to being born male or staying young...
There was some criticism of the published reports in the newspapers at the time - really wish I had kept them.
I would really love it if there was somewhere I could just have (in PLAIN ENGLISH) an explanation of how the 40% breaks down and how and with whom they did the research, without having to waste my precious time wading through acres of gobbledegook.
Can't contribute to the question about cassein-free, but completely agree with ChoccieMuffin that the media should take more responsibility. It is a shame that for important news like this, they don't.
So maybe as we haven't found a way to make them more responsible (because twisting words/headlines sells papers), we just need to be more circumspect when we read the articles.
oh just read that "Because a gluten-free, casein-free diet eliminates so many foods, this diet may increase your risk of certain nutrient deficiencies"
Hi I've read that casein free diet can help with autism although a recent study shows it has no effect. I think it's also recommended if you have a wheat or milk intolerance.you know it's all down to choice and it can't hurt can it.but I doubt very much if it can shrink tumour's,if that was the case then i'm sure we would all be advised to do it and wouldn't have to have all these harsh treatments.of course i'm sure all the alternative sites wouldn't agree with me lol.
Best wishes Melxx
Has anyone any experience of the Cassein free diet in shrinking tumours? Please help if you do, so far I can't find a lot of info. TIA
The email to people who have expressed an interest says:
Could 4 out of 10 cases of cancer be prevented?
The article itself is titled: "The causes of cancer you can control"
. Read the article, make your own mind up.
Personally, still think the media could take a bit more responsibility for accurate representation.
Was the report actually '40% of all cancers are caused by lifestyle' or 'up to 40% of the multiple factors that cause cancer are lifestyle based' or 'up to 40% of the statistical chance (a % of a % after all) of an individual getting cancer is lifestyle based'?
It's still only a minority of women, even of older women, who develop breast cancer.
..but 60% aren't caused by lifestyle, so why do we think anyone is pointing the finger at us? Isn't it good for people to be looking at what MAY cause cancer, to enable us to make a choice about whether we believe it or not? If someone discovered that eating peanut butter sandwiches (which I love) had a high risk of causing cancer, then I'd like to know to help me make a choice. There have been articles about living near to electricity sub-stations causing cancer; it may be true, or it may not be, but we can choose to read the proper research (not the media highlights) and make our decision.
It must be stressful for anyone suffering from ill-informed finger-pointing related to their cancer, and if this article makes that worse, then that is terrible. But I think that the alternative (not publishing the research) isn't an acceptable solution
Anyway, it's nearly Christmas and just 'cos I've got nothing else to do (as am sitting in my hospital bed on an almost deserted ward), doesn't mean I should forget about what's going on in most people's lives - so happy Christmas everyone.
Jeniffer , have I done something to upset you? Every time you reply to a post of mine it seems rather like a dig.
Choccie, not sure I agree with you on this occasion. Have just looked at the CRUK press release that announced this study (see link below). I don't defend journalists, but I think this time they were simply repeating the press release.
sl - great post! You said it all there.
CM - The vaguely-worded reply you quoted from CRUK changes nothing as far as I'm concerned. The damage has been done. People already affected by cancer will still feel they are to blame and those without it will be sitting there feeling superior.
By the way, have these folk done any 'research' on how stress affects the likelihood of cancer?
Might also be worth asking when people are finger pointing exactly what they think it is lifestyle wise that could have prevented us from getting cancer. People go on about a healthy life style and diet but as Lemongrove pointed out what does that actually mean?
Then, you can ask them if they are adopting everything they list to prevent them getting cancer. If they don't know much about it say shouldn't they be finding out.
It may also be worth saying to those who seem to be pointing the finger 'I feel from what you're saying that it is my fault I got cancer' and see how they respond.
I think sometimes people think they're being helpful in some way by pointing these things out. Like everything, it's how people say it and in what context.
Sarahlouise - as to people who won't eat the same food or think your house isn't clean enough - I'm speechless on that one. So sorry you've experience that.
Sarahlousie, absolutely no offence taken. But take a look at the email reply I got from CRUK when I wrote to them saying I really didn't like the BLAME thing that always followed this kind of report. (Page 4 of this thread.) CRUK specifically said that their research and reports are specifically NOT intended to point fingers
I completely agree, so many people DO blame us for our cancer, but I REFUSE to accept that blame and am trying to use the report to turn the message round and get THEM to turn the mirror on themselves and look at their own lives rather than pointing the finger at me. I have also been on the end of the finger-pointing (on live radio!) and I found it very hurtful. So this is my own way of responding to the pointy fingers, I suppose, just wish I'd worked it out when the interviewer came out with that line! I just thought it might be a helpful approach for others to try next time someone actually comes out and makes a hurtful comment, so that we AREN'T made to feel to blame.
Elinda - I'm with you on this one I thought I'd wait before having a baby the sad irony is that when I went to the Dr back in march this year to ask about being a slightly older mother at 43 thats when during her examination for a persistant itch on my right breast she found the lump. Now I've had chemo and I am on Tamoxifen also got secondaries so will never have the baby I had waited for, I was trying to get my career off the ground before having a baby so that I could provide properly for the child. Sadly this will never happen for me but I'm not unusual in leaving it till later to have a child and its not my fault that I've got Breast Cancer because I choose to wait I dont care what anyone say's, they try and work it out so that the blame is thrown back onto us or at least that is how it feels, its not our fault and until they know for certain 100% what causes cancer and that applies to all cancers they cannot cure it, this is what my Oncologist told me and my OH. I've changed my diet cause so far through my own research I have found evidence to support it and like Elinda I feel I'm reclaiming control over my body because cancer striped me of confidence in my body.
Chocciemuffin - Please dont take any offence to this but I think its your own personal interpretation of the statement '40% cancers caused by lifestyle' and whilst you believe they were not putting the blame on us to some of us it feels like it is put on us that we in some way are too blame for getting cancer, seriously its just a difference of opinion.
Its not just this research that feels it is pointing the finger it is in my personal experience of other people ie: my family and friends almost like the food I cook is in some way tainted or that my house is not clean enough, basically the finger pointing comes at you from all sources and just recently I have decided that others can think what they like if it makes them feel better about my dx or maybe it just makes them feel that they can't get cancer cause they dont eat the same food as me or they are cleaner in some way, this is their fear not mine, I know this sounds crazy but I've first hand experience of this crap and it really doe's get too me.
My personal opinion NONE OF US ARE TOO BLAME FOR GETTING BREAST CANCER until they know what causes it then its a flaw in nature, nothing is perfect and yet all is perfect we live in a earthly paradox, all of us are at the mercy of chance at the roll of a dice can change everything, all of us could develop cancer as we all carry cancer cells.
love and light
filosophie, thanks for posting the link to Jenni Murray's article, I could relate to a lot of what she says, I think she talks a lot of sense. Can't say the same for some of the comments made in response though!
I have decided that the "40%" message can be turned round (to what I think CRUK were trying to communicate) so whenever anyone asks me what I did to "cause" my cancer, my response is whether THEY have made any changes to their lifestyle in order to reduce their own risk of getting it. THAT's what the message is saying to me, NOT that 40% of US are "to blame", as so often gets bandied around.
Lemongrove and others
I can see what you're saying about healthy diet. The new research findings we've been discussing indicates that being overweight, having a diet low in fibre, high in red and processed meats, low in vegetables and high in alcohol etc increases risk of cancer.
But basically this is trying to give a one size fits all piece of prevention advice with regard to all cancers.
I still think we're a long way off understanding how diet fits into the picture and being truly clear what a healthy diet actually means.
I suppose for some of us, adjusting our diets gives some sense of control and there is no doubt that diet does effect the body in many ways. Since making my dietary changes my cholesterol has dropped right down (even though my weight hasn't!)
Behind the headlines on the CRUK site there were other factors listed with breast cancer such as not breast feeding.
I laugh when I see that included in any reporting or under any headline of lifestyle choice. Perhaps it is for some people but not I suspect for the majority.
I wasn't able to have children due to endometriosis. I expect some people may think it was my fault that I 'chose' not to be a mother and that's why I got breast cancer.
You know what I don't care anymore what anyone else thinks!
Quote from post from Marilyn on separate thread pertinent to this discussion on diet.
A lead article in the Mail today by Jenni Murray (writer and BBC Women's Hour presenter), who was dx with BC a few years ago. http://bit.ly/va4QV2
I have not read the Dr Servan Schrieiber book yet but was thinking of ordering it as well as the Rainbow Diet have you read that?? I agree it's good to live for the day and I think really that's what I do everyday now live for the moment, and try and enjoy life, I think before I took everything so seriously, surely life is supposed to be fun and not depressing, sorry about your friend with the brain tumors but also what a refreshing take on life and now you have all those wonderful memories of him enjoying his life and outliving the 6 weeks by 3 and ahalf years.
sending love and light
I read the David Servan Schreiber book about 2 years after I was diagnosed and found it very interesting. Now you've mentioned it I think I'll revisit my copy during the Christmas hols (good intentions went out of the window a few weeks ago due to work commitments). I was very interested in his belief that his cancer may have come from crop spraying when his extended family went on holiday to rural France every summer when he was a child - 2 of his cousins went on to develop BC.
However, I do sometimes think it's good just to live for the day. A friend of ours was diagnosed with a brain tumour 4 years ago and was told he had 6 weeks max (it was the type Seve Ballesteros had and they couldn't remove it all). He made it to 3 1/2 years and he really lived his life to the max during that time. In fact he only gave up in the final 3 months when he was incapacitated. His funeral was a wonderful celebration of his life (he was a bit eccentric) and an occasion full of joy, which is how he would have wanted it.
Zibzab and Cherub - Interesting reading your posts as you have first hand experience of the Japanese/asian lifestyle diet etc. I am currently doing the 'crazy sexy diet' by Kris Carr and really think she is on to something, the proof is in the very fact that the lovely Kris is still here!!! 9 years ago she was dx with liver cancer that had spread to her lungs and she changed everything and I mean everything no dairy,bread,meat, very low carbs ie: limited potatoes, and white foods etc just loads of veg juiced especially things like kale and broccli, also I am on tamoxifen and found out that tami works really well with veg so I'm still going on it and she looks fantastic on it, also there is that Dr David Servan-Schreiber who wrote the anti-cancer book sadly he died this year from the tumours on his brain but lived with it for 19 years which he was convinced it was the diet that prolonged his life. I instinctually feel there is something in this, not necessarily that foods cause cancer but once you got it I think a complete overhaul on the diet front is beneficial, please note this is my opinion and I am not a medical professional just another cancer patient trying to cure/prolong my life.
sending love and light to all
I worked in Japanese bank for 10 years and all of my Japanese colleagues were in agreement that the diet in the West gave them health problems. Certain products like dairy and bread didn't figure in their traditional diet. Cakes and sweets either, apart from those little cakes with the bean curd in the middle. This was in the early 80s - 90s and at that point it was very difficult to find Japanese restaurants in this country. The handful around London were really expensive (I can remember being taken out for Japanese meal in 1984 and the bill for 4 people was over £200!). Places like YO! Sushi had not arrived yet. Imported Japanese food products and proper green tea were also very expensive, colleagues would often ask for visitors from the Tokyo office to bring things over with them. What was noticeable was my colleagues really started getting into fast food like Macdonalds as the Japanese are mad about all things American. I also had a boss who kept insisting we went out for doner kebabs at lunchtime! It has made me think about what's in our diet quite a lot in the past few years.
Elinda, I appreciate your point, and would agree with your definition of a diet for general good health. The point I was trying to make was that the media have reported this story without defining what a healthy diet is in relation to BC. In other words they have made the assumption that what is good for general health, is also good for preventing BC - but is that really the case?. For example,the Prof who treats me, wrote a paper earlier this year about the link between metabolic syndrome and BC. The paper asserted that many people with oestrogen receptive BC also have metabolic syndrome, and how this is also associated with a poor prognosis. But the diet that is advocated for treating metabolic syndrome, in many ways flies in the face of what many regard as healthy for BC. For example, people with BC are often advised to avoid dairy, limit protein and increase carbohydrates. But with the diet to treat metabolic syndrome carbs are restricted in order to lower sugar levels in the blood; fat is restricted to lower calorie intake, protein is increased to help build muscle (as patients with this syndrome have a poor fat/muscle ratio), and low fat dairy produce is encouraged, because it contains various substances (don't ask what), that help with weight loss, and reset the endocrine system.
But of course not every BC patient has metabolic syndrome, so what constitutes a healty diet for them could be very different.
All I'm trying to say is that the term healthy diet is not as clear cut as we all think it is.
Magda, totally agree with you about this being political. I don't think it's any coincidence that this blame thing is being bandied around at a time when the Govt want to make savings.
Some true in this study is. Why breast cancer is not almost affected by Japanese and Asian women? Just when they move to Europe after 5 years brest cancer affected them like the other Europeans? What do you think? I am agree Elinda with. I think we have to start with changes and teach our daughters what about this we know. This will help avoid breast cancer not for us, but for our children. They are long-term investment, to be honest, the results will not be visible within one generation. But what we can to do-we can to try, we have to start.
I think that maybe one way WE can use these thoughtless (and tbh rather insulting) "concerns for your health" comments is to turn the tables on the person who made the comment. Ask them, "... and what have YOU done to change your way of life to prevent YOU from getting cancer? If you carry on drinking/smoking/eating like that [[[best said when they have the glass/fag/cake at their mouth!]]] then you could well find yourself in the cancer ward. So? What changes to YOUR lifestyle have you made?" Then watch them squirm.
Yeah, that might be a bit harsh, but after all, that's the message that I think is what CRUK are trying to get out there - "take care of yourself, you can improve your chances of avoiding cancer if you do."
That's an interesting fact ethlydsyl
I'm 5.11 does the stats reflect more bc in scandanavian countries i wonder?
and indeed you're probably right elinda as my dad smoked 40 a day for 60 years. He was on the golf course until he was 86 and died of Alzheimer's 2 yrs ago he was only 89.....I def thought that was going to be my ending.
i work in a fitness-related industry and i am a stone overweight-my super-slim colleague asked me if i'd been told that my weight had a bearing on my bc diagnosis ?? i replied "no-but thank goodness i'm not tall like you" (a report had been published that day stating taller people were more at risk-i'm 5' 2" -she's very tall !!! it went over her head anyway.
It was my staff night out Fri, I've been back at work two weeks. When diagnosed I cut out any real drinking of wine at home. I often choose to drive and not drink when out too.
Colleague leaned across the table and asked if I had been told not to drink any more. I kept calm and explained that I'd cut down from personal choice and that BC is not as simple as the 40% figure implies. I'm pre menopausal and BC is strongly hormone pos.
Until recently I ran regularly, eat a fairly sensible veggie diet. I am a stone overweight but have never been a big drinker.
It is quite alarming that this attitude exists, but totally understandable. I am tackling my colleague one comment at a time now lol.
Lemongrove - I was thinking in more general terms about what is bad for us such as high fat ready meals, and generally a lot of high fat, high salt, high fructose/sugar processed foods and consuming too many calories.
What a healthy diet is a whole other question as we know. the only thing there seems to be consensus on is eating lots of vegetables.
With alcohol again, its a minefield but we know that things like binge drinking are hard on the body particularly the liver.
Magda - can understand why you feel upset after your friend's comment. I think there is an attitude with some people that what their doing is right becuase they don't have cancer and what we're doing must be wrong. Health issues are rarely so simplistic but it probably makes them feel better to look at it that way - less frightening.
the thing is there could also be a huge number of other factors as yet undiscovered such as an interaction between genes and diet. we probably all know people who drink like fishes, smoke, stuff themselves with rubbish food and never get ill.
I don't think of the public in that way as I think of other loved ones particularly my young nieces and nephews and hope that this kind of research will help to protect them. Perhaps ridiculously naive but I live in hope.
Magda, you have exactly described the problems faced by bc persons due to media reporting. This is the unfortunate side of research etc released through the media to the public, is it not bad enough to have cancer without YOU being the cause, in the public's minds?? It is very sad that you have to defend yourself, Grrrr makes me so mad, so pleased you educated them!! All the best to you xx
A personal experience.
I had friends round last night and one of them referred to this report in the media. She went on to ask how much did I drink these days and had i changed my eating habits now that there was a direct link to diet and cancer?
My point is that on some level his media reporting makes the personal political.
I felt attacked. I am not overweight. I am not a heavy drinker as a matter of fact I didn't drink for 20 yrs and only started to drink alcohol 8 yrs ago and not to any excess. my diet could have been better but it wasn't that bad that it was a risk factor. A risk factor yes if using dairy products - not too excess and eating meat. But then isn't that a big issue for multiple health issues and has there been any really useful knowledge disseminated even after all of these years and we still consume them because that's what we are sold by the media, by advertising, by the multi superstores that shut our local butchers and bakers down.
And do we still believe that those of us living on low incomes can actually afford the 5 a day ? If we can't then it's our fault again for not eating them.
Yes this was an opportunity to raise awareness etc etc but should this be at my personal mental health expense when I felt under pressure defending myself to help educate others?
What I would really like to hear the media highlighting more is research into the risk factors associated with cancers linked to the environment and the pharmaceuticals that are developing drugs eg. hRT that I believe have had a direct impact on my cancer.
They left wiser than they arrived... I hope but I was so frustrated that I felt the need to defend myself because of such negligent reporting.
Well nobody picked up on my point earlier, so I'm going to make it again. What exactly is a healthy diet, when it comes to cancer prevention? The Chinese diet is often hailed as the ideal diet to prevent BC, because it is high in veg, and low in animal products. But if you delve a little deeper you will discover China also has the highest level of stomach cancer in the world.
I do believe that for post-menopausal women with oestrogen receptive BC, there is a link between obesity and BC, because after the menopause oestrogen is largely produced courtesy of fat cells (particularly around the middle). But I'm the idea that eating/not eating or drinking/not drinking this or that can never be more than a theory, because there are so many other variables that could be at work.
I do take your point CM. It's very hard to get accurate information about any health issue from newspapers or magazines I think. I only ever look at the headline and then go straight to my computer to find the original research. So I'm probably sheltering myself from some of the worst of the media reporting.
I do hope though that in spite of the poor reporting that many of you have seen, that a tiny trickle of information passes on to the general public. But more importantly, that the key information is given to policy makers and people who can do more to help bring about the changes needed.
As I said, I don't think the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of individuals anyway. We get such mixed messages about all sorts of things but particularly food and alcohol (think of tv adverts, cookery programmes, tv programmes, government health warnings etc). Alcohol is a prime example, one minute we're told its good to have a glass of red wine to protect our heart and then the next that even moderate drinking is bad for BC. No wonder people throw their hands up in despair.
Even if we know what is the most up to date information, it's hard to process it when we have a barrage of other stuff around us.
Elinda, the negative interpretations aren't in the research itself but in the way the research summary is interpreted by many in the media, resulting in a finger-pointing exercise instead of a message of prevention.
The (mis)reporting of a message aimed at people who don't have cancer that they can help prevent themselves getting it in the future, has been changed. By doing that, a message of hope and a further incitement to people to change their lifestyles for their own benefit is turned on its head, so there's no need for anyone who doesn't have it to do anything at all.
Very irresponsible, but if it sells papers, who cares?
I still struggle to see the negative interpretations of this research. To me, this kind of research is fantastic. We may not like what we hear because we don't want to change our lifestyles but it may help to start revolutionise healthcare. Afterall, we know there is an obesity epidemic and research evidence that it can increase risk of diabetes and cancer etc is a big driver for change not least because of the financial implications.
I suppose I see this less as individual thing (ie i don't see the full onus being on individuals and likewise I don't see the blame falling on individuals) but as a societal issue. We're not talking about one or two people who eat too much or drink too much or even smoke - it's large numbers. There is a problem in our society and it's far more fundamental than preaching a healthy living message can change. It's so many things from reduce sports at schools, advertising, lifestyles, lack of cooking skills etc etc
I am overweight so I'm not saying this from a look at me and how healthy I am viewpoint. I would love though for these issues to be looked at becuase if 40% of people could avoid getting cancer then to me that would be a wonderful thing. Elinda x
Jeniffer, they are not "so-called 'research findings'" they are research findings, published in the British Journal of Cancer which is open access so you can read them all and judge for yourself at http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v105/n2s/index.html
Because (according to their findings) up to 40% of cancers could be prevented by changes in lifestyle, so perhaps people might then change their lifestyles so that they reduce their risk of getting cancer.
Yeah, it's the same "healthy living" message that's been put out for years, it's just that this is another reason why people should do the healthy living thing.
The problem is not with the message itself, but with the way it is so often misinterpreted by the media and reporters who haven't got a clue what the message IS, so they twist it and give it a completely different slant.
The CRUK reply was a load of waffle though.
I'm still none the wiser why they issued their so-called 'research findings' in the first place.
I have just had a very nice reply from CRUK to an email I sent to them letting them know just how distressing the kind of report we saw in the media recently can be, particularly to people who already have had a cancer diagnosis. They made a VERY good point, that they can't control how the media use the information they put out, and that they take their communications very seriously and specifically do NOT attribute blame to cancer sufferers.
This is what I wrote to them:
Thanks for your mail. Yes, I did indeed see the headlines, and heard “40% of cancers are caused by lifestyle”, which very quickly gets changed, by reporters who don’t understand statistics, to “40% of people who have cancer are to blame for their own cancer”. There must have been four or five of this kind of report in the last year. I know it’s a year, because I was diagnosed a year ago yesterday.
I have even been asked – on live radio! – “so, what do you think you did to cause your cancer?” and the interviewer meant the question seriously. That really hurt, and was a direct result of a CRUK press release.
That kind of reporting – using the word “blame”, which quickly moves from “this activity/lifestyle choice is to blame” to “this PERSON is to blame” – causes a lot of distress to cancer patients.
Any chance you can explain that with a lot of these things, while there is definitely a relationship, things aren’t always that simple? I don’t know of a single reporter who understands statistics and the idea of “RISK”.
And this was their reply:
Thank you for your e-mail.... Firstly, I am very sorry to read of your cancer diagnosis and I wish you my best in your continuing fight against this disease.
We were very careful in our press statement on this matter not to attribute blame to cancer sufferers. This is categorically not the purpose of this report and we certainly do not blame people for getting cancer. I am therefore very sorry for any frustration or upset caused since its release.
Please be assured that your comments on our report have been passed on to my colleagues who are responsible for compiling it. If we can do anything to improve our communications in the future then we will certainly endeavour to do so, as the last thing we want to happen is for important information to be misinterpreted.
With regard to how the media use our findings, we offer a press release and contact details for any media enquiries. We are unable to control how this information is used by the journalists and, unfortunately, certain media outlets do have an agenda that they pursue that may skew the facts in their favour. To counter this, we do try to remove any ambiguity in our statements.
I hope that I have reassured you of how seriously we take our communications with the mass public but if you have any further questions or concerns about this matter then please do not hesitate to contact me.
Together we will beat cancer.
Well said El Katrano and thannks for pointing out about your mum, people assume that you must of done something to get cancer basically no one knows why we get cancer and until they do and its confirmed evidence then the rest is all sheer speculation.
Oh god, that article.
Now then, cancer is not CAUSED by lifestyle I'm sure, it's perhaps triggered by certain factors over which we have some control possibly. But you can't live your life like a puritan! You have to LIVE.
It got pointed out to me that OBESITY is a "cause" - I don't think coming from a bad place as he was concerned about recurrence. But don't people think I KNOW, I have HAD cancer thanks, I've read quite a lot thanks. Apart from my ONC saying that due to my young age for BC and the fact that my Hormone level is quite low for a receptive cancer, it's not likely to have been caused by my weight.
She even said I don't need to worry about losing all the weight with recurrence, if I want to lose weight then great as thats better obviosuly for my overall health.
The only reason Obesity is an issue is with hormone receptive cancers because the bigger you are, the more oestrogen/progestrone you have in your system that fuels any cancer growth. But mine was not an issue.
I think they need to be careful about generalising. It's not THE CAUSE of cancer, I think we're predisposed to it and certain factors trigger so clearly it's better to live the life of a saint - but even then that's no guarantee.
My mum died of cancer at 54 - bowel cancer. Veggie for 25 years, swam every day, cycled a lot. The only real thing she had an issue with was the few bouts of alchoholism over her life. Oh and a WHOLE HEAP of stress.
Hi Rainbow Dancer
I can't speak for other countries, but in the EU (and in the UK we tend to 'gold plate' their requirements:
We haven't yet approved GM
Animals have been banned from being fed antibiotic growth promoters for years and there are strict rules regarding withdrawal periods for any animals being given abx for medicinal purposes.
Don't know of any system that routinely feeds animals hormones.
Really strict rules on sprays and when they are used means that it's very rare to get any contamination above very strict limits - you'll get more 'nasties' from using fly spray.
Really worried about your food?
Buy food from farms in a farm assurance scheme (doesn't have to be organic)
Buy from local, known sources
Grow your own!
akfilm - great post.
Have looked at RoadRunner's link to CRUK and am even more angry that all they have done is give general health advice which has been common knowledge for about 30-40 years and attach it to cancer. BTW how the h*** did they decide that a 'less active life' gives you BC?
What a wasste of time and money!