Nutrition and Exercise are Neglected "Therapies"

This post is not specifically targeted at people with OC, although it is valid for OC survivors and that's why I'm posting it here.

Here is what I have my father in law doing:
Every day, an hour-long walk, preferably during the day in indirect sun.
One glass of freshly squeezed pomegranate juice
Half cup of dried goji berries (in a smoothie).
5 grams of spirulina (in a lemon drink).
*And an otherwise welll-balanced diet

They include some of the foods I've learned to have the highest cancer-fighting nutrients per dollar. He lives in India and I have to ship the goji berries, ironically. I was unable to find an anti-oxidant supplement from a reliable source in any country. Do I believe this diet is a cure for cancer? Not exactly. But I have evidence that it won't hurt and overwhelming evidence that good nutrition promotes good health and longer life. So, I cannot begin to imagine why these facts should exclude cancer survivors. If anything, I was expecting to find more informed people when it comes to these things. But since I haven't, I'm filling in a little bit.

Proper diet and exercise can and do have what doctors prescribe loads of prescriptions for and are just as "therapeutic" or more so as some of the drugs being pushed on the American public in commercials I see on basic cable several times a day.

The vast majority of drugs being promoted right now (just turn on any basic cable channel to get bombarded) are being created in response to the horrific lifestyle of the average American and are mostly preventable or curable using the Big Three. Examples are:

Constipation
Insomnia
Depression
Osteoporosis
Heart Disease
Diabetes
High Cholesterol
Anxiety
Fatigue
Immunodeficiency
Chronic pain
Acid reflux
Obesity
Indigestion
Inflammation

These are the Big Three:

1. Proper nutrition
2. Good sleep
3. Regular exercise

It is no coincidence that most of the ailments I listed above can be caused and/or significantly exacerbated with improper diet, sleep, and exercise.
But the USDA and FDA regularly ignore the research and fail to prevent the pollution of misinformation by corporate and private interests.

I know some here already do practice the Big Three very carefully, but that is extremely rare.

It is of no coincidence that certain foods are proven to reduce certain types of tumors, and it is well known that alcohol, tobacco, and many substances used in food are linked to various types of cancer.

I'm not advocating you do anything in contrary to a doctor's advice or make sudden changes. I'm not claiming these are the cause nor the cure for OC. But what I am saying is that you need to take responsibility for your basic wellbeing, because most doctors do not have time for that, especially the ones helping you to battle your cancer. And I don't see most people doing that.

I urge those of you who can to seek out a family member or friend to help you ensure you are doing the basics for yourself by doing the Big Three, in addition to whatever treatment plan your doctor has already given you. Or you can even send me a message and I'll help if I can. Don't forget to get regular checkups at your regular doctor, and don't neglect the basics like vitamin supplements and physical activity when it�s approved by the doc (ask!). If you are presently in recovery, keep the ball moving by getting on track with the basics.

The insurance industry (I.E. US government) doesn't line the back pockets of personal trainers and dieticians as much as it could because it's too busy getting IT'S back pocket lined by corporate interests and Big Pharma. And it's a viscious cycle from there. That is not my theory, that's a documented and verifiable fact.

So, I hope I haven't given you just one more thing to worry about, but hopefully lit one additional branch of a path towards wellness.

I just want to add one more thing: I am also put off by the superjuice freaks. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Anti-oxidants are good for health, and in a few cases are linked to reduction in tumor growth.

That DOES NOT mean this is a cure for OC, but merely a sensible, researched category of food abundant in a healthy diet.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutriti.../vegetables-full-story/index.html#cancer

Marma

thanks for giving me a very good laugh, It is amusing to see paranoid rants against the US government which you equate with insurance companies with no apparent logic. Plus where on earth did you ever get the idea that the OCF posters who exercise, eat nutritious foods and sleep are "extremely rare"? Certainly not from bothering to read any of our posts. Read DavidCPA's signature line or EricS posts or even mine to see that doing all three of your "therapies" is Zero protection against getting oral cancer. My exercise and diet were without a doubt far superior to anything you even dream of (weight lifting three times a week, running marathons, organic vegetarian diet, yoga, pilates, juices, karate, aikido, biking, hiking, meditation, plus unconditional LOVE from my family, wife and friends) yet I got oral cancer twice.
No argument that people are better off if they exercise or eat right, but the tone and tenor of your post certainly make me worry that anyone who does private message you will be soon wasting their money on goji and spirulina as if they were magical. We all wish that diet and exercise have some magical properties but they don't. Take a look at my "doncha just hate it thread" in the coping forum to see how OC patients feel about being told to eat blueberries etc, Did you even notice that your link to Harvard spells it out:
[quote]Cohort studies, which follow large groups of initially healthy individuals for years, generally provide more reliable information than case-control studies because they don't rely on information from the past. And data from cohort studies have not consistently shown that a diet rich in fruits and vegetables prevents cancer in general.[/quote]
The sad truth is that oral cancer strikes physically fit and very healthy people regardless of their diet and exercise (with the exception of smoking tobacco or alcohol abuse, neither of which you mention). It's nice that you make yourself feel better this way, but please tone down the preaching especially when you mix it with paranoia and conspiracy theories.
charm

Marma,
This is very good advise and consistent with what is promoted at my CCC and most if not all other (great) CCC's in my area. So much so that my CCC (Sharp Foundation) holds classes and encourage all their cancer patients to attend.

Also Diet was the subject at our last OC Support Group meeting and it was very well attended. An Oncology Nutritionist from 'The Scripps Institute' gave an excellent presentation with lots of handouts, including Avocados! Spirulina came up as did blueberries and the like -- some of this may be iffy, but none of it is bad. I know several long term survivors in the group that swear by it.

Diet was also a significant part of another recent and great presentation to the group from a 'Kaiser Permanente' Swallowing and Speech Therapist and she had an excellent and extensive diet plan for those with swallowing difficulties (of which we have several).

PS just got a bad email that a Support Group friend has had a recurrence and is at the 'UCSD Moore CCC' for surgery So we need to cover all the bases - good diet, exercise, a great CCC team and a little luck Sadly, still too many of us don't make it.

Charm, my sentiments exactly. I didn't know you studied akido, which is FUN and beautiful for a japanese style, which I normally find rigid and stylistically challenged when compared to fluid movements of the chinese and korean arts. Not that they are ineffective...just not as flashy as kung-fu or Tae Kwon Do usually.

Nutrition and exercise are great and I would challenge anyone to adhere to my old nutrition plans or exercise program, trust me when I say P90X had nothing on me. I never touched tobacco products, illegal drugs and rarely alcohol (never when training). Cancer didn't seem to care about any of those things, but I will say that it was probably my physical condition that helped me live to this point.

Marma, since your father-in-law is in India I'm sure he's already injested (regularly) one of the most potent anti-oxidants known in curcummin, which is found in tumeric, commonly used (excessively so) in curry. Tumeric though should never be taken during chemo without consulting your oncologist first as it can interfere. I also felt as Charm did in the tone and probable outcome to the happless PMer. Genetics are a motherFer that I don't believe diet and exercise alone can fully compensate for.

Eric

Nice catch on tumeric. Your post made me smile also but in a different way. Never thought I'd see indirect references to Tony Horton and Morihei Ueshiba in this forum. One reason I "patrol" this forum is that simplistic assertions that nutrition and/or exercise can "cure" or "prevent" cancer are almost always from people who did not have a good diet nor workout religiously. Then when they push some "magic food" or pill, it hits a sore spot with me, even more so than the "did you smoke?" crowd, because at least the latter are right that smoking does indeed cause cancer no matter what your diet or exercise. Now that my tests came back HPV negative, I am more convinced than ever that genetic susceptibility is an important factor in getting OCF. That said, I also feel that it was my physical shape that allowed me the first time around to avoid surgery and take the 40 radiation "licking and keep on ticking". I wonder sometimes how healthy my exclusive Jevity 1.5 diet is, and watched enviously while my wife ate her scrambled tofu or curried lentils on our vacation.

Charm,

Although I respect your opinion, might I suggest you give "Anticancer - A New Way of Life" by Dr David Servan-Schriber, MD, PhD a read.

This book has come up at a number of presentations I have attended from my OC support group, Scripps Institute, Sharp Foundation, Kaiser, and the like

The book references a lot of interesting studies that are available and well documented in reputable journals(such as the New England Journal of Medicine).

The book is several years old, but at a recently presentation the presenter (I believe she was with the Salk Institute) said it is still worth a serious read even though some of the material is now outdated.

It is the author's position that we can learn to protect ourselves from about 85% of cancer and he uses "Identical Twin" studies "Denmark's Adopted {3rd World} Children" studies and the like to build his case for conclusions that about 85% of cancer is likely due to environmental/nutritional factors.

I believe this book, like most, refects the author's bias, but it is pretty good brain food and the referenced studies do raise questions.

Duck!!!!

Don

Having a graduate degree from the University of Pittsburgh,I am familiar with that book by a Psychology Professor who teaches there and consider it more brain "junk food". The usual miracle story:French doctor gets brain cancer, does conventional treatment which cures him, then gets superstitious in trying to avoid a recurrence, so "discovers" food with magical properties which prevent cancer. But let me tell the story with quoted excerpts from the very book you recommend. At least he is gentleman enough to admit that it was standard treatment that cured him. [quote]It must be stated at the outset that there is no alternative approach to cancer that can cure the illness. It would be madness not to use the best of conventional Western medicine such as surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immunotherapy and soon molecular genetics.[/quote]
Too bad he fell victim to a childlike attribution of a culinary totem that wards off the cancer coming back with his list of "superfoods".
Actually, getting a recurrence was liberating as it is so clear to those of us whose cancer came back, just how frightened and willing to believe almost anything our first time brothers and sisters are. David Servan-Schreiber is particularly amusing in that he touts super foods and warns of pesticides; he then basically says stress and improper breathing cause cancer also.
[quote]A significant number of brain tumours such as mine are sensitive to xenoestrogens, such as the pesticide atrazine, which is so powerful that it is capable of changing the sex of fish in the rivers it ends up contaminating. Between 1963 and 1970 from the age of two to nine, I played in cornfields sprayed with atrazine surrounding our country house in Normandy[/quote]
[quote]The mind-body connection
It usually takes anywhere from ten to 40 years for the �seed� of cancer in the form of a cellular anomaly to become a detectable cancerous tumour. No psychological factor has been identified as being capable of creating that cancer seed. However, stress profoundly influences the soil in which that seed develops. Most patients I�ve known remember a period of particular stress in the months or years preceding the diagnosis of their cancer. These situations don�t spark off cancer, but, as an article published in Nature in 2006 observes, they can give it an opportunity to grow faster. Stress causes the release of hormones which trigger inflammation and slows down digestion, tissue repair and the immune system. A study of more than 10,000 women at the University of Helsinki in Finland has shown that the loss of an important emotional relationship doubles the risk of breast cancer.

The factors contributing to cancer are so varied that no one should blame themselves for developing the disease. But anyone who has been diagnosed with cancer can learn to live differently. After my relapse and a year of chemotherapy, I had to stop working. My wife Anna and I couldn�t agree on our son�s upbringing and we were having problems in our marriage. I was losing my wife, my family, my work and my health. I could feel my life slipping through my hands. Then I met Michael Lerner, a sociologist and psychotherapist. He helped me to focus on what gave me the most satisfaction rather than what was going wrong.

Health does not depend on any one organ or function but on relations between them. Everyone can learn how to foster that balance. All of the great medical and spiritual traditions in the East � yoga, meditation, t�ai chi, qigong � teach people how to take over the reins of their inner being, concentrating the mind and focusing on the breath. This mastery is one of the best ways to reduce the impact of stress and helps re-establish harmony in a person�s physiology and stimulate the body�s natural defenses.

The body is a huge system in equilibrium. Alter just one thing � diet, exercise, stress � and the whole is affected.

[/quote]
So in the end, I have to agree with him that there is no one cause of cancer, and just shake my head and wonder how he then can ignore his own insights. His web site blog is entertaining also, ranging from agave syrup to lack of sleep causing cancer. Oh, and don't forget his other (even better selling ) book: Healing Without Freud or Prozac" just in case these "foolish hobgoblin" of consistency drive you crazy.
Charm

Charm
Dr. David Servan-Schreiber is a PHD, MD, Professor of Psychiatry and a Neuroscientist (not a Psychology Professor).

It was after his recurrence of brain cancer that he began his anti-cancer research.

Apparently his lecture last month at MD Anderson was well received. They have his presentation audio and slides up on their web site www.mdanderson.org/anti-cancer.

The individual from MDA introducing Dr. Servan-Schreiber says they are recommending that all their patients read his book.

When MDA speaks, others listen.

cheers

Don,

This was a really interesting presentation, thank you for posting the link! He's informative and entertaining. I am looking forward to reading the book.

Don

Thank you for posting a link on this forum that actually conforms to the OCF dialogue guidelines. Your posts and presentations are both civil and thought-provoking. I have to admit that Dr. S's presentation was not only entertaining but persuasive, much more so than his book. Maybe it was the new 2009 studies slides or the wry way he told his jokes (my favorite was his quip on women shaving under the armpits and applying antiperspirant getting more cancer while those who did not got less cancer and less sex ). Now I can blame riding my bicycle behind the DDT truck that sprayed for mosquitoes each week in my childhood New Jersey town as we pretended we were flying through clouds for overwhelming my natural defenses.
Seriously, I guess I will have to get used to being the 15% of the population that he posits won't be protected by his anti-cancer regime. Or maybe the fact that my wife and I went on a "no sugar" diet for the last twenty years (and boy was that hard - scoping out the hidden fructose and secret names for sugar) is why I did not get cancer until I was 60. My wife did like that part of his book and web site about the post 1945 sugar infusion into everything remains a major cause of cancer - although we went on the diet for other health reasons as everyone we knew could not imagine how we could always decline dessert or ice cream or chocolate etc.
So thanks again for sharing this information. It is hard to extricate oneself from one's own personal experience and I still remain skeptical about its efficacy for anti remission instead of generic cancer prevention. It seems like "closing the barn door after the horse is out" in light of my experiences and adherence to all but his environmental protocols for so long. Still, one could not go wrong following his diet and exercise advice and he does not shill a particular product so I have to give credit where credit is due. I withdraw my prior objections and agree that his book is worth reading. I especially like the Q&A portion in the final minutes, where he specifically mentioned alcohol causing head and neck cancer but that red wine with a meal did not have a cancer causing effect. He was adamant about the meal part so I hope taking red wine in my PEG with Jevity 1.5 counts. He also clarified that it was better to eat broccoli with pesticides than no broccoli at all. In his lecture he was more precise about false hopes in remission than my initial impression of his book. So thanks again Don
Charm

Charm,
I also really liked his joke about the study on women shaving, antiperspirant, cancer (and sex ).

Maybe that will raise a little curiosity and get some more of our OCF family to take a look.

I must say, I am just getting into thinking about a lot of the things Dr. S discusses and I still have a lot to study and sort out, but he has my attention and I am open-minded.

Cheers

Charm,

Where was my paranoid rant about the government, exactly? The insurance industry is one of the largest general campaign contributors to our major political parties in the United States, and directly influences specific policies made within the FDA that harm public health. I am perfectly prepared to support this with proof, should you wish to challenge it.

Labelling my point as being paranoid is not really an argument. My point was that the general public does not have all the facts about nutrition, and this relates to OC survivors, because they also do not.


"Read DavidCPA's signature line or EricS posts or even mine to see that doing all three of your "therapies" is Zero protection against getting oral cancer.
"

I never said any of these things protected against oral cancer!!!!!!!!!!. I would have been offended by somebody saying such a thing.

"Cohort studies, which follow large groups of initially healthy individuals for years, generally provide more reliable information than case-control studies because they don't rely on information from the past. And data from cohort studies have not consistently shown that a diet rich in fruits and vegetables prevents cancer in general."

I'm sorry if I failed to make this clear, so let me repeat:

Good nutrition is important for those with oral cancer, and those without it. Anti-oxidants show some evidence in benefit to various types of cancer. Harvard Health advocates a diet rich in fruits and vegetables because scientific evidence points to this being good for health.

Conclusion: there is no harm, but a great deal of potential benefit, if being attentive to nutrition and fitness and in looking further than the latest fad, but in sorting out the crap from the truth.

I did NOT say that you got cancer because you didn't have enough organic juice; in fact I rather made an attempt to counter that view and distance myself from that way of thinking. In addition, I did not advocate vegetarianism or juicing. I was attempting to distance myself from this sachool of thought on nutrition and base it instead on scientific and current research from unbiased sources. I am very familiar with the content on the Harvard Health website; no need to imply that I am not.

I am upset that you assert that I'm implying any differently. Please reread my post.

I'm sorry you got cancer in spite of doing what you thought was right for your health. I didn't come here to lecture anybody, but to raise a valid point: good nutrition should be advocated, not lumped away with some obscure and non-related part of recovery and prevention in ANY disease.

Hi Eric, I am familiar with turmeric, and cook with it daily. A large bag (like a half pound) costs about 6 dollars in the US if you know where to look and get the good stuff. I see Whole Foods (part of the whole "natural" racket) sells a few tablespoons for the same price, and I doubt it's as potent.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think turmeric can be consumed in high enough quantities by most people to equal the volume of anti-oxidants my FIL is getting from goji berry.

I did not start my FIL on anti-oxidant therapy until well after his treatment was concluded.

I do not advocate this for everyone; I just decided to do it because I don't think it will hurt and it adds a lot of fiber to a liquidy diet.

Charm,

I haven't read as much about OC as you, but what I have read is that most experts do not consider OC to be a genetically inherited cancer.

India has the highest rate of oral cancer in the world. In fact, it is the most common kind of cancer in India. It is becoming a vast epidemic, in fact. It is linked to tobacco, and India sells some very, very nasty brands of tobacco.

As to whether there is a genetic component, I have no opinion. I also do not promote the idea that there is ANY environmental cure for it. However, there do appear to be environmental causes for it a lot of the time. I simply advocated that nutrition is important and thrown out as if it's neglect is some kind of tool used to blame people who are ill. It is not, and most doctors and cancer centers on earth DO NOT treat nutrition and wellness with the attention it deserves.

I mentioned that my FIL is on anti-oxidant therapy, and said that I don't think it can hurt. You are having a knee jerk reaction that is precisely what I was arguing against. A lot of people come on here and don't understand the basics, and a lot of people lose weight and are malnourished during their treatment when they don't have to be. That is my experience coming from India, and in reading posts from around the world. Just because you are an exception to that, does not mean you need to fight it.

A balanced diet does not necessarily include goji berries or half the other stuff my FIL takes. But these foods that he takes are not from industries that tout them as miracle cures (for the most part); they are based on sound evidence that they have some benefits to health according to dieticians and current research. Benefits to health are a good thing for people with cancer, not necessarily a CURE. No need to patrol my posts.

ALl:

I want to apologize for my use of the phrase "cancer-fighting" in the context of this forum.

"Cancer-fighting" is a dengerous term, which, upon reflection, I know to be highly misused and abused by people selling "natural cures". I didn't communicate as effectively as I should have.

There is no evidence of a specific cure for "cancer" in nutrition. The scientific studies behind various nutrients and how they affect various types of cancer is very complex. In some cases, an abundance of certain nutrients can actually interfere with your treatment, or cause deficiencies of other nutrients.


However, rather than following the dieting habits of the general public, and rather than following the dieting habits of the juice fanatics, find a path between the two that is based on sound, unbiased study and -if possible-the guidance of a certified clinical nutritionist.
But do so under the primary guidance of your oncologists.


If my father in law would have followed ONLY the advice of only his oncologist team with regards to his nutrition, he would have lost many, many pounds and his health would have deteriorated much further than it did as a result. With proper diet monitoring he didn't lose much weight at all. This is an example of why I posted the thread originally. Diet is an important component of treatment and recovery. In some diseases, it is an important part of prevention too; I am not claiming that is the case for oral cancer. But it is a possibility the most current research has yet to demonsrate.

This doesn't mean it is your fault if you aren't well, lose weight, get OC, Etc. I do not mean to burden you with additional concerns when you might be fighting for your very life. I simply wish to counter those who seem to throw out the baby with the bathwater or disregard the importance of the big 3: this includes most doctors I have dealth with.

If my post took a lecturing tone, I apologize. I am nobody to lecture you guys; just trying to contribute something, actually.

Marma

Maybe it is a grammar thing that is the confusion. the use of the latin i.e. in a parenthentical means you equate them to be the same. So in your statment below, you equate the "insurance industry" with the US Government. There would be no reason for the current contentious health care debate if the US Government was the same as the insurance industry or ran it.

[quote]The insurance industry (I.E. US government) doesn't line the back pockets of personal trainers and dieticians as much as it could because it's too busy getting IT'S back pocket lined by corporate interests and Big Pharma. And it's a viscious cycle from there. That is not my theory, that's a documented and verifiable fact[/quote].

Is it true that lobbyists are derailing health care reform. Yes. But that does not support your contention that otherwise they would then "line the back pockets" of personal trainers and dieticians. that a start on pointing out your conspiracy blind spot. There is so much wrong mixed up with the common sense approach advocated by Don that I will take my time explicating the rest. Meanwhile, reread your original post and see what you are missing.
Charm

I was exaggerating to make a point. My point got lost because the topic was out of context in an already long post. It should have been a separate thread, but I didn't (and still don't) have the energy.

Point taken!

Marma

I have reread all your posts and it's clear that we are going to have to agree to disagree. I find your posts lacking in logic plus based on experiences in India which I do not believe are transferable to the OC population of the USA. I have reconsidered and rejected my prior plan to systematically point out each error or exaggeration. You obviously mean well. Your use of prepositions and adjectival and adverbial qualifiers lends itself to misunderstandings (e.g. trying to parse a distinction between " cancer fighting" and its implicit meaning of preventing cancer)that make a productive dialog impossible since all I would be doing is giving grammar lessons. At this point, no one will be mislead who reads this thread, so my job is done,
charm

Charm,


I don't have the capacity to make everything perfect, but I made MOSTLY logical points in my original post. If you are sincerely interested in educating me on my grammar, I will submit everything I write to you before posting it next time.

Otherwise, you can be sure I won't return to this area and your job is "done".

Marma

The clear implication was that I had zero interest in being a grammar tutor. When you post what purport to be "documented and verifiable facts" and then repeat that assertion in a second post with an offer to provide proof only to finally fess up in a third post that they were exaggerations, the charitable assumption is that there is a grammatical reason instead of a deliberate buttressing of one's view with opinions misrepresented as facts. I stand corrected.
charm

Now now you 2. Everyone here is here to help others and everyone's posts are their opinions so lets leave it at that. I say this with the utmost respect for both of you.

NO I WONT. BUT I WANT TOO. And that's good enough for me.

Marma, I don't think your father in law should have lost much weight at all. He might have had a sore throat and probaly some in the thraot area for a couple of weeks, but if you raed the post, the peole that lost weight big time lost all of the teeth , a good bit of tongue, parts of the floor of the mouth plus whatever else that had to go. NOw some even have jaw bone exposed and that hinders eating too. You can't get much nutrition if you don't have the equipment to swalow it right or chew food..anything tougher than a soft mush just doesn't work.