Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages PL
You'll never find all the information you need in one book or online. I think online information is more likely to be biased by industry/economics, but books can be biased too. So it takes a lot of experience to figure out what sources are worthwhile. The book I mentioned is very good but not the whole story. It's not about lifestyle details; it's about the pros and cons of testing for cancer.
I can't decide for you only you can decide for yourself. He never said not to get a colonoscopy. I was disappointed that he didn't give that much guidance about it. It seems he dealt more with fecal testing. Doctors like fecal testing because there are a lot of false positives and they generate lots of colonoscopies. (This is "bread 'n' butter" for doctors - yuck!)
One problem the book mentioned is that cancer can develop between tests. Some might be tested once every 10 years (i.e., age 50, 60, and 70 etc..) Ten years is a long long time and anything can happen during that time. Others might get tested once every 5 years or 3 years. It's still a long time, in my opinion, and anything can happen. Suppose you are on a 5 year schedule and you get a negative test result. Then in that same year an aggressive cancer starts growing. 4 & 1/2 years is a heck of a long time to let it spread unchecked.
But most people will feel a sense of safety with the 3, 5 and 10 year colonoscopy. That's why, as far as I'm concerned, I look at it as a false sense of security. I'm only speaking for myself. I'm 72 and have never had a fecal test or a colonoscopy.
In the "American Cancer Society's Cancer Journal for Clinicians" there's a discription of what raises and lowers your risk for colon cancer. Keeping in mind that the CDC estimates that only about 5 to 6% of cancers are genetic, I choose to focus on not getting any polyps (cancerous or otherwise) in the first place.
I'll summerize that when I return: Stay tuned.
|
Hey, I'm back. And here's the rest of the story from the "American Cancer Society's Journal for Clinicians" (2006). Keep in mind this pertains specifically to colorectal cancer (which I think is a little foolish but that's the way they were doing it.
Risks For Colorectal Cancer:
long term tobacco use
excessive alcohol use (suspected)
Obesity (especially men)
processed and/or red meat
To Decrease Risk:
calcium & vitamin D
diet high in fruits & vegetables
moderate exercise (vigorous is better)
The above information is not complete. For example, if calcium comes from dairy, there is a risk for men of getting an aggressive form of prostate cancer. And some might think that eating lean red meat is not a risk, but there is risk in the fact that red meat is rich in iron. And the problem with looking at one type of cancer at a time is that the information comes from studies employing reductionism. Otherwise, they would know that all animal protein is a risk for disease in general, not just red meat and dairy. What good would it be to avoid colon cancer, only to die from some other type of degenerative disease?