[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by quill

The government tells us
eggs are bad and change's it mind
milk is bad and changes it's mind
coffee is bad and changes it's mind
sunscreen is good and changes it's mind
cholesterol medicine is good for you, maybe
Again etc., etc.,
I choose not to listen because behind all of it is often an agenda.

We were told that olive oil is a healthy replacement for butter. And now "new studies" show olive oil is bad, bad, bad. Some doctors are saying we need to increase the amount of beef we eat. There are studies which prove or disprove just about everything.

I think there are four factors that make us healthy: common sense, moderation, good genes and a zest for life.

[thistrucksforyou]

I Agree...My DNA soup is getting hot !

[senior citizen]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

THANK YOU.....for bringing in a big component of what has a LOT more to do with human cells mutating and going cancerous than whether we eat meat, milk, eggs, etc. or not.

I think there is a lot of confusion about the terms "genes" and "genetic" when
talking about what brings on or worsens th likelihood of cancer forming in us. Genes and genetics don't refer to just hereditary tendencies/traits. Genes and genetics also refer to the sets of instructions or codes witin cells that control how they form, work, and mutate.

This American Cancer Society page from its History of Cancer section is excellent and explains well some of the notions people rely on, thinking they can control cancer from ever forming in themselves.

Actually, only God can "control" or prevent any of this. But that would also require a person to resign from being General Manager of the Universe, to let God be in charge....and then ask him and listen for a response.

I know some are turned off by that, but read this interesting article anyway. We all learn something new every day.



"Modern knowledge and cancer causes"

By the middle of the 20th century, scientists had the instruments they needed to work on some of the complex problems of chemistry and biology that remained unsolved. James Watson and Francis Crick, who received a Nobel Prize in 1962 for their work, had discovered the exact chemical structure of
DNA, the basic material in genes.

DNA was found to be the basis of the genetic code that gives orders to all cells. After learning how to translate this code, scientists were able to understand how genes worked and how they could be damaged by mutations (changes or mistakes in genes). These modern techniques of chemistry and biology answered many complex questions about cancer.

Scientists already knew that cancer could be caused by chemicals, radiation, and viruses, and that sometimes cancer seemed to run in families. But as the
understanding of DNA and genes increased, they learned that it was the damage to DNA by chemicals and radiation, or the introduction of new DNA sequences by viruses that often led to the development of cancer. It became possible to pinpoint the exact site of the damage on a specific gene.

Scientists discovered that sometimes defective genes are inherited, and sometimes these inherited genes are defective at the same points that chemicals exerted their effect. In other words, most of the things that caused cancer (carcinogens) caused genetic damage (mutations), these mutations led to abnormal groups of cells (called clones), the mutant clones evolved to even more malignant clones over time, and the cancer progressed by more and more genetic damage and mutations. Normal cells with damaged DNA die; cancer cells with damaged DNA do not. The discovery of this critical difference answered many questions that had troubled scientists for many years....."

Modern knowledge and cancer cause

In general, an excellent post. Many cancers are caused by "modern medicine" as it was perceived in the past......far too many xrays before the true risks were known (family member who had lots of xrays to abdominal area to detect if a "twin child" was present, later died of uterine and kidney cancer which spread to bones and brain. The xrays were too powerful back in the 1950's. Many who "over doctored" then are obviously dead now. Those who chose a more natural or holistic health path , did live to a ripe old age.

Chemicals, as you mention, in all of our "beauty products" ditto, unnatural to the body.

Occupational cancers for those who worked in the shipyards, plumbing or heating, automotive type industries where they breathed in a lot of chemicals.....without realizing at the time they were carcinogens.

On and on.....the perils of "modern life" since the 1950's.......wasn't that when the first "t.v. dinner" came out?

AGAIN, at the prospect of being repetitive.........we know dozens upon dozens of people who were health fanatics, shunning anything that tasted good as "poison to their body"........ate all the rabbit food, no oils, no meat, etc..........all died of cancer. So, go figure. It isn't necessarily the food............many of these deceased were avid cyclists, joggers, runners in marathons, did everything right as they perceived it to be...........however, if cancer runs in your family.......it can happen no matter what one does in the way of healthy habits.

Smoking is also a terrible habit as strong a pull as heroin, so they say.
Very addictive. The cause of most lung cancers. Why then did all the old Italian gents who smoked cigars live to a ripe old age? I've always wondered that. How different is a cigarette to a smelly cigar?

[senior citizen]

Originally Posted by quill

I do not know or really care, if there is research proving how chemicals impact us, I believe they do just as having to many X-rays does, so I choose to limit or completely remove chemicals from my life style, to the degree that I can.
The government tells us
eggs are bad and change's it mind
milk is bad and changes it's mind
coffee is bad and changes it's mind
sunscreen is good and changes it's mind
cholesterol medicine is good for you, maybe
Again etc., etc.,
I choose not to listen because behind all of it is often an agenda. If a vegan says I stopped doing something because of all the bad things in meat,eggs milk, whatever then how can chemicals be discounted in non-food items.
It may be proven that being a vegan is healthy from a medical standpoint (ie, eg, low blood pressure, low cholesterol, low whatever) but, unless you have an identical twin you are doing a double blind study with and the twin is eating all the bad stuff you are not, then you can not prove it will lengthen your life. It is the same as those that exercise all the time saying it will help life expectancy. A great number of long distance runners over the years have dropped dead while running.
Do what you will because life is a crap shoot and everyone should enjoy it anyway they feel they want, but if you espouse vegan then you should include chemicals (environment) in the equation or it it not a complete equation.

Yes, the government and the "evening news" flip flops on EVERYTHING.
We are so sick of those doctors on the evening news. It's turned into a medical show whereas before it was strictly news.

Hubby thinks the pharmaceutical companies have a powerful pull,not only on the networks and what they choose to show......or discuss......but on our government as a whole.

All of the tests everyone was supposed to have , to the point of some that we know running to a different doctor every day of the week.......now they say are unneccesary or only should be used sparingly.
All of the xray type tests probably did more harm than good.

Our pet peeve are all the "side effects" on the commercials during the evening news......after they paint the glowing portrait of the wonder drugs for various ailments of simple aging............the side effects are worse than the disease itself. Dis ease. Meaning one is not comfortable. However, our bodies were not made for all these chemicals.

We know people in the chemical business who supplied pesticides to farmers in order to produce better crops. All of these are known carcinogens.......on the food we consume. I doubt if they can all be "washed off" in a soap bath. Just saying............

I agree with those who say "everything in moderation".......

Popping supplements is another over done "health measure".

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by senior citizen

Popping supplements is another over done "health measure".

It's a "Dr. Oz" world out there. I have a friend who works at a Health Food Store. She says that the day after Dr. Oz recommends a supplement, the store sells out of the product.

[senior citizen]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

It's a "Dr. Oz" world out there. I have a friend who works at a Health Food Store. She says that the day after Dr. Oz recommends a supplement, the store sells out of the product.

I believe it. I always liked Dr. Oz and enjoyed him when he was a frequent guest on Oprah. I'd have her on in the kitchen when I was preparing supper.

However, his new show, which we actually began watching during the month of November 2011 while in The Villages........has turned into a sales pitch for various supplements and health type remedies.

He's obviously earning profits from all these pitches.

Not all supplements are safe. Too much of any of this can be dangerous.

We have family members who carry along dozens of "baggies" of their daily supplements........truthfully, I could not swallow that volume of pills. Every new remedy that is mentioned , either on t.v. or in Prevention Magazine, etc. they run to the health food store to purchase.

Since so many of our foods (yes processed foods) are already supplemented, certain of these can be over dosing. Too much of a good thing?

My plain common sense tells me that our natural bodies are NOT made to handle all these chemicals.......whether in pills or chemo type treatments.*

*We've seen too many younger friends die of breast cancer lately where the treatment was worse than the cure.....all after having double mastectomies and breast restoration at top university hospitals like Dartmouth. It later spread to the rib cage and every other organ in the body. Early detection might be good for some, but harmful to many that we've known. I think most of these are caused by the birth control pills of the earlier decades. For the older women, it's the hormone replacement therapy.

Again, natural is the best way to go........re anything.

Not to be disrespectful of the vegans and vegetarians out there, but all of these "younger women in their 40's and 50's" followed that dietary plan. Obviously, it did not save their lives.

We also had a dear friend whose grandmother had the same lung condition she had. The grandmother lived to 95, dying of old age, while our friend, had invasive biopsies of her lung at another top medical center, was put on prednisone and another clinical trial drug (it wasn't cancer but a disease of the aveolar sacs in the lungs).....they punctured her ribs and lung and as she was recuperating had to be rushed back to our hospital where eventually she bled out and finally was put in a medical coma, as we stood by her bedside, family hoping for a heart lung transplant.........but it was too late. We feel had she not had the biopsy to begin with........the rest would not have happened. Her symptom was basically a chronic cough........she knew what she had and lived with it since a younger woman. Often, invasive testing does more harm than good.

I apologize for getting off the "supplements track".
So, even in doctoring...............less is more.............

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by senior citizen

I believe it. I always liked Dr. Oz and enjoyed him when he was a frequent guest on Oprah. I'd have her on in the kitchen when I was preparing supper.

However, his new show, which we actually began watching during the month of November 2011 while in The Villages........has turned into a sales pitch for various supplements and health type remedies.

He's obviously earning profits from all these pitches.

Not all supplements are safe. Too much of any of this can be dangerous.

We have family members who carry along dozens of "baggies" of their daily supplements........truthfully, I could not swallow that volume of pills. Every new remedy that is mentioned , either on t.v. or in Prevention Magazine, etc. they run to the health food store to purchase.

Since so many of our foods (yes processed foods) are already supplemented, certain of these can be over dosing. Too much of a good thing?

My plain common sense tells me that our natural bodies are NOT made to handle all these chemicals.......whether in pills or chemo type treatments.*

*We've seen too many younger friends die of breast cancer lately where the treatment was worse than the cure.....all after having double mastectomies and breast restoration at top university hospitals like Dartmouth. It later spread to the rib cage and every other organ in the body. Early detection might be good for some, but harmful to many that we've known. I think most of these are caused by the birth control pills of the earlier decades. For the older women, it's the hormone replacement therapy.

Again, natural is the best way to go........re anything.

Not to be disrespectful of the vegans and vegetarians out there, but all of these "younger women in their 40's and 50's" followed that dietary plan. Obviously, it did not save their lives.

We also had a dear friend whose grandmother had the same lung condition she had. The grandmother lived to 95, dying of old age, while our friend, had invasive biopsies of her lung at another top medical center, was put on prednisone and another clinical trial drug (it wasn't cancer but a disease of the aveolar sacs in the lungs).....they punctured her ribs and lung and as she was recuperating had to be rushed back to our hospital where eventually she bled out and finally was put in a medical coma, as we stood by her bedside, family hoping for a heart lung transplant.........but it was too late. We feel had she not had the biopsy to begin with........the rest would not have happened. Her symptom was basically a chronic cough........she knew what she had and lived with it since a younger woman. Often, invasive testing does more harm than good.

I apologize for getting off the "supplements track".
So, even in doctoring...............less is more.............

I agree with most of what you say in this post Senior, but on a couple points I do have to say a word or too.

Breast cancer in young women (under fifty) is usually a much more aggressive form and if it is the type fed by estrogen,(not all are) their bodies are still making a lot. In women over fifty, if cancer of the breast is discovered early, than more often it can be put in remission for a number of reasons. I am sure that many who are reading this are fighting breast cancer. Both our daughter Helene who had breast cancer when she was 29 and me, we survived. As did 13 family members. Only three had familial.They survived. Breast cancer is not one cancer either but a lot of different kinds and we need to go to a place that treats a lot and has the best treatment options.

Sometimes when we see two people who have lung cancer we think it is the same form, it often is not. Again we need to find the best place to treat any serious disease we have and with cancer, we can't eat to prevent it and we can't eat to make it go away and the same with supplements. They are not going to work with cancer. Until somethng better comes along, our best shot is what is prescribed for us which is often chemo and radiation, terrible poisons and killers. Cancer isn't a baby game and this is no time to try to duplicate the knowlege of people who treat it daily. Time is of the essence.

Money is being made by big pharma, by doctors everywhere, and certainly by the supplement industry. It does make us suspicious of all, or should. We need to make the choices that are best for us and not try something in desperation. But most doctors are trustworthy, you would be wise to go to an oncology group with ties to a respected teaching hospital if your diagnosis is cancer.

Invasive testing is sometimes needed. Unfortunatly, and we have to remember that too. Fear is an awful thing when it keeps us from the treatment we need.

Now we are off the track.

[senior citizen]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I agree with most of what you say in this post Senior, but on a couple points I do have to say a word or too.

Breast cancer in young women (under fifty) is usually a much more aggressive form and if it is the type fed by estrogen,(not all are) their bodies are still making a lot. In women over fifty, if cancer of the breast is discovered early, than more often it can be put in remission for a number of reasons. I am sure that many who are reading this are fighting breast cancer. Both our daughter Helene who had breast cancer when she was 29 and me, we survived. As did 13 family members. Only three had familial.They survived. Breast cancer is not one cancer either but a lot of different kinds and we need to go to a place that treats a lot and has the best treatment options.

Sometimes when we see two people who have lung cancer we think it is the same form, it often is not. Again we need to find the best place to treat any serious disease we have and with cancer, we can't eat to prevent it and we can't eat to make it go away and the same with supplements. They are not going to work with cancer. Until somethng better comes along, our best shot is what is prescribed for us which is often chemo and radiation, terrible poisons and killers. Cancer isn't a baby game and this is no time to try to duplicate the knowlege of people who treat it daily. Time is of the essence.

Money is being made by big pharma, by doctors everywhere, and certainly by the supplement industry. It does make us suspicious of all, or should. We need to make the choices that are best for us and not try something in desperation. But most doctors are trustworthy, you would be wise to go to an oncology group with ties to a respected teaching hospital if your diagnosis is cancer.

Invasive testing is sometimes needed. Unfortunatly, and we have to remember that too. Fear is an awful thing when it keeps us from the treatment we need.

Now we are off the track.

I hear you Gracie. God Bless you & all your family members.
The recent ones I mentioned were younger women in their 40's with the familial gene and the aggressive form.........the others were in their 50's which is still young in my book.

They all went for second opinions to the best of the best in Boston and ended up having survery in Hanover, New Hampshire, again at the best; plus the reconstructive surgery, ditto. They had their chemo and radiation here in town at our oncology center at the hospital.

Others, our own age .....our peers, went to Mount Sinai in New York City for their cancer treatment........they were extremely athletic types and followed vegan diets prior to the diagnosis.

I'm just saying there are no guarantees in life.

Several of our friends passed from the non smoker lung cancer.
Never smoked a day in their lives. They had been treated for asthma and bronchitis and all were on inhalers. Finally after years of that, they were told they had stage four lung cancer.....and given chemo and radiation and died two years after treatment.

You, your daughter and your other family members are truly blessed.

We saw bright, obviously healthy to begin with, "runners", cyclists, etc. go quickly after chemo and radiation.........I wonder if the reconstruction surgery might let some of the "cells" escape into the blood stream????

Again, these people did not favor junk foods to begin with; they were truly into a healthy lifestyle in every way possible.

The one who was our age lost all feeling in her feet,her hands, had seizures, etc. not from her cancer.......the oncologist told her it was from the chemo. She could no longer knit, her favorite past time. Also, she was a non smoker.

By the way, Dartmouth is a fine hospital and a fine university.
Many of our doctors and surgeons in town here were trained there.
However, we also know doctors and R.N.'s as friends and neighbors and believe it or not, they claim that if they ever got the dreaded disease, they would not get chemo or radiation. Time will tell.

Always value your opinion Gracie. Just relaying what has been our experience.

In my mom in law's days, they didn't even tell the patient they had cancer.......she passed at 54 but had it for about 4 years, no treatment at that time........just surgeries. Kidney removal, Uterus removal, etc., etc. She actually died without pain, even though it spread to her brain and bones. I think it was a sarcoma if my memory is correct. It was 41 years ago............as compared to the younger women mentioned above.

[jimbo2012]

In a new Inquirer article

Diseases are almost always caused or triggered by external factors—the environment, stress and diet. Few have given thought to the idea that something as common, and relished, as meat or animal protein may have a hand in causing cancer.

Early studies have linked excess consumption of animal protein not just to cardiovascular diseases, but to cancer as well. Literature from the journal Lancet titled “Lymphomas and animal-protein consumption” by A. S. Cunningham revealed international comparisons, suggesting countries where more animal protein is eaten have more cases of cancer of the lymph nodes among the general population.

“The link between animal protein consumption and lymphoma appears solid,” said Dr. Neil Nedley, MD, author of the book “Proof Positive (How to Reliably Combat Disease and Achieve Optimal health through Nutrition and Lifestyle).”

The US Department of Health and Human Services’ The Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health, US Government Printing Office reported in 1988 that other population studies have found a strong association between animal protein consumption and increased incidence of cancers other than lymphoma. According to the International Journal of Cancer on April 15, 1995 by B. Armstrong and R. Doll, increased animal protein consumption increased the risk of cancers of the breast, colon, prostate, kidney and womb (endometrium).

Some truth in both assumptions

“With all of these associations, the question could be asked whether it is animal protein that is so bad, or whether the bigger problem is lack of certain nutrients found abundantly in a plant-based diet. Actually there is some truth in both assumptions. Animal protein itself does increase risk when compared to vegetable protein,” Nedley said.

Nutrients found in many plant products appear to prevent cancer. Thus, those who consume large amounts of animal protein are likely depriving themselves of an adequate intake of healthful plant products.
Of all forms of cancer, colon cancer may be the most strongly linked to diet. John Robbins, author of “The Food Revolution (How Your Diet Can Help Save Your Life and Our World),” explained that the food one eats has a great impact on the health of his or her colon.

“If you step back and look at the data (on beef and cancer), the optimum amount of red meat you eat should be zero,” said Walter Willett, MD, chair of the Nutrition Department, Harvard School of Public Health, and director of a study of 88,000 American nurses that analyzed the link between diet and colon cancer.

The risk of colon cancer for women who eat red meat daily compared to those who eat it less than once a month: 250 percent greater, according to the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons’ “Presidential Address: Beyond Surgery” by Caldwell Esselstyn, San Jose, California.

The risk of colon cancer for people who eat poultry once a week compared to those who do not eat the same: 55 percent greater, according to the American Journal of Epidemiology study titled “Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-Risk Population” by P. N. Singh.

The study also said the risk of colon cancer for people who eat poultry four times a week compared to those who abstain: 200 to 300 percent greater.

Risk of colon cancer

It also cited that the risk of colon cancer for people who eat red meat once a week compared to those who abstain: 38 percent greater.
The same study stated that the risk of colon cancer for people who eat beans, peas, or lentils at least twice a week compared to people who avoid these foods: 50 percent lower.

The Food Revolution cited that the impact of risk for colon cancer when diets are rich in the B-vitamin folic acid: 75 percent lower. The primary food sources of folic acid are dark green leafy vegetables, beans and peas.

[jimbo2012]

This thread is going about one month now, 3500 have read it due to an interest slowing down their aging process (as the title implies).

Therefore, one can conclude there is a desire to stay young active and healthy

Yet with that interest naysayers claim all the facts presented still don't make them change some of their old eating habits.

If your blood work shows all parameters in the normal range without meds* and you're not overweight and feel great, fine.

But in seeing pics & videos of some of the residents that isn't the case weight wise ( please don't take that comment the wrong way)

There's just tooooo much evidence that proves dietary choices can allow you to live a longer active life, is it a 100% guarantee, no of course not.

But why decrease your chances.

Try it for a month there is no way you will not not feel the difference.

*meds for things that can be corrected with diet only

[Villages PL]

Around the turn of the century a large scale study was done to compare the number of cancer deaths between Okinawa, Japan and the U.S. The U.S. had 5.5 times more deaths due to cancer.

Another study showed that the number of deaths between second generation Japanese-Americans and the rest of Americans was basically the same. This proved that the difference in the number of deaths in the first study was not due to genetics. Japanese Americans, when they adopt the U.S. lifestyle, have the same disease rates as the overall U.S. population.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by jimbo2012

This thread is going about one month now, 3500 have read it due to an interest slowing down their aging process (as the title implies).

Therefore, one can conclude there is a desire to stay young active and healthy

Yet with that interest naysayers claim all the facts presented still don't make them change some of their old eating habits.

If your blood work shows all parameters in the normal range without meds* and you're not overweight and feel great, fine.

But in seeing pics & videos of some of the residents that isn't the case weight wise ( please don't take that comment the wrong way)

There's just tooooo much evidence that proves dietary choices can allow you to live a longer active life, is it a 100% guarantee, no of course not.

But why decrease your chances.

Try it for a month there is no way you will not not feel the difference.

*meds for things that can be corrected with diet only

Just to clarify. VillagesPl has told us that he is 71, lives alone and doesn't watch TV, he hasn't mentioned if he drinks alcohol.

Jimbo, you have shared that you do drink alcohol and you have TV. How old are you?

I am 72. I know, I look like I am 16, but heck some of us have good genes. . I don't drink or smoke. I am mildly addicted to Publix Premium Rum Raisin ice cream.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by senior citizen

........they were extremely athletic types and followed vegan diets prior to the diagnosis.

I'm just saying there are no guarantees in life.

Absolutely, there are no guarantees. Everyone is born with strengths and weaknesses. And we don't always know what they will be. Here are a couple of points I would like to make.

1) When someone says, "they were extremely athletic types", a red flag goes up. Being extremely athletic can raise cortisol levels and thus be damaging to the body, depending on the individual and how extreme they are.

2) They followed vegan diets: Not all vegan diets are the same. A vegan with a sweet tooth can consume large amounts of sugar. Some vegans might eat lots of baked goods made with white flour or lots of white potatoes. They might not get enough B12 or D3 etc.. They might consume too much sodium. You get the idea.

Several of our friends passed from the non smoker lung cancer.
Never smoked a day in their lives. They had been treated for asthma and bronchitis and all were on inhalers. Finally after years of that, they were told they had stage four lung cancer.....and given chemo and radiation and died two years after treatment.

Yes, that can happen. A neighbor of mine died from lung cancer and she never smoked. If I hadn't known her, I would have thought the same as you, that it doesn't matter what a person does. However, I found out that before moving to TV, she lived in a large city that had very thick smog. It was so thick, it would make her eyes burn.

Again, these people did not favor junk foods to begin with; they were truly into a healthy lifestyle in every way possible.

I met a neighbor of mine when I lived on E. Schwartz Blvd.. He told me he ate a lot of vegetables. And I believed him. When I joined the neighborhood group and got to know him better, I found that he mostly ate potatoes (Fried, baked and mashed). That's a lot of vegetables! But not the best ones for nutrition. So, be careful. We can be led astray.

Your post sounds like you are setting up excuses for yourself to eat whatever you like.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Just to clarify. VillagesPl has told us that he is 71, lives alone and doesn't watch TV, he hasn't mentioned if he drinks alcohol.

I don't drink alcohol. But believe me when I say, "I am not depriving myself".
I tried to be a "moderate" beer drinker....thought it would be fun. I went out and bought a 6 pack but couldn't even finish it. I hated it.

Years later I decided to try my luck with wine. So I bought a bottle of wine. I could only tolerate about 3 ounces with a snack of cheese and crackers. (I was not a vegan at the time.) If you only drink 3 ounces per day, it doesn't take long before the wine becomes oxidized and stale. So each day it would taste worse than the day before. And now that I'm a vegan, I feel as though it wouldn't go well with fruit, vegetables, legumes etc..

Also, alcohol has a high acid content which your body has to work to nutralize, which may cause one to lose some calcium in the process. The same goes for coffee and some types of tea.

[graciegirl]

Here is a list of vegetables.

Only a couple are not frequently cooked or prepared raw in our kitchen.

Which are favorites or disliked on this list by you readers.

http://cookery.newarchaeology.com/vegetables.php