Originally Posted by Carla B (Post 1041994)

Interesting article: Many types of cancers are merely bad luck, study shows - CNET

Originally Posted by jimbo2012 (Post 1042006)

"However, he said: "If two-thirds of cancer incidence across tissues is explained by random DNA mutations that occur when stem cells divide, then changing our lifestyle and habits will be a huge help in preventing certain cancers, but this may not be as effective for a variety of others."

The cancers which, the researchers say, are still hugely influenced by lifestyle factors include colon cancer (diet and genes play a huge role)"

Originally Posted by Barefoot (Post 1042035)

Fascinating to hear the term "bad luck" about getting cancer in the CNET article.
As we all know, the danger of getting colon cancer can be minimized by having colonoscopies to identify and remove polyps.
I personally think that people who have a close, supportive circle of friends and the ability to laugh at themselves are the healthiest and happiest of people!

Originally Posted by dbussone (Post 1042091)

Excellent post Bare. Your last sentence is very meaningful and one we seldom think about.

Originally Posted by sunnyatlast (Post 1041866)

Knowledge is power, regardless of whether you avoid getting cancer…..or whether you get it!

Either way, knowledge of the sciences and research is essential.

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1041905)

Can any of you techies get this to link directly to the National Geographic article about the "Evolution of Diet"?

Here is the best I can do to link to that article.. I found it interesting since our friends here would only consider a diet to be the panacea for cancer and heart disease, as opposed to me who would do the Hokey Pokey to stay healthy if that is what it's about.

The Evolution of Diet - National Geographic

Originally Posted by Barefoot (Post 1042035)

I personally think that people who have a close, supportive circle of friends and the ability to laugh at themselves are the healthiest and happiest of people!

Originally Posted by dbussone (Post 1042091)

Excellent post Bare. Your last sentence is very meaningful and one we seldom think about.

Originally Posted by Carla B (Post 1041994)

Interesting article from Johns Hopkins: Bad Luck of Random Mutations Plays Predominant Role in Cancer, Study Shows - 01/01/2015

Originally Posted by Barefoot (Post 1042035)

I personally think that people who have a close, supportive circle of friends and the ability to laugh at themselves are the healthiest and happiest of people!

Originally Posted by Villages PL (Post 1042349)

But nothing to support your belief? Then I'll tell you what I believe based on a book I read (no link). I'll get the book title later, if you're interested.

There was a study that went on for about 80 years. It started with about 1,500 kids who were about 12 or 13 years old. And the study went on until almost all but a few had died. They categorized all of them as to personality types, based on tests and comments by parents and teachers.

The personality type that did the best overall was called "conscientious". (That's my personality type.)

The personality type you're referring to was called "happy-go-lucky". The problem with the happy-go-lucky type is they often disregard healthy lifestyle rules in favor of having fun.

Originally Posted by Villages PL (Post 1042349)

But nothing to support your belief? Then I'll tell you what I believe based on a book I read (no link). I'll get the book title later, if you're interested.

There was a study that went on for about 80 years. It started with about 1,500 kids who were about 12 or 13 years old. And the study went on until almost all but a few had died. They categorized all of them as to personality types, based on tests and comments by parents and teachers.

The personality type that did the best overall was called "conscientious". (That's my personality type.)

The personality type you're referring to was called "happy-go-lucky". The problem with the happy-go-lucky type is they often disregard healthy lifestyle rules in favor of having fun.

Originally Posted by Villages PL (Post 1042345)

Carla, that's exactly what I mean by the medical perspective. They make it sound pretty hopeless. The title itself says it all: "Bad Luck of Random Mutations Plays a Predominant Role in Cancer, Study Shows."

To repeat what you once said to me, "Holy Cow!"

But I did find at least one sentence that gave some hope: "The best way to prevent some cancer types is by eliminating environmental factors and by changing lifestyles." But they only gave one example: "Quitting smoking is one valuable example of primary prevention."

I assume that "changing lifestyles" includes one's diet regimen but they didn't even devote one word to that. Diet has a lot to do with inflammation and one's immune system but there was no mention of that. Exercise is also very important and there was no mention of that either. That's the medical perspective. They mainly want to impress upon people the fact that it's complicated and mostly unavoidable and there's not much you can do except get tested and then treated (by them I presume - that's how they make their money). Cancer is big business and they're running it the way one would expect a business to be run.

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1042538)

[/COLOR][/B]

That is the chant of the holistic group wherever you go. I don't buy it. I think that the business of cancer is better understood when you find you have it or your loved one has it. Spending money to research how it works and what can be done to prevent it is money well spent. I wish you would better understand the processes you speak of such as "inflammation" and "one's immune system". It is obvious you believe your diet is the panacea but I disagree. And giving up delicious food that our body is inclined to hunger for is sort of like asking people to give up sex as a means of birth control. There has to be a better way, a more moderate way than abstaining from the devil meat that our bodies want to eat.

Again I chant moderation. Your diet is extreme. It isn't proved to be the answer to all you claim. It is very possible that the "pure" Island population that you are always bringing up have better diets and more genetic defenses against cancer too. We have and do mix all kinds of genes in this great diverse country. It is proven that the African American population has more difficulty with sickle cell anemia and diabetes than white or Asian groups. That native Americans have more difficulty with genetic triggered alcohol addiction than other groups. That some European Ethnic Jews carry the Tay-Sachs gene that causes certain death to babies affected with it.

Originally Posted by dbussone (Post 1042371)

I think this is the foundation of Bare's post. It is from the Mayo Clinic and I have clipped the article for the sake of brevity:

Social support: Tap this tool to beat stress
Having close friends and family has far-reaching benefits for your health. Here's how to build and maintain these essential relationships.

By Mayo Clinic Staff
A strong social support network can be critical to help you through the stress of tough times, whether you've had a bad day at work or a year filled with loss or chronic illness. Since your supportive family, friends, and co-workers are such an important part of your life, it's never too soon to cultivate these important relationships.

What is a social support network?

A social support network is made up of friends, family and peers. A social support network is different from a support group, which is generally a structured meeting run by a mental health professional. Although both can play an important role in times of stress, a social support network is something you can develop when you're not under stress. It provides the comfort of knowing that your friends are there for you if you need them.

Here's the link to the full article: Combat stress with a strong social support network - Mayo Clinic

Originally Posted by Villages PL (Post 1042830)

You're missing something important: The "conscientious" personality type has all of the above adequately covered. But the "happy-go-lucky" personality type doesn't have all the bases covered as far as living a complete healthy lifestyle. The happy-go-lucky types take more health risks in the name of having fun.

For example, they're likely to laugh and/or ridicule a healthy diet as being extreme or obsessive. They're also likely to dismiss a healthy diet as being dull and boring - no fun! By the way, it's not true but it's true from their perspective or mind set.

It's not that being happy and having a support system isn't good, it's just not the whole picture. (Too many eggs in one basket.)

Originally Posted by jimbo2012 (Post 1042927)

Neu5Gc, a non-human sugar found in red meat, promotes inflammation and cancer progression

researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine to investigate the possible tumor-forming role of a sugar called Neu5Gc, which is naturally found in most mammals but not in humans.

In a study published in the Dec. 29 online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the scientists found that feeding Neu5Gc to mice engineered to be deficient in the sugar (like humans) significantly promoted spontaneous cancers. The study did not involve exposure to carcinogens or artificially inducing cancers, further implicating Neu5Gc as a key link between red meat consumption and cancer.

They found that red meats (beef, pork and lamb) are rich in Neu5Gc, affirming that foods of mammalian origin such as these are the primary sources of Neu5Gc in the human diet. The molecule was found to be bio-available, too, meaning it can be distributed to tissues throughout the body via the bloodstream.

The researchers had previously discovered that animal Neu5Gc can be absorbed into human tissues. In this study, they hypothesized that eating red meat could lead to inflammation if the body’s immune system is constantly generating antibodies against consumed animal Neu5Gc, a foreign molecule. Chronic inflammation is known to promote tumor formation.

more
N-Glycolylneuraminic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People Behind the Progress at the Cancer Research Institute - CRI

"recently published in the British Journal of Cancer, for instance, followed the diets and health of 61,000 participants over more than a decade. The study found that vegetarians—inclusive of those who eat fish—are 50 percent less likely to develop some types of cancer than people who eat red meat."

"the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research described suggestive evidence that animal fat intake increases the risk of colorectal cancer.....colon cancer patients who, after having a primary tumor removed, maintained a Western diet that’s high in red and processed meats were three-and-a-half times more likely to have a recurrence than patients who ate higher intakes of fish, poultry, fruits, and vegetables."

"

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1042976)

[message to Jimbo] I would prefer links to credible sources. The organization you link is not a research facility, it is a fundraiser. AND....Words and phrases taken out of context are confusing and often misleading.

Originally Posted by Villages PL (Post 1043137)

...At the end of the abstract there is a conclusion: "The incidence of some cancers may be lower in fish eaters and vegetarians than in meat eaters."

Originally Posted by Polar Bear (Post 1043141)

I believe that conclusion is probably true. But "some", "maybe"? Not very definitive or convincing.

Originally Posted by dbussone (Post 1042853)

To the best of my ability to tell, I do not believe that the study incorporated various personality types. Since there are various personality assessment tools (which generally categorize me as type A) I would think the Mayo study does not take them into consideration. Do you think the study you note is recent enough to accurately incorporate the Mayo dynamics and variables?

Originally Posted by Villages PL (Post 1043259)

I read the book about 5 years ago, so the only thing I feel sure about now is what I stated. I remember feeling satisfied because, after taking the personality tests in the book, I was classified as "conscientious". And those who were conscientious in the study had the best outcomes as far as longevity etc.. And I remembered why the "happy-go-lucky" personality didn't do as well. There were other personality types but I don't remember enough to comment on them. Someday I'll see if I can get the book again and review it.

Originally Posted by Barefoot (Post 1043626)

Originally Posted by Villages PL (Post 1043630)

Where's your link to the article? It's all to easy to take statements out of context.



If you feel strongly about this, you should start a new thread and advise people not to be lonely and/or depressed.



In your opinion, does this new finding make it more acceptable to be obese and use tobacco products?

Originally Posted by Barefoot (Post 1042035)

I personally think that people who have a close, supportive circle of friends and the ability to laugh at themselves are the healthiest and happiest of people!

Originally Posted by Barefoot (Post 1043626)

Originally Posted by Villages PL (Post 1043630)

Where's your link to the article? It's all to easy to take statements out of context.

If you feel strongly about this, you should start a new thread and advise people not to be lonely and/or depressed.

In your opinion, does this new finding make it more acceptable to be obese and use tobacco products?

Originally Posted by Barefoot (Post 1043776)