[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Cantwaittoarrive

Not sure where you got your information but the prep for a colonoscopy is to clean out the waste material not the bacteria and even if you religiously follow all of the instructions for the prep you would still have small amounts of waste and certainly still have your bacteria.

I got the impression that the bacteria is in the waste material. That's why there was a doctor who did fecal transplants for people who didn't have enough of the right bacteria. And there are people who regularly take probiotic supplements because, supposedly, they don't have enough good bacteria. So I thought it might be a problem for some people to reestablish their full measure of gut flora.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

Msendo, I haven't read the book, I was asking the question of Villages PL because I assume he read it. I totally agree with your opinion that a colonoscopy every five years is an excellent preventive procedure. I just thought that VP has a different perspective to offer.

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.

[Schaumburger]

I had my first colonoscopy last November at the age of 52. My father has had several colonoscopies (5 or 6) in the past 20 years because of polyps in his colon. According to the gastroenterologist (spelling?), I should come back in 5 years because of my father's history of polyps.

I had my colonoscopy at 12:00 noon, and I left the hospital at 3:00 pm that day. I was very hungry because of fasting the entire day before, but I decided to wait a couple more hours before eating a meal. The only thing my doctor recommended was to avoid very spicy foods, nuts and popcorn for a couple of days after the colonoscopy, otherwise I could eat anything. I had a full meal that night and felt fine.

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by rubicon

Barefoot there was a time when I had more than two a year. the danger is if they perforate the linning of the bowel

Holy cow, two colonoscopies a year is a lot. I have one every three years because of family history. I wonder what the stats are for perforation of the bowel lining.

My husband had a colonscopy in the fall. The doctor told him to avoid fatty foods. He went out and had a huge breakfast. Yikes. Sometimes it's so hard not to say "I told you so".

[swrinfla]

Undoubtedly, one of the most unpleasant procedures going!

That said, I'm pretty sure that if they find something "bad," they'll be on hand to help you at once!

I've undergone, I think, at least five colonoscopies. To date, thankfully no "anomalies." Thus, no further review until 2017 or later.

SWR

[msendo]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

I got the impression that the bacteria is in the waste material. That's why there was a doctor who did fecal transplants for people who didn't have enough of the right bacteria. And there are people who regularly take probiotic supplements because, supposedly, they don't have enough good bacteria. So I thought it might be a problem for some people to reestablish their full measure of gut flora.

Fecal transplants are done in the case of a person having difficulty getting rid of C-diff (clostridium difficile), a harmful bacteria that ranges from symptoms of diarrhea to a certain type of colitis. Some types of antibiotics, in particular, tend to eradicate a certain normal flora. When they can't seem to get rid of the c diff, or it keeps recurring, then fecal transplants have been used for that reason.

The colon is not a sterile organ. You may have taken a prep to clean your colon out, but there is still some residual fluid, or stool, that passes through the colon. The doctor suctions it out with the scope throughout the entire procedure. Nothing needs to be reintroduced, because it is still there.

In general, people return to their normal diets. You may be advised to eat a light meal at first since air is introduced into the colon, and you may feel uncomfortable with some gas pains. Some facilities may use C02, in which case it is absorbed easily, providing greater comfort.
Rather than run to a restaurant, because understandably people are hungry, usually it's advised to go home and take it easy, because of the sedation

[Villages PL]

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?