Archive for the Cancer Prevention

The more I read from some of the best researchers in the country who dare to look at things differently the more frustrated I get. One cause for concern is the conventional wisdom that a low fat diet is a panacea for all that ails us. (The cholesterol myths make me nuts too, you can read about that here.)

In Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes, which one reviewer said is “Easily the most important book on diet and health to be published in the past one hundred years.” Barbara Ehrenreich, author of Bright Sided and Nickel and Dimed said, “Taubes tackles the subject with the seriousness and scientific insight it deserves, building a devastating case against the low-fat, high-carb way of life endorsed by so many nutrition experts in recent years.”

Look, I live by the idea that we are all biochemical individuals and there is no one prescription for eating that works across the board. But based on hours of research it is becoming more clear that loading our plates with grains–whole or otherwise–while at the same time lowering fat to torturous levels is having a deleterious effect on our health–and our waist line.

The seed for this idea was planted in 1976 at the “Diet and Killer Disease” hearings. By 1982 the proposition that dietary fat caused cancer was considered so likely true that a govt report encouraged Americans to lower fat consumption to 30% or less. In 1984 the American Cancer Society jumped on the band wagon and sealed the deal. Interesting though are the many observations from around the world that refuted the findings.

The National Cancer Institute and the NAS decided to make funding available to test the hypothesis. (Hypothesis is loosely used as the dietary fat/cancer link was being reported as fact)

Walter Willet, a Harvard epidemiologist, was called upon. He lead the Nurses Health Study which began tracking diet, lifestyle and disease in 89,000 nurses in 1982. The bottom line? After 4 years the nurses who reported the lowest fat intake had the highest rate of breast cancer!

The National Cancer Institute reviewed the study and said it was  good study but not the only one and continued to recommend a low fat diet. 8 months later reports Taubes, NCI researchers themselves published a study albeit from a smaller group suggesting “that eating more fat and more saturated fat correlated with less breast cancer.”

After 14 years of observation by Harvard, the research still pointed to lower fat diets resulting in higher breast cancer rates. “The data still suggested” writes Taubes, “that eating fatty foods, (even those with copious saturated fat) might protect against cancer. For every 5% of saturated fat calories that replaced carbohydrates in the diet, the risk of breast cancer decreased by 9%.”

So what do we do with this information? Sweep it under the rug so we can continue as we are with thousands of women getting breast cancer while feeling deprived, not enjoying the full spectrum of flavors and nutrition in foods? I can’t do it.

I’ll be looking for more data to support this theory and there are plenty of posts here talking about the dangers of too little fat and too many grains. I’m not talking about doing a low carb diet. I’m suggesting that having a health amount of fat and a healthy amount of beans, whole grains–not processed into chips, cereals, and bread products–and a wide range of all lean proteins and vegetables is not only the way to eat for health and weight maintenance but for disease prevention.

Well Suzanne Somers has a new book out and this time she’s taken on the conventional wisdom and practice of cancer treatment in this country. Like her or not this book will stir dialogue and encourage people to question the status quo on cancer treatments–which has a woefully poor track record in the success category.

Like so much else of our current medical system, chemotherapy, radiation, and radical surgeries to “kill the cancer or eliminate it” makes people sick and vulnerable on top of sick and vulnerable. While inroads are being made in great cancer centers like Sloan Kettering in New York City, to include complimentary forms of support for the patient, for the most part true alternative practices with proven track records are criminalized in this country.

As midlife women, we are crossing a threshold of age for increasing diseases while also being more empowered to take our health into our own hands. Of all people we should applaud books like hers.

Now before you leave here all in a huff thinking I have no respect for western medicine hear this: I am 100% on the side of complimentary medicine which takes from western, eastern, new and ancient energy modalities, and functional medicine. In no way do I think all western med is bad or all cancer treatment performed in a western setting should be tossed out. I’d like to see patients have options, learn about the alternatives to traditional chemo, radiation and some surgeries. Then make their decision fully informed on what’s out there.

Europe enjoys some of the most sophisticated hospitals and cancer care centers and most practice prevention, support via supplements, natural healing agents, and practices docs in this country can’t even consider trying or face jail time or malpractice suits. Hence a travel trend called “medical tourism.” Americans and others in countries with limited or no access to  proven, safe alternative options to traditional pharmaceutical and surgical practices, are traveling to foreign countries to exercise their rights to try something else. They also travel when health care options cost more than the person can afford here.

The cancer care model is no different than much of the rest of the (disease care) health care model. Much of it is, to quote Dr. Julian Whitaker in his latest newsletter, “Killing houseflies in the kitchen with a shotgun. Yes it can be done, but certainly doesn’t solve the problem–and look what it does to the kitchen.”

In this time of health care debate I’m promoting self care and education about the many ways to do so. Preventing cancer is a strong place to start. And learning about treatment options within and outside of the medical model is important. A book like Suzanne’s simply brings some things into the light for all to see. If more people are interested in alternatives the government will eventually have to accept the practitioners who offer them. Maybe even remove the next to impossible financial and time constraints in testing to get these approved.

Weigh in if this stirs something in you about health care and choice.