OT Nutrition and Cancer

[dailybuck777]

I have had stage 1 colon cancer (cancer confined to polyp in colon and not spread -- good news) I am trying to increase my odds of avoiding a recurrence. I have easily been able to stop eating beef (switched to chicken), but it is difficult for me to cut down on eggs, which have been implicated to some extent in prostrate cancer and maybe one study dealing with colon cancer. I also exercise 7 days a week, which is supposed to be protective.

I recently came across the work of Dr. John Ioannidis, probably the most respected researcher on the topic of the problems caused by non-reproducible research and he strongly questions most nutritional research and his conclusions have been:

"In a new op-ed in JAMA, Dr. Ioannidis bluntly states that nutrition epidemiology is in need of "radical reform."

********

"Selective reporting means that any study which shows a link between bacon and early death is likelier to be published than one that doesn't show a link. Combined, Dr. Ioannidis believes that residual confounding and selective reporting have created a systemic bias in nutrition research.

Even worse, Dr. Ioannidis blames food and nutrition activists for distorting research.""https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/08/24/john-ioannidis-aims-his-bazooka-nutrition-science-13357 For more background see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/10/modern-scientific-controversies-part-7-the-meat-war/

Had a meeting with my surgeon Tuesday and asked him for his gut reaction to various foods that have been implicated in colon cancer, and he stated that he would stay away from processed foods because they have so many chemicals.

I am not trying to be political here. Simply trying to do everything I can to better my own odds.

 

[Nittany1997]

I wish you the best of luck and Godspeed. Sounds like you are on the right track.

 

[tboyer]

Most nutrition science is pseudo-science. It's the one place where science could really help us, you know, telling us what to eat and all, but most nuitition science research is ... crap. The box food industry is very powerful...

 

[ericstratton-rushchairman]

I highly (and I mean highly) recommend reading the book, "The Case Against Sugar". It is a fascinating read about the history and impact of sugar throughout the last 300+ years. Good luck Buck

 

[Op2]

Had a meeting with my surgeon Tuesday and asked him for his gut reaction to various foods that have been implicated in colon cancer, and he stated that he would stay away from processed foods because they have so many chemicals.

Every food (and every everything else) is nothing but chemicals.

I think the problem with this issue centers around three things.

1. The nature of nutrition research is such that it is very hard to do well. Unlike some other science experiments, you can't hold all the variables constant except for one and then see what happens when that one variable changes. Not only can you not hold all the variables constant except one, it's hard to even measure the variables correctly.

If you do a case-control study where you find some people that have colon cancer and others that do not and you look backwards in time to see what factors in their lives were different and thus what might have caused their colon cancer, all you can do is ask them about their lives in the past. "Over the past five years, how often have you eaten broccoli? Never, less than 1 time per month, 2-3 times per month, 1 time per week, 2-3 times per week, or 4 or more times per week?" Imagine questions like that over and over. And many other questions in that vein about a bunch of other things. Lots of people don't remember. Lots of other people lie. It could be that the last five years aren't relevant anyway. Etc. And a cohort study, where you follow people over time (decades) and see which ones develop colon cancer and which ones don't, is even harder to do.

2. There is individual variability. With something like a poison or a vaccine it's easier. Almost everybody that gets the poison dies. Almost everybody that gets the vaccine becomes immune to the disease. But with diet, although some foods are better or worse on the population level, on the individual level it can vary. Maybe eating a lot of Food X increases the risk of cancer on 60% of the people, has no effect on 30% of the people and decreases the risk of cancer on 10% of the people. So overall it's harmful but for 40% of the people it's not harmful and for 10% of the people it's actually helpful. And it's hard to tell which of those groups you fall into.

3. This one is a combination of three things, those being (a) because of the inexact nature of this stuff, it's hard to communicate, (b) journalists that write about this stuff often don't understand the subtleties and aren't motivated to communicate the subtleties anyway and (c) the reading public isn't interested in the subtleties and instead want a definitive, easy to follow bottom line they can follow.

Thus we get a news story saying "Food X causes cancer" and then the next year we get another news story saying "Food X prevents cancer" and then the next year we get another news story saying "Food X is unrelated to cancer." And the general public throws up their hands and says "I don't know what Food X does, but I know that the people doing these studies don't know what they're doing because they keep changing their story." But of course, it only looks like that on the surface because there was never a definitive conclusion that Food X caused, prevented or was unrelated to cancer in the first place but it just seems that way because that is how the media reported it.

All that said, what I'd say is that other than situations where a person has issues that mitigate against exercise, exercise is just about always helpful or at worst neutral. So if you can exercise, do it. And although sometimes it's hard to tell whether fruits & vegetables do no good, or a little good or a lot of good, I don't think anybody thinks they do harm, so consuming a lot of those is good.

But with regards to colon cancer, I don't think you go from zero to cancer. I think you go from zero to a polyp to an adenoma to cancer. (You can look that up to get more specifics.) So getting a colonoscopy and catching the polyps before they can turn into something worse is good and I suspect your doctor told you the same thing. So get colonoscopies as frequently as your doctor says would be my (non-physician) advice, especially if you've had Stage I colon cancer already.

This reminds me of Warren Zevon. Warren Zevon didn't go to a doctor for many years and then when he finally went, he had advanced cancer that couldn't be stopped. After that, he went on the Letterman show where I think they gave him the whole hour, both to talk and to play music. On the show he said "I might have made a tactical error not going to a physician for 20 years. It was one of those phobias that didn't pay off."

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/156589-i-might-have-made-a-tactical-error-not-going-to

 

[PSU_Chicago]

Per one of my Drs - "unfortunately most foods are not good for you. You are best off eating as little as possible".

 

[Jerry]

I have had stage 1 colon cancer (cancer confined to polyp in colon and not spread -- good news) I am trying to increase my odds of avoiding a recurrence. I have easily been able to stop eating beef (switched to chicken), but it is difficult for me to cut down on eggs, which have been implicated to some extent in prostrate cancer and maybe one study dealing with colon cancer. I also exercise 7 days a week, which is supposed to be protective.

I recently came across the work of Dr. John Ioannidis, probably the most respected researcher on the topic of the problems caused by non-reproducible research and he strongly questions most nutritional research and his conclusions have been:

"In a new op-ed in JAMA, Dr. Ioannidis bluntly states that nutrition epidemiology is in need of "radical reform."

********

"Selective reporting means that any study which shows a link between bacon and early death is likelier to be published than one that doesn't show a link. Combined, Dr. Ioannidis believes that residual confounding and selective reporting have created a systemic bias in nutrition research.

Even worse, Dr. Ioannidis blames food and nutrition activists for distorting research.""https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/08/24/john-ioannidis-aims-his-bazooka-nutrition-science-13357 For more background see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/10/modern-scientific-controversies-part-7-the-meat-war/

Had a meeting with my surgeon Tuesday and asked him for his gut reaction to various foods that have been implicated in colon cancer, and he stated that he would stay away from processed foods because they have so many chemicals.

I am not trying to be political here. Simply trying to do everything I can to better my own odds.

Glad they caught it early, Buck. Your odds are very good for a long-term favorable prognosis.

That disease hits home for me as both my Dad and grandfather had it.

As some have suggested, the evidence on nutritional links to this cancer and others is at least open to question but nevertheless has become conventional wisdom in some quarters. Keep in mind that for decades the experts insisted that fat was the main problem in Western diets, but evidence of recent years points increasingly to sugar/carbs.

If you've settled on a dietary approach that you're comfortable and confident with, then go for it, but I don't think you need to be obsessive about eggs or anything else.

On the other hand, there is fairly overwhelming evidence on the benefits of exercise and weight control -- and the connection between obesity and any number of serious health problems, to include various kinds of cancer. Body Mass Index and waist size are the key indicators. If you're in the "normal" range for your height, you're well ahead of the game.

Good luck going forward.

 

[dailybuck777]

Every food (and every everything else) is nothing but chemicals.

I think the problem with this issue centers around three things.

1. The nature of nutrition research is such that it is very hard to do well. Unlike some other science experiments, you can't hold all the variables constant except for one and then see what happens when that one variable changes. Not only can you not hold all the variables constant except one, it's hard to even measure the variables correctly.

If you do a case-control study where you find some people that have colon cancer and others that do not and you look backwards in time to see what factors in their lives were different and thus what might have caused their colon cancer, all you can do is ask them about their lives in the past. "Over the past five years, how often have you eaten broccoli? Never, less than 1 time per month, 2-3 times per month, 1 time per week, 2-3 times per week, or 4 or more times per week?" Imagine questions like that over and over. And many other questions in that vein about a bunch of other things. Lots of people don't remember. Lots of other people lie. It could be that the last five years aren't relevant anyway. Etc. And a cohort study, where you follow people over time (decades) and see which ones develop colon cancer and which ones don't, is even harder to do.

2. There is individual variability. With something like a poison or a vaccine it's easier. Almost everybody that gets the poison dies. Almost everybody that gets the vaccine becomes immune to the disease. But with diet, although some foods are better or worse on the population level, on the individual level it can vary. Maybe eating a lot of Food X increases the risk of cancer on 60% of the people, has no effect on 30% of the people and decreases the risk of cancer on 10% of the people. So overall it's harmful but for 40% of the people it's not harmful and for 10% of the people it's actually helpful. And it's hard to tell which of those groups you fall into.

3. This one is a combination of three things, those being (a) because of the inexact nature of this stuff, it's hard to communicate, (b) journalists that write about this stuff often don't understand the subtleties and aren't motivated to communicate the subtleties anyway and (c) the reading public isn't interested in the subtleties and instead want a definitive, easy to follow bottom line they can follow.

Thus we get a news story saying "Food X causes cancer" and then the next year we get another news story saying "Food X prevents cancer" and then the next year we get another news story saying "Food X is unrelated to cancer." And the general public throws up their hands and says "I don't know what Food X does, but I know that the people doing these studies don't know what they're doing because they keep changing their story." But of course, it only looks like that on the surface because there was never a definitive conclusion that Food X caused, prevented or was unrelated to cancer in the first place but it just seems that way because that is how the media reported it.

All that said, what I'd say is that other than situations where a person has issues that mitigate against exercise, exercise is just about always helpful or at worst neutral. So if you can exercise, do it. And although sometimes it's hard to tell whether fruits & vegetables do no good, or a little good or a lot of good, I don't think anybody thinks they do harm, so consuming a lot of those is good.

But with regards to colon cancer, I don't think you go from zero to cancer. I think you go from zero to a polyp to an adenoma to cancer. (You can look that up to get more specifics.) So getting a colonoscopy and catching the polyps before they can turn into something worse is good and I suspect your doctor told you the same thing. So get colonoscopies as frequently as your doctor says would be my (non-physician) advice, especially if you've had Stage I colon cancer already.

This reminds me of Warren Zevon. Warren Zevon didn't go to a doctor for many years and then when he finally went, he had advanced cancer that couldn't be stopped. After that, he went on the Letterman show where I think they gave him the whole hour, both to talk and to play music. On the show he said "I might have made a tactical error not going to a physician for 20 years. It was one of those phobias that didn't pay off."

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/156589-i-might-have-made-a-tactical-error-not-going-to

Thanks for your very nice summary. Your risk analysis was very good. No harm in eating vegetables and it might help. Too bad no definitive science at this time.

 

[nittanyfan333]

Sorry about your diagnosis and prayers sent for you.

I don't know the details or the why behind it, but when i was doing my research into the Keto diet to decide if i wanted to do it, I read A LOT about Keto and its benefits for cancer fighting. Again, I don't know the how or why, as I only looked into Keto for triglyceride and cholesterol lowering and weight loss, and NOT cancer fighting, but there is more and more research out there. Quick search found this published paper:

doi: 10.18632/aging.101382
Ketogenic diet in cancer therapy

"The Ketogenic Diet (KD), a high-fat/low-carbohydrate/adequate-protein diet, has recently been proposed as an adjuvant therapy in cancer treatment [1]. KDs target the Warburg effect, a biochemical phenomenon in which cancer cells predominantly utilize glycolysis instead of oxidative phosphorylation to produce ATP. Furthermore, some cancers lack the ability to metabolize ketone bodies, due to mitochondrial dysfunction and down-regulation of enzymes necessary for ketone utilization [2]. Thus, the rationale in providing a fat-rich, low-carbohydrate diet in cancer therapy is to reduce circulating glucose levels and induce ketosis such that cancer cells are starved of energy while normal cells adapt their metabolism to use ketone bodies and survive. Furthermore, by reducing blood glucose also levels of insulin and insulin-like growth factor, which are important drivers of cancer cell proliferation, drop."

Looks like there have been 3 pre-clinical studies showing anti-tumor effect with no side effects or pro-tumor effects in regards to colon cancer. still early, and no clinical tests, but promising nonetheless. I'd suggest looking into it. here's a good website to check out.

https://charliefoundation.org/keto-for-cancer/

 

[Player2BNamedL8r]

I can’t offer as much as many of the better versed posters have already done, but I do wish you the best of health and happiness...keep kicking cancer’s ass and stop by s frequently as you can to keep us updated. Thoughts and prayers to you sir!

 

[niteowlgt]

Brazil nuts have the highest source of selenium, a food that is considered one of the best for a healthy colon. My colon doc said whatever I'm doing keep it up. That was when I started eating a couple a day. Hope this is beneficial info.

 

[WestSideLion]

If you have an oncologist - I assume you do - then that person should be able to connect you with an oncology nutritionist.

I would not solicit this kind of advice on a football message board. I doubt there is an abundance of oncologists here. Those noble folks are off saving lives in their spare time.

 

[SoParkLion]

Brazil nuts have the highest source of selenium, a food that is considered one of the best for a healthy colon. My colon doc said whatever I'm doing keep.

Celery has selenium and raises your testosterone.

 

[hwk23]

Turmeric and high fiber tubers specifically help prevent colon cancer. There’s a society in Africa known for eating tubers, large bowel movements and very low colon cancer. Also reduce sugar as much as possible.
Eat to Beat Disease by William Li MD is a good book. He also has YouTube videos and a Ted-talk.

 

[dailybuck777]

If you have an oncologist - I assume you do - then that person should be able to connect you with an oncology nutritionist.

I would not solicit this kind of advice on a football message board. I doubt there is an abundance of oncologists here. Those noble folks are off saving lives in their spare time.

I have already talked to the nutritionist that my surgeon referred me to. In light of the fads and sometimes biased nutritional research, I want to do my own deep dive. She told me to stay away from red meat and eat a wide variety of vegetables -- which is reasonable to me. She is undoubtedly giving me the mainstream view.

However, John Ioannides is a highly respected researcher and if thinks there are substantial problems with nutritional research, it is worth taking a second look.

 

[dailybuck777]

Sorry about your diagnosis and prayers sent for you.

I don't know the details or the why behind it, but when i was doing my research into the Keto diet to decide if i wanted to do it, I read A LOT about Keto and its benefits for cancer fighting. Again, I don't know the how or why, as I only looked into Keto for triglyceride and cholesterol lowering and weight loss, and NOT cancer fighting, but there is more and more research out there. Quick search found this published paper:

doi: 10.18632/aging.101382
Ketogenic diet in cancer therapy

"The Ketogenic Diet (KD), a high-fat/low-carbohydrate/adequate-protein diet, has recently been proposed as an adjuvant therapy in cancer treatment [1]. KDs target the Warburg effect, a biochemical phenomenon in which cancer cells predominantly utilize glycolysis instead of oxidative phosphorylation to produce ATP. Furthermore, some cancers lack the ability to metabolize ketone bodies, due to mitochondrial dysfunction and down-regulation of enzymes necessary for ketone utilization [2]. Thus, the rationale in providing a fat-rich, low-carbohydrate diet in cancer therapy is to reduce circulating glucose levels and induce ketosis such that cancer cells are starved of energy while normal cells adapt their metabolism to use ketone bodies and survive. Furthermore, by reducing blood glucose also levels of insulin and insulin-like growth factor, which are important drivers of cancer cell proliferation, drop."

Looks like there have been 3 pre-clinical studies showing anti-tumor effect with no side effects or pro-tumor effects in regards to colon cancer. still early, and no clinical tests, but promising nonetheless. I'd suggest looking into it. here's a good website to check out.

https://charliefoundation.org/keto-for-cancer/

Thanks. Will check it out. My nutritionist mentioned something similar to raise my good cholesterol, which is a tad low.

 

[dailybuck777]

Glad they caught it early, Buck. Your odds are very good for a long-term favorable prognosis.

That disease hits home for me as both my Dad and grandfather had it.

As some have suggested, the evidence on nutritional links to this cancer and others is at least open to question but nevertheless has become conventional wisdom in some quarters. Keep in mind that for decades the experts insisted that fat was the main problem in Western diets, but evidence of recent years points increasingly to sugar/carbs.

If you've settled on a dietary approach that you're comfortable and confident with, then go for it, but I don't think you need to be obsessive about eggs or anything else.

On the other hand, there is fairly overwhelming evidence on the benefits of exercise and weight control -- and the connection between obesity and any number of serious health problems, to include various kinds of cancer. Body Mass Index and waist size are the key indicators. If you're in the "normal" range for your height, you're well ahead of the game.

Good luck going forward.

I have kept my weight down for a long time. No chance, I will get fat. For last 2 years, I have been able to regularly schedule both lifting and cardiovascular, which undoubtedly helps a lot and makes me a lot feel better.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Exercise is important for sure. Also a high fiber diet keeps things moving and the bowel cleaned out better. I suggest youtube or books by Dr Mark Hyman of the Cleveland Clinic. He has ten NYT best sellers on nutrition. Explains why fat in diet is critical, just the right fats.

 

[Harrisburg Dave]

I have had stage 1 colon cancer (cancer confined to polyp in colon and not spread -- good news) I am trying to increase my odds of avoiding a recurrence. I have easily been able to stop eating beef (switched to chicken), but it is difficult for me to cut down on eggs, which have been implicated to some extent in prostrate cancer and maybe one study dealing with colon cancer. I also exercise 7 days a week, which is supposed to be protective.

I recently came across the work of Dr. John Ioannidis, probably the most respected researcher on the topic of the problems caused by non-reproducible research and he strongly questions most nutritional research and his conclusions have been:

"In a new op-ed in JAMA, Dr. Ioannidis bluntly states that nutrition epidemiology is in need of "radical reform."

********

"Selective reporting means that any study which shows a link between bacon and early death is likelier to be published than one that doesn't show a link. Combined, Dr. Ioannidis believes that residual confounding and selective reporting have created a systemic bias in nutrition research.

Even worse, Dr. Ioannidis blames food and nutrition activists for distorting research.""https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/08/24/john-ioannidis-aims-his-bazooka-nutrition-science-13357 For more background see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/10/modern-scientific-controversies-part-7-the-meat-war/

Had a meeting with my surgeon Tuesday and asked him for his gut reaction to various foods that have been implicated in colon cancer, and he stated that he would stay away from processed foods because they have so many chemicals.

I am not trying to be political here. Simply trying to do everything I can to better my own odds.

Ok, this comes from someone who, on a couple occasions, was a step away from shaking hands with the Grim Reaper..

Life is made worthwhile due to our experiences in living it, over just tabulating longevity.

We each have to decide what makes life valuable to us. For some it is sex. For others it is sleeping. Some guys prefer mountain climbing, while others like a rocking chair.

My suggestion? Do what you like, don’t fear death, and embrace life. Everything else is detail.

Oh, and eat as much prime rib as possible.

 

[Harrisburg Dave]

To paraphrase Shakespeare, “First thing we do is kill all the nutritionists.”

Something is going to kill you, and based upon what I’ve seen happen to friends and family your cause of death will probably not be what you expect or prepare for. That’s the irony of “life”.

Few of us die of old age at 105. I know I don’t want to go that way anyway.

 

[Op2]

To paraphrase Shakespeare, “First thing we do is kill all the nutritionists.”

Something is going to kill you, and based upon what I’ve seen happen to friends and family your cause of death will probably not be what you expect or prepare for. That’s the irony of “life”.

Few of us die of old age at 105. I know I don’t want to go that way anyway.

The leading cause of death is life.

 

[Harrisburg Dave]

The leading cause of death is life.

You got that right.

I have “outlived” my father, grandfather, and uncle by 17 years. They all died young. Ok. Why did it take me so long to realize that does not matter?

What really matters is to use your time here in interesting ways. My major regret is looking back and acknowledging the opportunities I wasted.

 

[dailybuck777]

Ok, this comes from someone who, on a couple occasions, was a step away from shaking hands with the Grim Reaper..

Life is made worthwhile due to our experiences in living it, over just tabulating longevity.

We each have to decide what makes life valuable to us. For some it is sex. For others it is sleeping. Some guys prefer mountain climbing, while others like a rocking chair.

My suggestion? Do what you like, don’t fear death, and embrace life. Everything else is detail.

Oh, and eat as much prime rib as possible.

Dave, you express a very valid point of view. However, I have somewhat special circumstances. My children's (Boy 18 and girl 14) mother died in 2008 and I had them at a fairly old age. If I go, there are no reasonably young people to take care of my kids. I feel a special responsibility to take care of them.

 

[LionsandBear]

First and foremost I will pray for you and the staff as they treat you! Secondly, I personally avoid processed foods, bread, pasta, rice and sugar. A year ago I made the switch to stevia. The taste took awhile to get used to but I've since come to enjoy it. Sugar in it's many forms is probably the biggest killer in this country. God Bless!

 

[The Spin Meister]

Dave, you express a very valid point of view. However, I have somewhat special circumstances. My children's (Boy 18 and girl 14) mother died in 2008 and I had them at a fairly old age. If I go, there are no reasonably young people to take care of my kids. I feel a special responsibility to take care of them.

---------
It has to be a balance of the two, longevity vs quality. One need not live a life of denial to extend the years you get. Make good choices that increase the odds.

One benefit of a good nutritional plan combined with exercise is that approach makes one stronger to overcome setbacks. It can also make the years you get much more enjoyable. Overcoming a disease well enough to get out and about is much better than being house bound.

Additionally, having good nutrition and exercising is not some self torture program. You can eat delicious foods that are healthy and finding an exercise program that you enjoy is wonderful.

Life is a game of poker; you have to play the cards you are dealt but good players know how to get te most value out of those cards.

 

[Harrisburg Dave]

Dave, you express a very valid point of view. However, I have somewhat special circumstances. My children's (Boy 18 and girl 14) mother died in 2008 and I had them at a fairly old age. If I go, there are no reasonably young people to take care of my kids. I feel a special responsibility to take care of them.

I understand. Prepare for the worst and live to the best.

I can tell you I was where you were as well. I had a family to take care of, and think about.

My illness killed our finances, cost my kids opportunities, and took me to a dark place.

You know what? My kids survived, they still love me, and life continued.

My father did not get to see me grow up. I know he had the same thoughts. I did ok, mostly because he taught me to be a good person, not because of what he left me in the way of material things.

Worry less, live and love more. Things will be fine.

BTW, find a woman and live. It will be good for you and them.

 

[MJG-90]

My suggestion, eliminate all processed foods. Stick as much as possible to foods found on the perimeter of the grocery store (produce, meet, dairy). Cutting down on beef might be good, but you need iron. Don’t eliminate beef, just eat 4 oz portions instead of a 12 oz steak. More fish - wild caught Alaskan salmon is great for you. Lots of colorful veggies. A big salad without crappy dressing (use oil and vinegar if you don’t want to pay for high quality dressings). No croutons either. Just veggies, eggs, meat and a little cheese if you want. The keto idea above is sound. Coincidentally I just read an article this week on the topic. I’ll see if I can track it down for you.

 

[WestSideLion]

I have already talked to the nutritionist that my surgeon referred me to. In light of the fads and sometimes biased nutritional research, I want to do my own deep dive. She told me to stay away from red meat and eat a wide variety of vegetables -- which is reasonable to me. She is undoubtedly giving me the mainstream view.

However, John Ioannides is a highly respected researcher and if thinks there are substantial problems with nutritional research, it is worth taking a second look.

I hear you and am speaking as a colon cancer survivor in my own right. John is well respected and practices/teaches in my backyard here at Stanford. I am sure there are oncology nutritionists out there with similar philosophies. I just wouldn’t seek philosophies here.

 

[MJG-90]

This is the article I mentioned above.

https://www.marksdailyapple.com/keto-and-cancer/

 

[The Spin Meister]

My suggestion, eliminate all processed foods. Stick as much as possible to foods found on the perimeter of the grocery store (produce, meet, dairy). Cutting down on beef might be good, but you need iron. Don’t eliminate beef, just eat 4 oz portions instead of a 12 oz steak. More fish - wild caught Alaskan salmon is great for you. Lots of colorful veggies. A big salad without crappy dressing (use oil and vinegar if you don’t want to pay for high quality dressings). No croutons either. Just veggies, eggs, meat and a little cheese if you want. The keto idea above is sound. Coincidentally I just read an article this week on the topic. I’ll see if I can track it down for you.

I would also add lots of nuts, especially walnuts. They will lower cholesterol and have good fatty acids. Red meat should be grass fed....expensive if in a big city but if you live near a rural area you may be able to find a local farmer that has grass fed beef. Or go to a true butcher shop instead of a grocer. And buy in bulk to reduce cost. Buy a hind quarter and cut it up your self. Grass fed are leaner w lower bad fats and no, or fewer, additives like antibiotics and hormones. Use olive oil or coconut oil. No palm or soy oil.

 

[MJG-90]

Use olive oil or coconut oil. No palm or soy oil.

Avocado oil is my preference.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Avocado oil is my preference.

Dr Hyman praises avocados. Says they are the best fruit of all with a very good fatty acid profile.

 

[The Spin Meister]

This is the article I mentioned above.

https://www.marksdailyapple.com/keto-and-cancer/

This is the article I mentioned above.

https://www.marksdailyapple.com/keto-and-cancer/

---
Good article with interesting explanations as to how it supposedly works. Lot more science to do yet.

Especially liked the page on hormetic stressors and how plant phytochemicals may work to improve health.

You know all those colorful plant pigments with an impressive track record on promoting good health? Evidence is accumulating that many of the polyphenols, phenolic acids, and other bioactive phytochemicals exert some of their health effects via hormesis. Instead of evolving expressly for the benefit of Whole Foods shoppers, phytochemicals exist to protect plants from oxidative stress and to ward off pests. That’s right: they are natural pesticides, plant toxins meant to keep bugs and other pests away. They won’t kill us, of course, but they will irritate us enough to induce a compensatory adaptive response at the cellular level that results in many of the benefits attributed to fruits and vegetables. If we were eating blueberries the size of Volkswagens we might not survive the anthocyanin overdose, but a handful or two appears to be perfectly safe and even healthful.

 

[heckmans]

I have had stage 1 colon cancer (cancer confined to polyp in colon and not spread -- good news) I am trying to increase my odds of avoiding a recurrence. I have easily been able to stop eating beef (switched to chicken), but it is difficult for me to cut down on eggs, which have been implicated to some extent in prostrate cancer and maybe one study dealing with colon cancer. I also exercise 7 days a week, which is supposed to be protective.

I recently came across the work of Dr. John Ioannidis, probably the most respected researcher on the topic of the problems caused by non-reproducible research and he strongly questions most nutritional research and his conclusions have been:

"In a new op-ed in JAMA, Dr. Ioannidis bluntly states that nutrition epidemiology is in need of "radical reform."

********

"Selective reporting means that any study which shows a link between bacon and early death is likelier to be published than one that doesn't show a link. Combined, Dr. Ioannidis believes that residual confounding and selective reporting have created a systemic bias in nutrition research.

Even worse, Dr. Ioannidis blames food and nutrition activists for distorting research.""https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/08/24/john-ioannidis-aims-his-bazooka-nutrition-science-13357 For more background see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/10/modern-scientific-controversies-part-7-the-meat-war/

Had a meeting with my surgeon Tuesday and asked him for his gut reaction to various foods that have been implicated in colon cancer, and he stated that he would stay away from processed foods because they have so many chemicals.

I am not trying to be political here. Simply trying to do everything I can to better my own odds.

I won't claim to be an expert, but I have some advice for you to research. I have a general inflammation issue in my body, which is a marker for cancer so I have tried to research. A family friend is a retired teacher who got into herbal/natural health after retiring. She is now 70+ and takes 0 meds. She has given me some advice and gotten her M.D. to "admit" a few things.
So my understanding is that cancer cannot exist in an alkaline environment. Humans should be just in the basic end of the pH scale. Most people, due to diet, tend to be a bit acidic.
Long story short, add turmeric and ginger supplements to your diet and each morning drink a glass of lemon water with pink Himalayan sea salt. The minerals in the cocktail will raise pH. You can Google the mixture.
Ultimately, do your own research, but I can at least attest to turmeric reducing inflammation. Good luck!

 

[flash86]

As you note, Dr I is a general gadfly of bad research and/or misinterpretations of literature. Much nutrition research can be susceptible to noses and bad design as the really big questions - does processed meat cause cancer? - can’t really be addressed well prospectively in humans.

I’d add that the recent NutriRECS paper on red meat consumption didn’t really help; although published in Annals of Internal Medicine, there have been a number of quality issues brought up about it. Also, there is concern about undisclosed conflicts and bias ...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...didnt-report-past-food-industry-ties.amp.html

I have had stage 1 colon cancer (cancer confined to polyp in colon and not spread -- good news) I am trying to increase my odds of avoiding a recurrence. I have easily been able to stop eating beef (switched to chicken), but it is difficult for me to cut down on eggs, which have been implicated to some extent in prostrate cancer and maybe one study dealing with colon cancer. I also exercise 7 days a week, which is supposed to be protective.

I recently came across the work of Dr. John Ioannidis, probably the most respected researcher on the topic of the problems caused by non-reproducible research and he strongly questions most nutritional research and his conclusions have been:

"In a new op-ed in JAMA, Dr. Ioannidis bluntly states that nutrition epidemiology is in need of "radical reform."

********

"Selective reporting means that any study which shows a link between bacon and early death is likelier to be published than one that doesn't show a link. Combined, Dr. Ioannidis believes that residual confounding and selective reporting have created a systemic bias in nutrition research.

Even worse, Dr. Ioannidis blames food and nutrition activists for distorting research.""https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/08/24/john-ioannidis-aims-his-bazooka-nutrition-science-13357 For more background see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/10/modern-scientific-controversies-part-7-the-meat-war/

Had a meeting with my surgeon Tuesday and asked him for his gut reaction to various foods that have been implicated in colon cancer, and he stated that he would stay away from processed foods because they have so many chemicals.

I am not trying to be political here. Simply trying to do everything I can to better my own odds.

 

[flash86]

The pH issue issue is a distraction. Tumors tend to be acidic. BUT humans can’t significantly change the pH of our body around them. Our body has many mechanisms that kick in to keep our body pH in a very narrow range a little higher than pH 7 (around 7.4). Our body won’t allow ourselves to become alkaline enough to mimic in vitro studies, ‘cause any one who got that basic would die.

Agree about inflammation; probably still underrated! And then there’s news about a relationship between pancreatic cancer and certain fungal colonization/infection of the pancreas. One of my Med school professors had a well known lecture that everything was caused by infectious disease. I giggled quietly - I “knew” cancer was just genetic screwups. But since that time in 19xx, we now know viruses are associates with leukemias, lymphomas, cancers of the cervix, anus, and head/neck; bacteria with cancers and lymphomas of the stomach; and now maybe fungi too! And more.

I won't claim to be an expert, but I have some advice for you to research. I have a general inflammation issue in my body, which is a marker for cancer so I have tried to research. A family friend is a retired teacher who got into herbal/natural health after retiring. She is now 70+ and takes 0 meds. She has given me some advice and gotten her M.D. to "admit" a few things.
So my understanding is that cancer cannot exist in an alkaline environment. Humans should be just in the basic end of the pH scale. Most people, due to diet, tend to be a bit acidic.
Long story short, add turmeric and ginger supplements to your diet and each morning drink a glass of lemon water with pink Himalayan sea salt. The minerals in the cocktail will raise pH. You can Google the mixture.
Ultimately, do your own research, but I can at least attest to turmeric reducing inflammation. Good luck!

 

[rumble_lion]

I have had stage 1 colon cancer (cancer confined to polyp in colon and not spread -- good news) I am trying to increase my odds of avoiding a recurrence. I have easily been able to stop eating beef (switched to chicken), but it is difficult for me to cut down on eggs, which have been implicated to some extent in prostrate cancer and maybe one study dealing with colon cancer. I also exercise 7 days a week, which is supposed to be protective.

I recently came across the work of Dr. John Ioannidis, probably the most respected researcher on the topic of the problems caused by non-reproducible research and he strongly questions most nutritional research and his conclusions have been:

"In a new op-ed in JAMA, Dr. Ioannidis bluntly states that nutrition epidemiology is in need of "radical reform."

********

"Selective reporting means that any study which shows a link between bacon and early death is likelier to be published than one that doesn't show a link. Combined, Dr. Ioannidis believes that residual confounding and selective reporting have created a systemic bias in nutrition research.

Even worse, Dr. Ioannidis blames food and nutrition activists for distorting research.""https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/08/24/john-ioannidis-aims-his-bazooka-nutrition-science-13357 For more background see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/10/modern-scientific-controversies-part-7-the-meat-war/

Had a meeting with my surgeon Tuesday and asked him for his gut reaction to various foods that have been implicated in colon cancer, and he stated that he would stay away from processed foods because they have so many chemicals.

I am not trying to be political here. Simply trying to do everything I can to better my own odds.

The world health organization classifies process meat as a group 1 carcinogen.

If you are really serious you need to stop eating meat.

https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

7. Red meat was classified as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean exactly?
In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence.

Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.

8. Processed meat was classified as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean?
This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. In other words, there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer. The evaluation is usually based on epidemiological studies showing the development of cancer in exposed humans.

In the case of processed meat, this classification is based on sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer.​

 

[Op2]

The world health organization classifies process meat as a group 1 carcinogen.

If you are really serious you need to stop eating meat.

https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

7. Red meat was classified as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean exactly?
In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence.

Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.

8. Processed meat was classified as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean?
This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. In other words, there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer. The evaluation is usually based on epidemiological studies showing the development of cancer in exposed humans.

In the case of processed meat, this classification is based on sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer.​

Then again, there was an article published in the Annals of Internal Medicine just a couple weeks ago saying that the danger of eating meat has been exaggerated that's not causing an uprorar, and I don't link to a particular article on it because people can google it themselves and see various articles on it taking one slant or another, rather than having the one slant they see be the one I linked to.

 

[jabba2]

I would buy a juicer and start juicing vegetables so you can eat them raw, Also try wheatgrass powder on amazon. Just start eating more raw vegetables. Would also try a dirt cheap cancer remedy. Baking soda. Mix a teaspoon with a small amount of water or juice or whatever every day.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Then again, there was an article published in the Annals of Internal Medicine just a couple weeks ago saying that the danger of eating meat has been exaggerated that's not causing an uprorar, and I don't link to a particular article on it because people can google it themselves and see various articles on it taking one slant or another, rather than having the one slant they see be the one I linked to.

Some say the 'meat studies' were flawed because people that eat a lot of meat are people that don't really watch their diet much. So they eat bad stuff that may have tipped the scales, like junk food. Also, less likely to exercise and may have had more bad habits like smoking or alcohol. Eating Mickey D burgers six times a week usually means also eating large buns with lots of goo, a side of fries, and lots of terrible soda pop.

Vegans are more likely to exercise, have few bad habits, overall take much better care of themselves.

Thats a huge problem with nutritional studies in humans. Too many variables.