This information in this post was gathered from the most recent version of Cancer Facts and Figures 2013, published by the American Cancer Society.
New cases of cancer projected for 2013 are primarily of the lung, breast, colon/rectum and prostate. The biggest killers, based on my quick scanning of the number projected to occur and the number projected to cause death, are lung, colon and pancreas. The number of new cases of pancreatic cancer are a quarter that of lung cancer, and 13% them will die. Half the lung cancer patients will also die (slightly more men than women). Tobacco is expected to contribute to 174,100 of the 2013 cancer deaths (most will be from lung cancer). In the American Cancer Society report, a chart showing the trends for cancer death rates is remarkable in its depiction of lung cancer. It trends up for both men and women, hitting a peak for men about ten years earlier - and has been declining in men from about 1990 and more recently for women. A review of the research on smoking suggests that these trends are related to when men and woman started to smoke (different era) and when they started to quit. It is the kind of graph that smoking friendly countries need to consider. The incidence of cancer comes some ten to twenty years after smoking rates pick up.
We lack effective treatments for pancreatic, lung and colon cancers. However, colon cancer is one that can be prevented, like cervical cancer, by regular screenings which identify pre cancerous lesions that can be removed. (Breast cancer is one that continues to occur but kills less people because of treatment options)
What is most important from my position in public health is that as much as 33% of the projected new cancer cases could be prevented because they are associated with poor diet, overweight/obesity and lack of physical activity.
Cancers that are caused by infections, such as HPV, HBV, and HCV may be avoided with vaccines. HIV related cancer can be reduced by preventing the transmission of HIV through safer sexual contact.
Other risks for cancer include genetic and environmental. Usually a series of events occur before cells mutate into cancer. We are getting better at finding cancer sooner, but it can be as many as ten years from an exposure to a diagnosis (think smoking, suntanning, CT scans, phthalates in plastic, etc).
There is so much more to tell you, and I regret not having the time to really dive into this report - as I have in years previous. Instead, I strongly encourage you to open this document. The introduction alone is worth its length in gold. It explains what cancer is, what may lead to it, how it is diagnosed and staged and what certain terms like life time risk and relative risk mean.
Briefly, the life time risk of developing any type of cancer is about 44% for men and 38% of women. This is in general and does not take into account any of your individual risks or protective factors (i.e., it could be higher or lower for you). The life time risk for a certain cancer maybe higher or lower than those numbers as well. Relative risk, as explained in the document, is when you compare a persons risk to someone elses - someone who may be different. For example, the relative risk of lung cancer between smokers and non smokers, or colon cancer between those who eat a plant based diet and those who eat a meat based diet.
Please take the time to look at the document. I know you have heard about this on the news lately - or seen newspaper articles, but its not the same as "being there".
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Friday, January 18, 2013
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Good Riddance Radiation
I was so happy when I heard about this a week ago that I almost stopped my exams to blog about it.
The airport scanners that use radiation - ones I have railed against in the pages of this blog site - are getting the boot. Here is a link to just one of those examples.
I would love to say that the complaints and concerns of people like me who value the health of the public and recognize that any amount of radiation is a risk, made this happen. We did not. Instead, the machines have been difficult to maintain, have technical glitches and may be improperly used by some airport employees. Here is a short story about the removal of the machines from NYC airports.
As they go, the reason doesn't matter so much - as long as they go. Unfortunately, some of them are being recommissioned to smaller airports where I suppose the staff have the time to deal with problems.
The airport scanners that use radiation - ones I have railed against in the pages of this blog site - are getting the boot. Here is a link to just one of those examples.
I would love to say that the complaints and concerns of people like me who value the health of the public and recognize that any amount of radiation is a risk, made this happen. We did not. Instead, the machines have been difficult to maintain, have technical glitches and may be improperly used by some airport employees. Here is a short story about the removal of the machines from NYC airports.
As they go, the reason doesn't matter so much - as long as they go. Unfortunately, some of them are being recommissioned to smaller airports where I suppose the staff have the time to deal with problems.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Let's Make Prevention the Priority
At the end of August, the World Cancer Congress 2012 was held in Canada. The congress is a meeting of professionals - research and practice - that occurs every two years. The purpose is to share experience and knowledge to impact change in cancer occurrence and outcomes (death).
Once again, but with growing unity and urgency, people who study cancer in labs, communities and patients and those who treat patients, tell us that at the very least 50% of cancer can be prevented.
Prevented by what we do, what we are exposed to, whether or not we are immune to viruses (HPV, HCV, HBV) and the screenings we complete (PAP, sigmoidoscopy).
Graham Colditz, PhD, DrPH was one of the presenters. He notes smoking as the cause of 30% of all cancer and said that reducing smoking rates to 11% (like in Utah) would reduce smoking related cancers by 75%. He also noted that being overweight accounts for about 20% of cancers (and that to prevent cancer the BMI range should be between 21 to 23). Physical inactivity and poor diet ( defined as a diet that does not include the better foods in adequate amounts and does not limit others (salt, trans fat, sat fat, sugar) each cause about 5% of cancer and if improved would reduce the new cases of cancer substantially.
I have no doubt that this is true. Therefore, I have strong reservations on spending my money (donations) or the governments money to explore treatment/cures when we are doing nothing to stop the cases from coming. It is like this familiar health care story. Do we keep training EMTs, buying ambulances and expanding hospital ER rooms to treat drowning victims - or do we fix the hole in the bridge. Public health folks, like me, want to fix the bridge. {some people would do neither and just educate people to stop falling into the hole!}
I would like money to be spent on improving our environment so that eating well, moving more, consuming the right amount of calories, getting appropriate and evidence based health screenings and vaccinations is EASY. (even if this means some kind of regulation)
We are fools to keep treating things that we can prevent. (I in no way place blame on cancer or heart disease patients and I am not suggesting that we not treat their illnesses. [the pharmaceutical industry would never have that!] I just want to point out the futility on a population level. I see the environment and health care system as places to intervene, and when situations are truly conducive to good health, then I view personal responsibility as a possible nationwide focus.)
See more about the World Cancer Congress and the UICC here.
{note when looking at studies or speeches like this - there are two sets of numbers to explore - the percent of cancer that is accounted for by a factor and the amount that can be prevented if that factor is addressed}
Once again, but with growing unity and urgency, people who study cancer in labs, communities and patients and those who treat patients, tell us that at the very least 50% of cancer can be prevented.
Prevented by what we do, what we are exposed to, whether or not we are immune to viruses (HPV, HCV, HBV) and the screenings we complete (PAP, sigmoidoscopy).
Graham Colditz, PhD, DrPH was one of the presenters. He notes smoking as the cause of 30% of all cancer and said that reducing smoking rates to 11% (like in Utah) would reduce smoking related cancers by 75%. He also noted that being overweight accounts for about 20% of cancers (and that to prevent cancer the BMI range should be between 21 to 23). Physical inactivity and poor diet ( defined as a diet that does not include the better foods in adequate amounts and does not limit others (salt, trans fat, sat fat, sugar) each cause about 5% of cancer and if improved would reduce the new cases of cancer substantially.
I have no doubt that this is true. Therefore, I have strong reservations on spending my money (donations) or the governments money to explore treatment/cures when we are doing nothing to stop the cases from coming. It is like this familiar health care story. Do we keep training EMTs, buying ambulances and expanding hospital ER rooms to treat drowning victims - or do we fix the hole in the bridge. Public health folks, like me, want to fix the bridge. {some people would do neither and just educate people to stop falling into the hole!}
I would like money to be spent on improving our environment so that eating well, moving more, consuming the right amount of calories, getting appropriate and evidence based health screenings and vaccinations is EASY. (even if this means some kind of regulation)
We are fools to keep treating things that we can prevent. (I in no way place blame on cancer or heart disease patients and I am not suggesting that we not treat their illnesses. [the pharmaceutical industry would never have that!] I just want to point out the futility on a population level. I see the environment and health care system as places to intervene, and when situations are truly conducive to good health, then I view personal responsibility as a possible nationwide focus.)
See more about the World Cancer Congress and the UICC here.
{note when looking at studies or speeches like this - there are two sets of numbers to explore - the percent of cancer that is accounted for by a factor and the amount that can be prevented if that factor is addressed}
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Lung Cancer Addendum
I want to revisit this just briefly today as I still worry over the confusion that follows a statement such as the one I read this weekend. "A majority (60%) of new lung cancer cases are in never and former smokers." It just sends the wrong message and could, if left unchallenged, derail some persons plans to quit smoking.
So again... 85% percent of lung cancer (NSCLC and SCLC) is directly related to cigarette smoking. The people who are diagnosed with lung cancer years after they quit smoking did NOT get it because they quit, but HAD IT when they quit.
Lung cancer most often begins in the bronchi or tubes of the lungs when cells change into precancerous lesions after coming into repeated contact with carcinogens in the tobacco smoke. (If you ever had a white patch in your mouth, which is referred to as leukoplakia, you can use that as a visual.
Lung tissue changes because of the assault or injury from tobacco smoke and if the cells become cancerous they will multiply incredibly fast. Cancer cells secrete or emit a chemical that creates new blood vessels that actually feed the cancer cells. NONE of this can be seen on an XRAY but it is happening just the same. When a tumor forms from these cancerous cells THEN it can be seen. Symptoms may come at that stage, but not usually before so.
The time it takes for the cells to change into cancerous cells is YEARS and because we have gone from a national smoking rate of 42% to a near 19% we have a LOT of former smokers. These people had lung damage when they stopped smoking they did not get lung damage because they quit.
In NSCLC the tumor is usually isolated and can be removed. In SCLC, the one that does not have many nonsmokers as victims, the spread is so fast and symptomless that treatment must involve drug therapy and the five year survival rate is less than 10 percent.
Many times a smoker will tell me that they had a lung scan and the doctor said that everything was just fine. Here is what I want these people to understand:
The xray or scan will show when you HAVE cancer not that your GETTING cancer.
A person who quits smoking will have at least 1/2 the risk of getting lung cancer after ten years as one who continues to smoke. I have been quit since 1997 and well, I just have to keep my fingers crossed and do everything else healthy that I possibly can.
I understand also that disease sometimes JUST happens but that means that I need to prepare my body for such a challenge by living as healthy a lifestyle that is in my power to live.
So again... 85% percent of lung cancer (NSCLC and SCLC) is directly related to cigarette smoking. The people who are diagnosed with lung cancer years after they quit smoking did NOT get it because they quit, but HAD IT when they quit.
Lung cancer most often begins in the bronchi or tubes of the lungs when cells change into precancerous lesions after coming into repeated contact with carcinogens in the tobacco smoke. (If you ever had a white patch in your mouth, which is referred to as leukoplakia, you can use that as a visual.
Lung tissue changes because of the assault or injury from tobacco smoke and if the cells become cancerous they will multiply incredibly fast. Cancer cells secrete or emit a chemical that creates new blood vessels that actually feed the cancer cells. NONE of this can be seen on an XRAY but it is happening just the same. When a tumor forms from these cancerous cells THEN it can be seen. Symptoms may come at that stage, but not usually before so.
The time it takes for the cells to change into cancerous cells is YEARS and because we have gone from a national smoking rate of 42% to a near 19% we have a LOT of former smokers. These people had lung damage when they stopped smoking they did not get lung damage because they quit.
In NSCLC the tumor is usually isolated and can be removed. In SCLC, the one that does not have many nonsmokers as victims, the spread is so fast and symptomless that treatment must involve drug therapy and the five year survival rate is less than 10 percent.
Many times a smoker will tell me that they had a lung scan and the doctor said that everything was just fine. Here is what I want these people to understand:
The xray or scan will show when you HAVE cancer not that your GETTING cancer.
A person who quits smoking will have at least 1/2 the risk of getting lung cancer after ten years as one who continues to smoke. I have been quit since 1997 and well, I just have to keep my fingers crossed and do everything else healthy that I possibly can.
I understand also that disease sometimes JUST happens but that means that I need to prepare my body for such a challenge by living as healthy a lifestyle that is in my power to live.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Weekly w/ Video
The News:
The American Heart Association: I hope that this volunteer health agency which is comprised of both medical and non medical volunteers is one that you trust. It has been in existence since 1924 and facilitates research into the prevention and treatment of heart disease. Their mission includes reducing deaths from heart attack and stroke by 25%. Research is published in peer reviewed journals and is used to create evidence based guidelines for health care professionals. The AHA recently spoke to Congress and shared concerns that the gains that have been made in reducing the above mentioned deaths will soon be lost due to increasing numbers of heart disease. A major concern is obesity and the Association is urging the government to increase funding for prevention in the schools and community. They are also very clear regarding the consequences of tobacco use and support FDA regulation of tobacco products which would limit if not prohibit some of the marketing and advertising by tobacco companies. The main risk factors for heart disease include: unhealthy weight, poor diet, smoking, and diabetes (type 2). These are modifiable risk factors, in other words, you can control them.
Carcinogens in Products: I am going to start sounding like a broken record but I cannot help but point out this type of discrepancy when I see it. An American consumer interest group had made claims that some Johnson and Johnson baby shampoo and lotions have two chemicals that are known to cause cancer at some level. They are formaldehyde and 1,4 dioxane. I have not researched this myself I only point out that the organization has gotten the attention of the Chinese government where these products are sold. They are also sold here but the FDA is not yet investigating. There is no report of death or illness at this time. This is of note because cigarette smoke contains at least those two chemicals and over 40 more carcinogens. These “cigarettes” are responsible for millions of deaths a year worldwide… so uh, where is the outrage? [post note: this issue has been cleared by China's state food and drug agency]
Pretending to Smoke: What an odd little “game” the children have created. From A WSJ article I learned that kids can crush up certain candies, sort of inhale the dust and then blow out smoke. They even practice blowing smoke rings. All I am saying, kids really need to get out and play more
PSA Testing: I recall talking about this test for prostate cancer when my newsletter was first being published. In the early 2000s then, the concern was whether to test and then whether to treat because this cancer, though the second cancer killer for men, was a slow killer and often the men could live the rest of their lives without much decline in quality of life and likely die of something else before the cancer killed them. [probably they will die from heart disease, no?]. The testing or screening can lead to biopsies and treatment that is rife with side effects. The treatment can be debilitating and or embarrassing. Two very large research studies, studies lasting 15 years, do not offer a disposition. Over 240,000 men were studied. The results were a very slight benefit in one study, but with significant side effect costs and the other found no benefit at all. This is exactly the kind of reporting I want to see on medical devices, tests and treatments. Not that they do not work, but whether or not they work and what the risk to benefit is.
Number One Cancer Killer?: Good question. Though men suffer from prostate cancer and women from breast, the number one killer of both men and women is lung cancer. There may be a higher prevalence of the other cancers, including colorectal, but those with lung cancer generally die from it, while the other cancers have better survival rates.
HDL: The Good Guy: A reader and friend recently asked me to tell him a way to raise his good cholesterol that he didn’t already know. Certainly he knows what most of you know, you raise it through exercise (though not exponentially) but more often those with high HDL have a gene that promotes it. I did take his challenge however and read what I could about the issue from sources that I consider valid or research based. I.e. you are NOT going to hear me recommend a supplement to increase your HDL. What you will get from me is a practical application of what I have vetted. Here it is then. The mayo clinic among others, notes that oils with mono unsaturated fats, like olive and peanut, enhance the anti-inflammatory properties of the HDL. So though you may not be able to change your number you may be able to increase the impact of that number, in my opinion. I strongly suggest that you follow my example from the cooking demos and do not cook in the oils but add limited amounts to your already cooked veggies or to a salad. A teaspoon for example, or even a tablespoon spread throughout the day. It is also true that HDL works in keeping you healthy by carrying out excess bad cholesterol. It is known that certain fibers can also aid in ridding the body of bad cholesterol so again I recommend something like my cereal bars. Lastly, do not smoke. Smoking lowers HDL. Some research supports that red wine may have an HDL promoting effect but not enough to make a standard recommendation for anyone to add wine if they do not currently drink it.
That will bring us to today’s cooking video. The point of these videos is to assist you in eating food, lots of food really, without adding non nutritive and even disease promoting extras.. like saturated FAT and sugar. Today’s show is peanut butter cookies which in fact, are HIGH in fiber… and the peanut butter is a source of monounsaturated fats. These are not your mother’s PB cookies, nor my mom’s which are fantastic.. but this blog is about health not decadence.
Ingredients include:
Smucker’s All Natural Peanut Butter
(do not use jiff, peter pan, etc- for numerous reasons)
Splenda or Altern
Kellog’s All Bran Original
Loose Oat Bran
WATER
Non fat cook spray (butter)
Cookie Sheets
Large microwaveable bowl… glass is best
Heat oven to 375*
I forgot to say this in the video but cook the cookies for 20 minutes and then check them, move pans around, check every five or ten minutes, you will get the idea in time.
This is the original recipe from a cook book I made a long time ago, but it is hard to explain what I mean, thus the video!
4 Tbls smucker’s all natural peanut butter
water
2 c All Bran original
¼ cup loose oat bran
¼ to ½ c loose Splenda
In microwave if available, heat the peanut butter with about 1 ½ c or more water for about 2 minutes, then use beaters to mix this until it is peanut butter colored water mixture, also mix in the sweetener. Then add the cereals, set aside until moist. Mix this again adding some water until it is moister than other cookie dough. I use a scoop to make two trays with 20 cookies on each. Bake at 375, twenty or so minutes until done. More water and less cooking makes them seem moister. It is good to experiment until you like them!! Made my way, each has about 20 calories.
Serving size: 3 cookies
Amount per serving: calories: 60; fiber: 3g; protein: 2g; fat: 2g.
The American Heart Association: I hope that this volunteer health agency which is comprised of both medical and non medical volunteers is one that you trust. It has been in existence since 1924 and facilitates research into the prevention and treatment of heart disease. Their mission includes reducing deaths from heart attack and stroke by 25%. Research is published in peer reviewed journals and is used to create evidence based guidelines for health care professionals. The AHA recently spoke to Congress and shared concerns that the gains that have been made in reducing the above mentioned deaths will soon be lost due to increasing numbers of heart disease. A major concern is obesity and the Association is urging the government to increase funding for prevention in the schools and community. They are also very clear regarding the consequences of tobacco use and support FDA regulation of tobacco products which would limit if not prohibit some of the marketing and advertising by tobacco companies. The main risk factors for heart disease include: unhealthy weight, poor diet, smoking, and diabetes (type 2). These are modifiable risk factors, in other words, you can control them.
Carcinogens in Products: I am going to start sounding like a broken record but I cannot help but point out this type of discrepancy when I see it. An American consumer interest group had made claims that some Johnson and Johnson baby shampoo and lotions have two chemicals that are known to cause cancer at some level. They are formaldehyde and 1,4 dioxane. I have not researched this myself I only point out that the organization has gotten the attention of the Chinese government where these products are sold. They are also sold here but the FDA is not yet investigating. There is no report of death or illness at this time. This is of note because cigarette smoke contains at least those two chemicals and over 40 more carcinogens. These “cigarettes” are responsible for millions of deaths a year worldwide… so uh, where is the outrage? [post note: this issue has been cleared by China's state food and drug agency]
Pretending to Smoke: What an odd little “game” the children have created. From A WSJ article I learned that kids can crush up certain candies, sort of inhale the dust and then blow out smoke. They even practice blowing smoke rings. All I am saying, kids really need to get out and play more
PSA Testing: I recall talking about this test for prostate cancer when my newsletter was first being published. In the early 2000s then, the concern was whether to test and then whether to treat because this cancer, though the second cancer killer for men, was a slow killer and often the men could live the rest of their lives without much decline in quality of life and likely die of something else before the cancer killed them. [probably they will die from heart disease, no?]. The testing or screening can lead to biopsies and treatment that is rife with side effects. The treatment can be debilitating and or embarrassing. Two very large research studies, studies lasting 15 years, do not offer a disposition. Over 240,000 men were studied. The results were a very slight benefit in one study, but with significant side effect costs and the other found no benefit at all. This is exactly the kind of reporting I want to see on medical devices, tests and treatments. Not that they do not work, but whether or not they work and what the risk to benefit is.
Number One Cancer Killer?: Good question. Though men suffer from prostate cancer and women from breast, the number one killer of both men and women is lung cancer. There may be a higher prevalence of the other cancers, including colorectal, but those with lung cancer generally die from it, while the other cancers have better survival rates.
HDL: The Good Guy: A reader and friend recently asked me to tell him a way to raise his good cholesterol that he didn’t already know. Certainly he knows what most of you know, you raise it through exercise (though not exponentially) but more often those with high HDL have a gene that promotes it. I did take his challenge however and read what I could about the issue from sources that I consider valid or research based. I.e. you are NOT going to hear me recommend a supplement to increase your HDL. What you will get from me is a practical application of what I have vetted. Here it is then. The mayo clinic among others, notes that oils with mono unsaturated fats, like olive and peanut, enhance the anti-inflammatory properties of the HDL. So though you may not be able to change your number you may be able to increase the impact of that number, in my opinion. I strongly suggest that you follow my example from the cooking demos and do not cook in the oils but add limited amounts to your already cooked veggies or to a salad. A teaspoon for example, or even a tablespoon spread throughout the day. It is also true that HDL works in keeping you healthy by carrying out excess bad cholesterol. It is known that certain fibers can also aid in ridding the body of bad cholesterol so again I recommend something like my cereal bars. Lastly, do not smoke. Smoking lowers HDL. Some research supports that red wine may have an HDL promoting effect but not enough to make a standard recommendation for anyone to add wine if they do not currently drink it.
That will bring us to today’s cooking video. The point of these videos is to assist you in eating food, lots of food really, without adding non nutritive and even disease promoting extras.. like saturated FAT and sugar. Today’s show is peanut butter cookies which in fact, are HIGH in fiber… and the peanut butter is a source of monounsaturated fats. These are not your mother’s PB cookies, nor my mom’s which are fantastic.. but this blog is about health not decadence.
Ingredients include:
Smucker’s All Natural Peanut Butter
(do not use jiff, peter pan, etc- for numerous reasons)
Splenda or Altern
Kellog’s All Bran Original
Loose Oat Bran
WATER
Non fat cook spray (butter)
Cookie Sheets
Large microwaveable bowl… glass is best
Heat oven to 375*
I forgot to say this in the video but cook the cookies for 20 minutes and then check them, move pans around, check every five or ten minutes, you will get the idea in time.
This is the original recipe from a cook book I made a long time ago, but it is hard to explain what I mean, thus the video!
4 Tbls smucker’s all natural peanut butter
water
2 c All Bran original
¼ cup loose oat bran
¼ to ½ c loose Splenda
In microwave if available, heat the peanut butter with about 1 ½ c or more water for about 2 minutes, then use beaters to mix this until it is peanut butter colored water mixture, also mix in the sweetener. Then add the cereals, set aside until moist. Mix this again adding some water until it is moister than other cookie dough. I use a scoop to make two trays with 20 cookies on each. Bake at 375, twenty or so minutes until done. More water and less cooking makes them seem moister. It is good to experiment until you like them!! Made my way, each has about 20 calories.
Serving size: 3 cookies
Amount per serving: calories: 60; fiber: 3g; protein: 2g; fat: 2g.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
wellness weekly
METS: Okay, I said that I would tell you about METS this week and so now I have to do it. This means I have to finish reading the section on them. Geez. What I am about to share with you is my interpretation from the Physical Activity Guidelines. A MET is the metabolic equivalent of energy expenditure used to describe exercise. If you are not doing any activity then your MET is one and anything above one can be catalogued and counted towards your better health. Scientists determine the MET of each exercise, though one activity will have different METS based on how you do it. For example a slow pace in walking might have 2 MET while a brisk walk could have 4. Running will obviously be higher in METS. However long you do that activity, for example 30 minutes, times the MET level will equal your MET minutes. A thirty minute activity that equals 4 MET will be worth 120 MET minutes. The people who worked on the guidelines offer us a number of MET minutes for which we will improve health. And it comes with a range. There is no upper limit. They do suggest at least 500 MET a week to improve health, but more than that is necessary to lower disease risk for breast cancer. Remember too, that you can do an 8 MET activity for half the time you do a 4 MET activity and still have the same MET total. Some examples offered in the guidelines include a ten minute mile pace for runners being equal to 10 MET and a twenty minute walking mile (three miles per hour) as being a 3.3 MET. IF you do fifteen minute walking miles your MET would be higher. A cyclist would need to be able to do a 6 minute mile to be considered vigorous. These are all the low end of vigorous BTW. It seems that 1000 MET is a good goal. (PS your exertion and your fitness levels change, for instance my running is more often moderate than vigorous)
Forty is NOT the end: I found it surprising that an article would say that it is difficult to find world class athletes over the age of 40. Surely the author is aware of the 2008 Summer Olympics. The article regarding some research about the body and brain’s decline in motor control that begins, perhaps, at the age of forty, explains. A healthy brain or central nervous system is one that sends and receives messages very quickly. One way to test this is to count how many times an average person can tap their finger in ten seconds. I ALWAYS wondered why doctors tell people to tap their finger really fast! Anyway, the brain circuitry (nerve fibers) works best when in is coated in myelin. The researchers in this study found that the slower tappers had broken down or frayed myelin in the finger tapping area of their brain. We do have a system that can repair myelin and the more physically and mentally active we are and remain, the healthier our brains will be. This is assisted also by preventing disease processes associated with sedentary lifestyles and malnutrition.
C Reactive Protein: When an article came out in the WSJ this week on the same topic we discussed last week, it had exactly the opposite conclusion. CRP is a very important heart disease indicator and should be addressed with medicine. I am sticking with the news from the week before however, that the inflammation level is a marker and the problem is a disease process that yes may be medically treated but more importantly lifestyle prevented.
President’s Cancer Panel: I don’t know about you, but I was not aware that we had such a council. We do and they came out with a report recently that urges government to get on board with more funding and diligence. The council is afraid that the message is getting damped down when “every day 4000 people in the US are diagnosed with some form of cancer.” WOW. I read about this in a Washington Post article where I was also surprised to learn that 40 % of us will develop some form of cancer in our lifetimes. That is a very high number. In the article, which calls for direct White House action, Dr. M Kripke of the Anderson Cancer Center in Texas reminds us that many types of cancer can be prevented and she states that tobacco causes at least 15 types, accounts for at least 30% of all cancer death and 87% of lung cancer deaths.
Migraines: Ever have a migraine? I have had two for certain and I think a few sub migraines.. I say sub because now that I know what they feel like I would never minimize that suffering. I cannot imagine what life would be life to have one every day. In fact, I believe that true chronic pain can destroy a person’s soul. I was interested then in reading an article whose headline promised to ease migraines. This is what I learned. (nothing. I haven’t read it yet! I actually read this stuff while writing the blog more often than not as life has gotten busy!) There is a medication that helps with migraines now but it has to be used with caution in persons with high blood pressure, high cholesterol and blood flow diseases. A new medication, made by Merck, may be able to treat migraines without constricting blood vessels. I hate that it is medicine again and I hate that it is from the makers of Vioxx because I still have fears about having used that medicine. Still, I was happy to see at the end of the USA Today story that a neurologist recommended that one pay attention to lifestyle factors, including sleep, nutrition and exercise. AMEN. I do myself have more headaches when I am unable to run.
Vytorin: Another drug associated with Merck. As you may recall, I have been against this cholesterol lowering medication combo from the very beginning. The latest news comes rather full circle and addresses my initial point to a degree. The Vytorin had the commercials about having Aunt Martha’s genes and eating Aunt Sally’s pie or some such nonsense. The commercial could easily mislead a person into thinking that taking the medication would obviate the need for healthy eating. This in my most professional opinion is bullshit. Merck and Schering-Plough also claimed that this medication worked better than older generics, which research has proved untrue. There are investigations and inquiries in place on both issues currently.
Goals: Make them achievable and it will build self efficacy and self esteem. I have really been struggling with my running and was feeling pretty down on myself because I couldn’t meet the mileage goals in the training plan I had devised. I revised it and you know what, it feels better to come in and check off the four or six mile run than having to put an X on the ten mile one…………
Happy weekend. I think I will get up and make some spaghetti sauce now. I love to smell it simmering on the stove. I use diced up onions (and maybe green pepper and mushroom) and garlic, simmered/sautéed in a splash of wine, then I add chopped tomatoes and basil, oregano and a bay leaf. I let it cook for a half hour or so. When it is all done I remove the bay leaf and stir in one packet of sweetener.
Ahhhh…………
Forty is NOT the end: I found it surprising that an article would say that it is difficult to find world class athletes over the age of 40. Surely the author is aware of the 2008 Summer Olympics. The article regarding some research about the body and brain’s decline in motor control that begins, perhaps, at the age of forty, explains. A healthy brain or central nervous system is one that sends and receives messages very quickly. One way to test this is to count how many times an average person can tap their finger in ten seconds. I ALWAYS wondered why doctors tell people to tap their finger really fast! Anyway, the brain circuitry (nerve fibers) works best when in is coated in myelin. The researchers in this study found that the slower tappers had broken down or frayed myelin in the finger tapping area of their brain. We do have a system that can repair myelin and the more physically and mentally active we are and remain, the healthier our brains will be. This is assisted also by preventing disease processes associated with sedentary lifestyles and malnutrition.
C Reactive Protein: When an article came out in the WSJ this week on the same topic we discussed last week, it had exactly the opposite conclusion. CRP is a very important heart disease indicator and should be addressed with medicine. I am sticking with the news from the week before however, that the inflammation level is a marker and the problem is a disease process that yes may be medically treated but more importantly lifestyle prevented.
President’s Cancer Panel: I don’t know about you, but I was not aware that we had such a council. We do and they came out with a report recently that urges government to get on board with more funding and diligence. The council is afraid that the message is getting damped down when “every day 4000 people in the US are diagnosed with some form of cancer.” WOW. I read about this in a Washington Post article where I was also surprised to learn that 40 % of us will develop some form of cancer in our lifetimes. That is a very high number. In the article, which calls for direct White House action, Dr. M Kripke of the Anderson Cancer Center in Texas reminds us that many types of cancer can be prevented and she states that tobacco causes at least 15 types, accounts for at least 30% of all cancer death and 87% of lung cancer deaths.
Migraines: Ever have a migraine? I have had two for certain and I think a few sub migraines.. I say sub because now that I know what they feel like I would never minimize that suffering. I cannot imagine what life would be life to have one every day. In fact, I believe that true chronic pain can destroy a person’s soul. I was interested then in reading an article whose headline promised to ease migraines. This is what I learned. (nothing. I haven’t read it yet! I actually read this stuff while writing the blog more often than not as life has gotten busy!) There is a medication that helps with migraines now but it has to be used with caution in persons with high blood pressure, high cholesterol and blood flow diseases. A new medication, made by Merck, may be able to treat migraines without constricting blood vessels. I hate that it is medicine again and I hate that it is from the makers of Vioxx because I still have fears about having used that medicine. Still, I was happy to see at the end of the USA Today story that a neurologist recommended that one pay attention to lifestyle factors, including sleep, nutrition and exercise. AMEN. I do myself have more headaches when I am unable to run.
Vytorin: Another drug associated with Merck. As you may recall, I have been against this cholesterol lowering medication combo from the very beginning. The latest news comes rather full circle and addresses my initial point to a degree. The Vytorin had the commercials about having Aunt Martha’s genes and eating Aunt Sally’s pie or some such nonsense. The commercial could easily mislead a person into thinking that taking the medication would obviate the need for healthy eating. This in my most professional opinion is bullshit. Merck and Schering-Plough also claimed that this medication worked better than older generics, which research has proved untrue. There are investigations and inquiries in place on both issues currently.
Goals: Make them achievable and it will build self efficacy and self esteem. I have really been struggling with my running and was feeling pretty down on myself because I couldn’t meet the mileage goals in the training plan I had devised. I revised it and you know what, it feels better to come in and check off the four or six mile run than having to put an X on the ten mile one…………
Happy weekend. I think I will get up and make some spaghetti sauce now. I love to smell it simmering on the stove. I use diced up onions (and maybe green pepper and mushroom) and garlic, simmered/sautéed in a splash of wine, then I add chopped tomatoes and basil, oregano and a bay leaf. I let it cook for a half hour or so. When it is all done I remove the bay leaf and stir in one packet of sweetener.
Ahhhh…………
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)