Tofu

Rewriter said:

Didn't mean to get you concerned, Mary Ann
I would trust the Caris report and your doctor. Your UPSC obviously morphed into something else, and the hormone treatment WILL knock it back!

Jill

Jill
A friend loaned me the China Study for a week. Have you read this? Sure makes the case for plant-based diet. Animal proteins feeds cancer big time. I'm not done with book but it is a must read for us.

I've been a good girl since Thursday - 100% plant-based. It will be interesting to see what Chester does. I had a baseline ca125 yesterday. It was 26 a month ago.

Take care. Mary Ann

daisy366 said:

Jill
A friend loaned me the China Study for a week. Have you read this? Sure makes the case for plant-based diet. Animal proteins feeds cancer big time. I'm not done with book but it is a must read for us.

I've been a good girl since Thursday - 100% plant-based. It will be interesting to see what Chester does. I had a baseline ca125 yesterday. It was 26 a month ago.

Take care. Mary Ann

China Study
Mary Ann

This book had been on my reading list. I know Claudia and someone else recommended it. A great book....I finally read it a couple of months ago...wish I had read it a long time ago! Very compelling. The author was also mentioned in the Forks not Knives book.

I am thinking Chester is headed for the hills!

Best to you!

Karen

Tethys41 said:

Vegetarian Diet
I know I am an outsider to this board, but I look in from time to time. Just felt compelled to share some information about diet that I have obtained from my naturopath. She recommends a Paleo diet. I know this is controversial and many sources, The China Study included, would beg to differ. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the China Study appears to be based on a diet consisting of commercially raised meats and extrapolates many assumptions from the evils of milk to the evils of meat.
My naturopath researches issues to death before recommending them to her patients. She is an ovarian cancer survivor who still has a tumor living on her liver. Although she was initially diagnosed as stage IV ovarian cancer 20 years ago, she declined surgery and treatment due to the poor outcome the doctors were giving her. So she has found a way to make the bulk of her cancer retreat and to keep it inactive through diet and lifestyle. She can tell if something she is doing is detrimental because her CA-125 goes up. If she stops it, it goes down. She adopted the Paleo diet over a year ago and her CA-125 is lower than it has ever been.
If that were not proof enough that meat is not the feeder of cancer we've been taught to believe, consider this. Her blood type O cancer survivors who eat a vegetarian diet almost all have recurrances if they don't eat some meat. Jill, I think the 80% vegetarian diet is less dangerous because I interpret that to mean you eat meat 20% of the time?
I met up with a woman who lived in a commune that was heavily into a raw vegan diet. She was excommunicated from the commune because she developed ovarian cancer. She's beening dealing with it for 2 1/2 year and has not acheived remission, but in the meantime, almost sll of the other members of the commune either have cancer or have died. This is pretty strong evidence that eating only vegetables does not keep you healthy.
My naturopath went to the Block Center a few months ago, to visit one of her patients and to shadow Dr. Block for a few days. Many conversations and much exchenge of information occurred. There was a large naturpathic conference last weekend in Phoenix. Dr. Block was there and announced that the diet he will be incorporating into his clinic is moving away from a vegetarian one and more towards Paleo.
For clarification, Type A blood people should eat little to no red meat, whereas red meat is okay for blood type O people who do not have elevated iron levels. Eating meat does not mean going to your local grocer and picking up the hormone and antibiotic laced meats they sell. It means finding a source of organic, cleanly raised meats and wild caught fish. Cleanly raised meats means grass fed AND grass finished. It may take some looking, but that stuff is out there.

Very interesting
Tethy, I found this post most interesting. I honestly had not heard of the Paleo diet before and I will gather more info. Please do not consider yourself an OUTSIDER! All opinions and thoughts are appreciated. I really enjoy the discussions that take place here and the varying opinions.

I have read very compelling discussions about the importance of grass fed AND grass finished animals. It is challenging to find a source I must admit.

I also found it interesting that Blood type enters in to this equation. I am Type 0.

More things to research... Many thanks!

Karen

california_artist said:

UPSC is very often a diagnosis that also has some component of
another more common uterine cancer cells, which are hormone positive. With mixed histology, a lab report will the read hormone positive with the word predominantly of say some percent is hormone positive.

This is just the first article I found. Seems the manner in which it is evaluated can over estimate the ER positive component.

Summary: Uterine papillary serous carcinoma (UPSC), an aggressive histologic variant of endometrial cancer, is particularly resistant to cytotoxic chemotherapy. In reviewing a group of patients treated with cisplatin, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide, we were surprised to find that 90% of specimens tested by biochemical analysis were positive for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), or both. To further study receptor content and localization, we performed immunocytochemical analysis (ICA) on 29 archival UPSC specimens. In ER studies, three specimens were unevaluable because of inadequate internal controls; of the remaining 26, only two were ER positive, showing weak, focal staining. In PR studies, 18 samples had adequate controls, and all tumor specimens were receptor negative. Corresponding biochemical ER data were available for 11 cases, of which 10 were ER positive. ICA, however, showed all 10 to be negative. Biochemical PR data were available for seven samples: Six were positive. All six biochemically positive PR specimens were PR negative when analyzed by ICA. Biochemical assays for ER and PR may overestimate positivity as a result of contamination with normal tissue or the presence of receptor-positive typical endometrial adenocarcinoma in tumors of mixed histology. ICA may eliminate this problem, but it has technical limitations, especially when used for archival tissue analysis. Because urinary papillary serous carcinoma appears to be a receptor-negative tumor, further evaluation of hormonal therapy is not likely to be beneficial.

==End article

However, as knowledge can change with further research, let's say someone didn't think this report was all there was to say, and decided that result could be changed, deciding to further look into why and how it might change, the up to the minute attitude could in fact be in a state of flux. I love it when things change for the better. Hormone sensitivity would change everything for those of us with UPSC. Will look some more, as last time I investigated this hormone thing was over three years ago. Don't you just love it when people don't simply accept that things are unchangeable, and go looking for further truth, or to change the unchangeable?


Do you realize what this would do to current treatment if it were true? Holy Toledo! To be able to attack this on a less lethal level with hormone therapy, as is currently done when a woman would like to have children if the cancer is discovered on a woman in childbearing years if she chooses. That would turn things around.

That article keeps on rattling around in my head. I go to do something else and then come back.

What if the truth of the matter is that UPSC is truly positive to bio chemical agents, hormones, and so tests positive for hormone sensitivity to bio chemical agents, but does not have those same eR/pr receptors accept immunocytochemical concoctions, which is the current standard treatment? That would be a huge variant. I wish I had chosen research in my college days.

uhm
My pathology report said same as JoAnn. Mixed pathology and receptor positive

Tethys41 said:

Vegetarian Diet
I know I am an outsider to this board, but I look in from time to time. Just felt compelled to share some information about diet that I have obtained from my naturopath. She recommends a Paleo diet. I know this is controversial and many sources, The China Study included, would beg to differ. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the China Study appears to be based on a diet consisting of commercially raised meats and extrapolates many assumptions from the evils of milk to the evils of meat.
My naturopath researches issues to death before recommending them to her patients. She is an ovarian cancer survivor who still has a tumor living on her liver. Although she was initially diagnosed as stage IV ovarian cancer 20 years ago, she declined surgery and treatment due to the poor outcome the doctors were giving her. So she has found a way to make the bulk of her cancer retreat and to keep it inactive through diet and lifestyle. She can tell if something she is doing is detrimental because her CA-125 goes up. If she stops it, it goes down. She adopted the Paleo diet over a year ago and her CA-125 is lower than it has ever been.
If that were not proof enough that meat is not the feeder of cancer we've been taught to believe, consider this. Her blood type O cancer survivors who eat a vegetarian diet almost all have recurrances if they don't eat some meat. Jill, I think the 80% vegetarian diet is less dangerous because I interpret that to mean you eat meat 20% of the time?
I met up with a woman who lived in a commune that was heavily into a raw vegan diet. She was excommunicated from the commune because she developed ovarian cancer. She's beening dealing with it for 2 1/2 year and has not acheived remission, but in the meantime, almost sll of the other members of the commune either have cancer or have died. This is pretty strong evidence that eating only vegetables does not keep you healthy.
My naturopath went to the Block Center a few months ago, to visit one of her patients and to shadow Dr. Block for a few days. Many conversations and much exchenge of information occurred. There was a large naturpathic conference last weekend in Phoenix. Dr. Block was there and announced that the diet he will be incorporating into his clinic is moving away from a vegetarian one and more towards Paleo.
For clarification, Type A blood people should eat little to no red meat, whereas red meat is okay for blood type O people who do not have elevated iron levels. Eating meat does not mean going to your local grocer and picking up the hormone and antibiotic laced meats they sell. It means finding a source of organic, cleanly raised meats and wild caught fish. Cleanly raised meats means grass fed AND grass finished. It may take some looking, but that stuff is out there.

Tethys
In regards to China Study, I'm just now completing this book.....

The study examined mortality rates, diets, and lifestyles of 6,500 people in 65 rural counties in China, and concluded that people with a high consumption of animal-based foods were more likely to suffer chronic disease, while those who ate a plant-based diet were the least likely. The study was conducted in China because it has a genetically similar population that tends to live in the same way in the same place and eat the same foods for their entire lives.

The authors conclude that people who eat a plant food/vegan diet—which avoids animal products such as beef, pork, poultry, fish, eggs, cheese, and milk—will minimize or reverse the development of chronic diseases. They also recommend adequate amounts of sunshine to maintain sufficient levels of vitamin D, and dietary supplements of vitamin B12 in case of complete avoidance of animal products and to minimize the usage of vegetable oils.

My question to you can you go further in depth on the theory of eating meat, depending on your blood type. I've not researched B12, per the China Study, but assuming there's a correlation between meat and B12??? Assuming eating only vegies isn't giving us the B12, causing cancer recurrence? Wild caught fish be a replacement for the meats?

Wow 20 years with no recurrence, your naturopath truly has a wonderful story to tell all of us.

Thanks again my friend...always love your posts!
Jan

jazzy1 said:

Tethys
In regards to China Study, I'm just now completing this book.....

The study examined mortality rates, diets, and lifestyles of 6,500 people in 65 rural counties in China, and concluded that people with a high consumption of animal-based foods were more likely to suffer chronic disease, while those who ate a plant-based diet were the least likely. The study was conducted in China because it has a genetically similar population that tends to live in the same way in the same place and eat the same foods for their entire lives.

The authors conclude that people who eat a plant food/vegan diet—which avoids animal products such as beef, pork, poultry, fish, eggs, cheese, and milk—will minimize or reverse the development of chronic diseases. They also recommend adequate amounts of sunshine to maintain sufficient levels of vitamin D, and dietary supplements of vitamin B12 in case of complete avoidance of animal products and to minimize the usage of vegetable oils.

My question to you can you go further in depth on the theory of eating meat, depending on your blood type. I've not researched B12, per the China Study, but assuming there's a correlation between meat and B12??? Assuming eating only vegies isn't giving us the B12, causing cancer recurrence? Wild caught fish be a replacement for the meats?

Wow 20 years with no recurrence, your naturopath truly has a wonderful story to tell all of us.

Thanks again my friend...always love your posts!
Jan

Protein and B12
Jan,
I can ask for more specific informatino regarding the scientific reasoning behind eating meat as a cancer survivor. One thing I'm quite sure weighs in has to do with B12. I just finished a book on autoimmune diseases, and, according to the authors, all autoimmune can be traced to vitamin B12 deficiency, which is a result of improper digestion of proteins and leads to the breakdown of various pathways in our bodies. One pathway that is affected s the body's ability to process vitamin D. Depending on which pathways are affected, determines the type of autoimmune the patient ends up with. The author cites the high occurrance of heart disease and diabetes among the vegetarian populations in India. This breakdown also results in elevated homocystines, which leads to these diseases. I spoke to the author of the book on the phone last week, and she says they are coming out with an updated version, as their rearch has revealed a links between the inability to properly digest protein and some types of cancer.
I do know that my naturopath preaches eating a high protein diet and low carbohydrates. I recently attended a talk given by a doctor from Denver who blames carbs on all of our serious diseases. I might have had difficutly with his position had I not recently read another book that explains the things in our lifestyle that lead to chronic disease. The author of this book tells us that our current environment is very bastardized as compared to the environment of our ancestors. In pre-historic times, carbohydrates were only available to humans in the summer months. Through winter, they ate mostly protein. So our bodies evolved to survive a feast and famine cycle every year. Now that carbs are available to us year round, and our bodies are not adapted to this, we develop serious illnesses, including cancer.
The books: "Autoimmune:The Cause and the Cure" by Annesse Brockley and Kristin Urdiales
"Lights Out" by T.S. Wiley
Both of thes books are filled with references that support the authors' position. The autoimmune book lines out a diet to resolve the inability to digest protein. I tried it and have to say, for me, it worked swimningly.
Kate

Tethys41 said:

Protein and B12
Jan,
I can ask for more specific informatino regarding the scientific reasoning behind eating meat as a cancer survivor. One thing I'm quite sure weighs in has to do with B12. I just finished a book on autoimmune diseases, and, according to the authors, all autoimmune can be traced to vitamin B12 deficiency, which is a result of improper digestion of proteins and leads to the breakdown of various pathways in our bodies. One pathway that is affected s the body's ability to process vitamin D. Depending on which pathways are affected, determines the type of autoimmune the patient ends up with. The author cites the high occurrance of heart disease and diabetes among the vegetarian populations in India. This breakdown also results in elevated homocystines, which leads to these diseases. I spoke to the author of the book on the phone last week, and she says they are coming out with an updated version, as their rearch has revealed a links between the inability to properly digest protein and some types of cancer.
I do know that my naturopath preaches eating a high protein diet and low carbohydrates. I recently attended a talk given by a doctor from Denver who blames carbs on all of our serious diseases. I might have had difficutly with his position had I not recently read another book that explains the things in our lifestyle that lead to chronic disease. The author of this book tells us that our current environment is very bastardized as compared to the environment of our ancestors. In pre-historic times, carbohydrates were only available to humans in the summer months. Through winter, they ate mostly protein. So our bodies evolved to survive a feast and famine cycle every year. Now that carbs are available to us year round, and our bodies are not adapted to this, we develop serious illnesses, including cancer.
The books: "Autoimmune:The Cause and the Cure" by Annesse Brockley and Kristin Urdiales
"Lights Out" by T.S. Wiley
Both of thes books are filled with references that support the authors' position. The autoimmune book lines out a diet to resolve the inability to digest protein. I tried it and have to say, for me, it worked swimningly.
Kate

Ancestors' Diet
There are as many diets and theses as many scientist we have. It is up to us to determine which one is best for us. When I thing about our ancestors’ diet I take into consideration few things:

-Our digestive system is more like that of herbivore. Initially, we were similar to creatures that evolved from animals like herbivore apes. These apes looked similar to man and walked upright with their arms and hands. They naturally foraged for food and ate roots, berries, fruits and nuts. They also lived moment to moment constantly foraging for food.

-The way our body is build, it is rather hard to imagine our ancestors running through the woods catching an animal with bare hands, killing it with bare hands and tearing apart with their bare hands. We don’t have evolutionary capabilities of a specialised carnivore to hunt. When you look at predators and carnivorous animals you can see that they have teeth designed to rip and tear. Their teeth are not designed for chewing. Animals that are designed for chewing like herbivores have flat teeth that are designed to breakdown food.

Our ancestors became hunters after their brains and intelligence grew, allowing more complex use of tools and cooperation in hunting. Before that they ate what they found: fruits, vegetables, nuts, roots, and shelfish (if they lived by the water). There has been speculation that the high levels of long chain poly-unsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFAs) found in fish and shellfish could have been instrumental in the evolution of the hominin larger brain. This is because the brain is mostly made up of the same LCPUFAs, specifically arachidonic acid and docosahexaenoic acid. While these can be synthesised from other lipids such as linoleic acid and α-linolenic acid which are available in other foods, the transformation is less efficient. Therefore a diet abundant in these ideal brain nutrients may have been the factor that allowed the brain to enlarge while the rest of the body remained roughly the same.

"A team of scientists from the University of Arkansas and Worcester Polytechnic Institute developed the software, called “scale-sensitive fractal analysis,” to analyze fossilized tooth surfaces through a confocal microscope, which allows three-dimensional analysis of an object. The researchers were examining the microscopic wear and tear on individual teeth of our ancestors to see what they were really munching on.
There were different species from which the latest Homo developed. The group of scientist looked at two of them: one from southern Africa and one from eastern Africa. Like us, they walked on two legs when on the ground, and their brains were a bit larger than chimpanzees'. They used to believe they were dietary specialists because they had big crests on their skulls, which would have anchored large chewing muscles, and big teeth. They thought these animals ate nuts, fruits and seeds. But when they looked at eastern African Paranthropus, it was nothing like that. The teeth had a different kind of carbon, and they were loaded with scratches, not pits. It looks like they were specializing on grass, not nuts and fruit seeds.
The researchers say this suggests that both species relied on their less preferred foods during periods of food scarcity. “If members of a species live in a seasonal environment, they can get all the soft fruit they need during the wet season” , “But come dry season, they may have to process something very hard or tough like roots and nuts in order to survive.”

Ancient humans ate different things depending on where they lived. In short, early humans' genes did not "design" their food habits. Environment did.

Bea-Mil

bea-mil said:

Ancestors' Diet
There are as many diets and theses as many scientist we have. It is up to us to determine which one is best for us. When I thing about our ancestors’ diet I take into consideration few things:

-Our digestive system is more like that of herbivore. Initially, we were similar to creatures that evolved from animals like herbivore apes. These apes looked similar to man and walked upright with their arms and hands. They naturally foraged for food and ate roots, berries, fruits and nuts. They also lived moment to moment constantly foraging for food.

-The way our body is build, it is rather hard to imagine our ancestors running through the woods catching an animal with bare hands, killing it with bare hands and tearing apart with their bare hands. We don’t have evolutionary capabilities of a specialised carnivore to hunt. When you look at predators and carnivorous animals you can see that they have teeth designed to rip and tear. Their teeth are not designed for chewing. Animals that are designed for chewing like herbivores have flat teeth that are designed to breakdown food.

Our ancestors became hunters after their brains and intelligence grew, allowing more complex use of tools and cooperation in hunting. Before that they ate what they found: fruits, vegetables, nuts, roots, and shelfish (if they lived by the water). There has been speculation that the high levels of long chain poly-unsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFAs) found in fish and shellfish could have been instrumental in the evolution of the hominin larger brain. This is because the brain is mostly made up of the same LCPUFAs, specifically arachidonic acid and docosahexaenoic acid. While these can be synthesised from other lipids such as linoleic acid and α-linolenic acid which are available in other foods, the transformation is less efficient. Therefore a diet abundant in these ideal brain nutrients may have been the factor that allowed the brain to enlarge while the rest of the body remained roughly the same.

"A team of scientists from the University of Arkansas and Worcester Polytechnic Institute developed the software, called “scale-sensitive fractal analysis,” to analyze fossilized tooth surfaces through a confocal microscope, which allows three-dimensional analysis of an object. The researchers were examining the microscopic wear and tear on individual teeth of our ancestors to see what they were really munching on.
There were different species from which the latest Homo developed. The group of scientist looked at two of them: one from southern Africa and one from eastern Africa. Like us, they walked on two legs when on the ground, and their brains were a bit larger than chimpanzees'. They used to believe they were dietary specialists because they had big crests on their skulls, which would have anchored large chewing muscles, and big teeth. They thought these animals ate nuts, fruits and seeds. But when they looked at eastern African Paranthropus, it was nothing like that. The teeth had a different kind of carbon, and they were loaded with scratches, not pits. It looks like they were specializing on grass, not nuts and fruit seeds.
The researchers say this suggests that both species relied on their less preferred foods during periods of food scarcity. “If members of a species live in a seasonal environment, they can get all the soft fruit they need during the wet season” , “But come dry season, they may have to process something very hard or tough like roots and nuts in order to survive.”

Ancient humans ate different things depending on where they lived. In short, early humans' genes did not "design" their food habits. Environment did.

Bea-Mil

I agree
I agree that the environment designed our ancestor's food habits. And when I speak of ancestors I speak of ancestral Homo sapiens. They were omnivores, not carnivores nor herbivores. Our teeth, like theirs are not the same as those of carnivores, but are the same as modern and paleo omnivores. When I consider comparisons of the morphology of various types of mammals and their diets, I also want to consider the physiology involved. When I look at the feces of herbivores, they are all pelleted or balled, like deer and horses. There are no herbivores that produce feces similar to human feces. Carnivores and omnivores, however, do produce feces similar to our own. Additionally, most herbivores, not all, have multiple stomachs for the digestion of vegetation. The occurrence of a single stomach appears in all omnivores and carnivores. Again, I am not saying humans evolved to eat solely meat, but they did evolve as omnivores. Omnivores are animals that eat both meat and vegetation. So, comparing our morphology only to carnivores and herbivores does not address the group to which we are a member.

bea-mil said:

Is there a such thing as a true omnivore?
Is there a such thing as a true omnivore? How do you classify animals as herbivores, carnivores, granivores, fructivores or omnivores? Are humans really omnivores?

Human beings are brought up on the notion that they are omnivores but are they really? In fact is there really a such thing in nature as a true omnivore? The way biologists distinguish between these is by an animal’s digestive system. Carnivores, herbivores, granivores and fructivores all have distinct biological characteristics.

Carnivores have sharp, pointed teeth and a short digestive tract. A carnivore’s system is biologically suited to quickly eliminate meat before it putrefies and to eliminate dietary cholesterol. Carnivores also secrete the enzyme uricase which breaks down uric acid in meat. By comparison herbivores have long digestive tracts and digestion begins in the mouth. Herbivores secrete an enzyme in the saliva that breaks down the plant cells whereas this not true of carnivores.

Granivores also have a differently designed digestive system. They have a beak and a crop. They have two stomachs, one glandular and one muscular. Their pancreas has three outlet ducts and they have lengthy intestines with tiny follicles or cavities. This kind of digestive system is designed around ingesting grains and seeds. Fructivores digestive systems are meant to derive large amount of energy from fruits and nuts. Most primates are fructivores.

The simple fact with humans is that they taught themselves to eat everything. Humans have a digestive system consistent with herbivores. Human beings are not natural meat eaters. This can be easily pointed out by their teeth. Human teeth are not meant for tearing into flesh and bone.

Humans cannot digest grass and have great difficulty digesting raw vegetables. Wheat cannot be eaten in its raw form and beans are potentially toxic if eaten raw. In fact, after 10,000 years of eating grain many people still have difficulty digesting it.

Food residues can form during digestion that can cause problems. If these residues originate from starchy foods they can form lactic acids and short-chain fatty acids that can irritate the intestinal wall and cause an upset stomach and diarrhea. Protein residues can release peptides and amino acids that can form into nitrogen compounds known as amines. Amines are pungent and toxic and unlike odorous intestinal gas from fermentation in the gut can be dangerous. The proteins from amines damage the intestinal wall and causes it to secrete protein and fluid to nourish the flora in the gut thus allowing them to leak through the intestinal wall, get into the blood and travel all the way up to the brain.

As can be seen there are many clear cut signs that human beings are not in any way true omnivores. What some call an omnivore others might call a biological garbage disposal and garbage disposals eventually get clogged up, overused and quit working.

Have you noticed that in the animal world all animals have very simple diet? The carnivores eat meat, the granivores eat grains and so on...they are basically healthy.
Only humans so called omnivores are having health problems (generally speaking).

Omnivores
Aw really, no true omnivores? You have just negated grizzly bears, skunks, raccoons, opossums, most primates and humans. I know they exist. I’ve seen all of these. I even embarrassed myself and posed the question to my wildlife biologist husband. Yes, there are true omnivores and we are them. Sorry, I cannot agree that our digestive system is closer to herbivores than to carnivores therefore we are, by default, herbivores. That’s like saying by default I drive a pickup truck because there are only compacts and pickups and no SUVs.

I realize that once someone has bought into a specific diet whether for religious reasons, societal reasons, or by what they believe to be accurate science, it becomes a very emotional issue. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been reamed for saying that eating sugar as a cancer survivor is not a good idea. But we owe it to ourselves to look at all the science with an open mind.

http://www.biology-online.org/articles/humans-omnivores.html