Shouldn't we give everyone a break?

Good question...
I think you pose a good question too, Pam, if it is a question, or is it an observation of something that has been happening? I haven't noticed anyone being judgmental, depending on the definition of "judgmental". Throughout different topics, there has been advice/opinions on diet, of course smoking, stress, lifestyle habits, etc. But I took this as advice or opinions, just as all our posts are our opinions unless someone has qualified that they are a certified/registered professional that can give out medical advice (I haven't seen any of these posts and don't know folk well enough to know what their professions are).

I guess some of it goes right over my head... I have not read (or interpreted) any posts to be judgmental of anyone here, so it is possible that because all we have is the written word and not the body language that goes with it, it's easy to misinterpret what someone is saying.

I know a lot of people (and medical professionals) believe that diet plays a big role in cancer/illness... I'm not sure I believe that, myself. Like someone else has said, there are those who eat vegetarian, vegan, or a diet that makes them role models of the American/Canadian Food Guides. There are those that go on macrobiotic diets and swear by them. There are those that have religious rituals and swear by them. There are those of us who are firm believers in positive attitudes and positive thinking. Oh, and let's not forget the dreaded "E" word -- Exercise. But do any of the above, or the lack of the above have anything to do with why we have cancer and others don't? I know a LOT of people who eat way healthier than I do and are certainly way more active physically than I am... and they have cancer. I know those who eat way worse than I do and, believe it or not, are less active than I am, and they DON'T have cancer. Go figure?

As for what is considered a healthy diet? The popular view seems to be lots of veggies and fruit and some will say no red meat, or no meat at all. I, personally, feel that's not a healthy diet at all... but that's just my opinion. A vegetarian would think that is a perfect diet. A low carb/high protein person would shudder at a diet where there is no protein, or very little. For every person who swears by Weight Watchers or Jenny Craig for losing those unwanted pounds, you'll find someone who swears those are the worst diets in the world and they don't work. So, the bottom line is, we can only really talk about diets/lifestyles that work for us... and what works for us personally, does not mean it will work for someone else.

Ok, so that's just diet and I guess if I had to really search, I'd say that that is the one topic I have a problem with... when others give me advice on what my diet should be (this includes professional advice). I know what works for me and so far the traditional "healthy diet" has done nothing but make me gain weight, so I really do pooh-pooh the low fat/veggies/fruit recommendation. I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with eating meat and having fat in one's diet, assuming it is the good fat. Low fat products are all "frankenfoods", made of chemicals instead of natural products and I avoid them like the plague. So is that me being judgmental when I say I will never go on a "low fat" diet and use "low fat" products (margarine instead of butter, skim milk instead of 1% or 2%, etc)?

As for the smoking topic (which I believe is the Patric Swayze topic)... having been a smoker for 32 years before I quit... I feel I can honestly understand the enjoyment of smoking and I would have thought that smoking for 32 years would qualify me as having had an addiction... on the other hand, I did quit and no longer crave a ciggie. So I'm not addicted now, but does that mean if I could quit that means I never was addicted (I had an ex-friend actually accuse me of that. She said if I could quit, then I never was addicted). I have no idea... I just know I don't smoke now. To tell you the truth, I don't really care if I was addicted or not... I'm just glad I don't smoke now, nor am I suffering through wanting a ciggie but forcing myself not to have it. Does that make me judgmental? I also won't stand around someone who is smoking because we have been told (and they say there is proof, but I haven't seen it myself) that secondhand smoke can be just as, if not more, dangerous as smoking yourself.. and I don't need to add more danger to my lungs that already have mets to them. Does that make me judgmental of smokers because I once was a smoker, now I won't stand outside with them while they smoke?

Again... it's all in the interpretation, I guess. But, as you say, we are all human, want to connect, and figure out what to do about our cancer condition. We want to be able to ask questions, but if we do, then we have to realize we are going to get answers that are either experiences that someone else has experienced or answers that they believe to be the truth. So if someone believes that smoking will make the cancer worse, or believes that it's all diet related and you have to change your diet to what they believe will work.. well, it's all just an opinion of what people feel is helpful. That goes for alcohol, as well. I can no more advise and alcoholic on what to do because I have never, ever acquired a taste for alcohol. I have nothing against it (except for drinking and driving and yet, I will be very judgmental if someone says they see nothing wrong with drinking and driving), but I just don't like the taste of it... ok, except for a drink I've just recently tried.. a Belini. But I can't taste the alcohol in that so as long as I can't taste alcohol, then I guess I could have a drink. I'm trying to acquire a taste for wine... but I haven't been quite won over on that yet either But just because I don't drink, and I'll be the first to admit that... it doesn't mean that I am being judgmental towards someone who does drink.

Now... I have to admit, this line upset me a little (and no, I don't think you are being judgmental, you are just stating a fact as you see it):

"Patrick Swayze was diagnosed with Stage IV pancreatic cancer. Unless he experiences a miracle (yes, they do happen) it is terminal."

When I read that, I interpret it to mean that unless a religious miracle happens (or some other form of miracle), then he is going to die. Period.

If that's the case, then all of us who have been diagnosed as Stage IV cancer have a death sentence, unless some religious miracle happens. What does that mean to those of us who don't have a religion or believe in one (no, no, don't anyone jump on this and tell me to turn to God or put my faith in his hands... one has to believe in that otherwise one is just being hypocritical and that's one thing I am not).

Now, I'm not saying by that one sentence, that is what you meant... I'm just saying that reading that one line by itself, that is definitely how it comes across to me. So it is a good example of how something can be taken and misunderstood.

Until I'm literally on my deathbed, I am not going to believe that this cancer is going to kill me in the near future. If I live for the next 20 years, does that mean a miracle has happened? Or does that mean my way of thinking has gotten me through? Heaven forbid if it means my diet has kept me going.. if that's the case, then everyone has to change their diet to eating meat, fats, veggies, fruits... but lay off the "whites"

Ok... I really did mean to get to bed at a decent time tonight... but alas, it is already 12:30am. Off to la la land I go

Huggggs,

Cheryl

polarprincess said:

hi
Hi, since i am a dietitian, i just had to chime in on this one. Of course i believe that nutrition can be extremely helpful in helping someone to avoid cancer in the first place, and also to prevent recurrences,and i think there is a pretty significant amount of research with things such as antioxidants and cruciferous veggies etc.. but I am not of the belief that it is the answer in all cases. Like many of you, i know people who have eaten right their entire life and still got cancer, and my own grandparents grew up on dairy farms and dined on heavy cream and red meats their entire life and are still alive and cancer free in their 90's, and here i am the dietitian with stage IIIa colon cancer. Scientifically i understand the immune system and how it works, and how eating the right foods can keep your immune system functioning properly, and i am positive that is where my cancer came from--a time of very high stress when i wasn't taking care of myself like i should have been. I think all foods are ok in moderation..but there are things besides the foods themselves that can trigger cancer such as a big belly... big bellies are more metabolically active which GREATLY increases our chance at getting cancer, and then if you add stress to that you have cortisol constantly running through your body which makes the big belly even more dangerous... also eating too many carbs as you know raises your blood glucose which also increases inflammation in your body which can lead to cancer..so just some things that maybe not all people are aware of, that i may sometimes point out if someone is asking for advice, and that I always make sure to keep in mind when i make my own food choices... but i certainly hope i haven't judged anyone in any of my posts, and if i have at any point, i do apologize..

Interesting points
Hey PP... you raise some interesting points here. Ok, I'll be the first to admit that I have some of the issues that you have raised. I am one of the ones who has a big belly ::hanging head in shame:: It's one of the bains of my existence... I have, even as a child, been on the rotund size. Lucky for me, as a child/teen/young adult/etc. did not get the evil teasing that we hear so many go through when they have a weight problem, hence I guess I never took my weight seriously or thought I had a problem. So, yes, weight may have played a role in my being susceptible to cancer. Stress? Hmmm... I think everyone goes through stress on a day-to-day basis and we all go through various periods of heavy stress... so I don't think I was any different in that department than anyone else. Exercise... definitely not one of my strong points... although I've always been very active (I'm always out and about doing things, even now when I'm suppose to be sick and more lethargic... you rarely catch me at home because there's so much to do, so many friends to see, etc.). So, I guess in a way, I'm the poster child for the "See what happens if you don't watch your weight, eat healthy and get plenty of exercise?" But then I look around at a whole bunch of the posters on this board alone, and if we go by the pictures they use... the majority do not have a weight problem, or even if they feel they do, it's not a serious one... and some don't have one at all. So they are doing something right to keep their weight down... which I'm assuming diet comes into play here. Also, a lot of you have said how you love hiking, swimming, golf, etc., so you are also getting exercise. So, heck... it looks like those of us who are overweight are definitely not the only ones susceptible to this beast (as we all know)... and I bet if we had a show of hands, the majority are of average weight for their height and age.

But, just like there are those who are survivors and there's no scientific data to explain why they are when according to the stats and surveys they should be dead... there are those who, like your grandparents, have a diet of dairy/red meat (which today is so taboo) and yet have lived into their 90s, are still alive and are cancer free. I'm not sure, as a nutritionist, how firmly you believe in a low cal diet, or if you personally lean towards a low carb/high protein... or if you fall somewhere inbetween. I think we could take a survey of 100 people and we would come up with 10 different diets or "WOE - Way of Eating" and people would swear that they are the only healthy way to eat... and have reasons and examples of why they feel that way. So, if someone were to try and find the most efficient, healthy way to eat, their heads would be spinning depending on who or how many they talked to.

One of the things you said -- "that can trigger cancer such as a big belly... big bellies are more metabolically active, which GREATLY increases our chance at getting cancer," what do you mean by metabolically active? I may be confusing two words here (metabolic and metabulism" but I thought that was a good thing if it was active? Something tells me I don't know what metabolically active means.

Tanks for the interesting post!

Hugggggs,

Cheryl