Wellness

[bikerbabe]

Our long ago ancestors, for the most part, didn’t live long enough to develop many cancers. Other things killed them first.

[Zhills]

Got a good point there!

[sidsmom]

---

@bikerbabe wrote:
Our long ago ancestors, for the most part, didn’t live long enough to develop many cancers. Other things killed them first.

---

@bikerbabe

That’s true but they also didn’t have heart disease, obesity,

diabetes and other modern conditions we are seeing in

young people. Not just young people but young children

are obese & diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes. 

All that inflammation in the body has disasterous results.

It’s not a surprise our Life Expectancy here in the US is lowering.

[sidsmom]

---

@Lipstickdiva wrote:

---

@Laura14 wrote:

@sidsmom   That comment shows you have no idea what scientific research on a brand new theory on a neurological disease even entails.  

I really do hope you truly are on a diet that serves you well for a long and a happy life. 

Not that you have an interest, but my cholesterol was very high a decade ago.  I cut out every fat I knew because that's what the experts including you said to do.  It didn't change a thing. 

Then I saw Dr. Oz, a heart surgeon, do a segment on cholesterol teaching me what it does and why it does it and why the body makes it.  It basically patches up your arteries after you scratch them to death with sugar.  So I did the common sense thing and stopped sugar.

I haven't had a problem with cholesterol since. 

More importantly, I have not closed myself off to learning and being smart about it.  I want to see clinically proven results and theories and when I find one I pay attention and potentially revise my thinking because in the words of Maya, 'When you know better you do better."

Our ancestors lived in a very different world including one that they thought was flat.  Take it all into account and don't discount your intelligence or those of others in figuring it all out.  If we thought we had the definitive answer about all of this, the labs would have all closed long ago and diabetes and cancer would no longer exist.   

---

@Laura14, remember back in I think the 90's when the low fat/no fat diet was the thing to do and everyone pretty much just got fatter.  Why?  Because companies replaced the fat with sugar. 

I am convinced the real culprit in bad health is sugar.       

---

That was over 25 yrs ago.

How come the low carb/high fat people are still sick?

Unfortunately ‘replace the fat with sugar’ bit is getting long in the tooth.

Obviously the low carb/high fat diet isn’t working.  

Over 25 yrs to fix..and it’s not working.

[Laura14]

Obesity is due to caloric intake being greater than your exercise. Inflammation is primarily due to sugar.

Kids eating sugary junk and sitting on tablets with video games is the cause. Not fat intake.

Anyone know a kid scarfing down a steady diet of red meat, butter and cheese on a daily basis to pile on the pounds? It defies common sense.

And just to clarify where the science actually is, not all fat is created equal. Olive oil (mono) is spectacular for you. Lard (poly) and trans fats like vegetable oils are horrible.

Know your fats and eat the right ones. Your brain, nerves, eyes etc literally depend on you to do so.

[Annabellethecat66]

@chrystaltree Did you read the posts above you?  People in their 70's should STILL be screened.

Look, if you think the press, tv, etc. is covering this as much as possible...good for you.

I think it should be in the news a lot more than it is.  That is my opinion.  

I've never been accused of looking at life like it's a bowl of cherries (so to speak).  However, until I began to hear about my late husband's relatives and read more about it (seeking out information), I had no idea STILL so many women were STILL dying from it.  No idea.

So, perhaps there are two sides to my ignorance.  Perhaps my ignorance is based on MY family's experience.....or....perhaps most of what "I" hear in the news are those being 'curred' or the break throughs involving breast cancer.....

Hummm??? Perhaps a little of both.  I do know that people like myself would like to see more in the news about those who are still struggling with breast cancer.  

I want to see stories about families dealing with it.  I want it in the newspapers, the TV, radio interviews.  I want people to (if they want to) be able to talk about the devastation it causes everyone around them.

I can't imagine the costs.  What do single mothers do who have no one to watch their children while they get radiation?  What does it do to married couples?

We need more human interest stories.  We need to hear how women need help dealing with this. 

Instead the news and public is consumed with stories that are sensational....for a second.

I hope I answered the question.  I apologize for singling you out, but your question was the first one I saw and I just felt the need to answer it.  

I hope I gave you my answer because that's all I could do .... give you MY answer.

[SeaMaiden]

---

@SilleeMee wrote:

Back when the 'the pill' was heavily used back in the '60s with higher concentrations of estrogen, has been a topic of debate for a long time regarding it's potential cause of breast cancer. My mother would fall into this category of women who took the pill back then and took it for a very long time.  I can't help but think that was the cause of her BC but how do you prove it?

---

@SilleeMee Yes! My Mother also took the high dose birth control pills and later  in her 60’s breast cancer was found. 

[lulu1]

---

@chrystaltree wrote:

What "news" about breast cancer or cancers in general do you think should be in the news?  Actually, there have been great strides in diagnosing very early breast cancers and in treating breast cancers.  But all breast cancers are not the same.  October is coming so they'll be a lot information in the media and everwhere else about mammograms, genetic testing, treatment etc.  It seems like I hear about someone who has breast cancer almost every week.  My friend who is physician said that, in a way, that is good thing because it means that women are being diagnosed early and that gives them the best chance for survival.  Also women talk about it now; in my mother's day, women only confided in the friends.  They kept it a secret, as if it was something to be ashamed of.  I get my information from my physician.  The last discussion we had was about the frequency of my mammograms.  Mine have been negative 3 years in a row so some doctors would advise every 2-3 years now but she still recommends yearly mammograms for patients who are over 50.  I've read studies that women over 74 do not need to be screened.   

---

I could not disagree more.  My neighbor's sister was diagnosed (through her annual mammogram) at 90. (that was 5 years ago)  If just 1 woman's life is saved that is reason enough to continue having mammograms.

In October I'll be a 27 year survivor.

[Trinity11]

---

@Annabellethecat66 wrote:

@chrystaltree Did you read the posts above you?  People in their 70's should STILL be screened.

Look, if you think the press, tv, etc. is covering this as much as possible...good for you.

I think it should be in the news a lot more than it is.  That is my opinion.  

I've never been accused of looking at life like it's a bowl of cherries (so to speak).  However, until I began to hear about my late husband's relatives and read more about it (seeking out information), I had no idea STILL so many women were STILL dying from it.  No idea.

So, perhaps there are two sides to my ignorance.  Perhaps my ignorance is based on MY family's experience.....or....perhaps most of what "I" hear in the news are those being 'curred' or the break throughs involving breast cancer.....

Hummm??? Perhaps a little of both.  I do know that people like myself would like to see more in the news about those who are still struggling with breast cancer.  

I want to see stories about families dealing with it.  I want it in the newspapers, the TV, radio interviews.  I want people to (if they want to) be able to talk about the devastation it causes everyone around them.

I can't imagine the costs.  What do single mothers do who have no one to watch their children while they get radiation?  What does it do to married couples?

We need more human interest stories.  We need to hear how women need help dealing with this. 

Instead the news and public is consumed with stories that are sensational....for a second.

I hope I answered the question.  I apologize for singling you out, but your question was the first one I saw and I just felt the need to answer it.  

I hope I gave you my answer because that's all I could do .... give you MY answer.

---

@Annabellethecat66... I think there are women who do not share their diagnosis because they are private people and don't want to discuss it. I had breast cancer back in 1990 and I shared it with very few people.

There is a vendor here that shared her diagnosis and a thread was started recently where someone on the thread actually accused her of not having breast cancer at all. I cringed, reported it and thankfully one of the moderators got rid of it. That may be why people are wary of discussing their diagnosis. People share at their own risk.

[SeaMaiden]

---

@lulu1 wrote:

---

@chrystaltree wrote:

What "news" about breast cancer or cancers in general do you think should be in the news?  Actually, there have been great strides in diagnosing very early breast cancers and in treating breast cancers.  But all breast cancers are not the same.  October is coming so they'll be a lot information in the media and everwhere else about mammograms, genetic testing, treatment etc.  It seems like I hear about someone who has breast cancer almost every week.  My friend who is physician said that, in a way, that is good thing because it means that women are being diagnosed early and that gives them the best chance for survival.  Also women talk about it now; in my mother's day, women only confided in the friends.  They kept it a secret, as if it was something to be ashamed of.  I get my information from my physician.  The last discussion we had was about the frequency of my mammograms.  Mine have been negative 3 years in a row so some doctors would advise every 2-3 years now but she still recommends yearly mammograms for patients who are over 50.  I've read studies that women over 74 do not need to be screened.   

---

I could not disagree more.  My neighbor's sister was diagnosed (through her annual mammogram) at 90. (that was 5 years ago)  If just 1 woman's life is saved that is reason enough to continue having mammograms.

In October I'll be a 27 year survivor.

---

It is the insurance companies that fund these “studies” most likely and decisions  are in their favor....