Didnt you get it pretty late in life? Not saying your diet had nothing to do with it but it seems like breast cancer is one of thise that could be caused by many different things. Did you use antiperspirant with aluminum in it? Didyou use lots of lotions and sunscreens and the like? Were you actually diabetic, how overweight? You said along with soy, seeing as Derp avoids soy like the devil it sounds like your diets werent all that similar.
Dont have to answer those questions.
Last edited by Zach; 12-26-2012 at 07:41 PM.
The thing is we are now surrounded by foods that are bad for us and we've learned to think they taste good. But it has been my experience that if you aren't used to eating processed, manufactured foods they do not taste good. That's why it's so important to give kids real foods so they grow up prefering real foods. I have no problems passing up bagels, processed baked goods and fast food, I don't need to restrict myself because I don't like those foods. In fact I'm happy to fast if that's all that's available. So for me eating this way is not stressful I eat what I like and I don't like crap!
I'm not going to be disrespectful and claim to know how or why you got cancer, and I'm truly sorry that it happened to you, but I'm going to have to disagree completely with your claim sugar causes and feeds cancer cells.
Make America Great Again
I got it at age 45 which is prime time for breast cancer due to menopausal hormonal changes. I haven't used anti-perspirants since I was in my 20s, never use lotion or sunscreen, never was diabetic, and I didn't get overweight until after I got cancer. I gained weight over two and a half years of surgeries, chemo, reconstruction, reconstructing the reconstruction, etc. Not to mention the strain chemo puts on your thyroid and not being able to exercise. I have lost 65lbs since then and kept it off.
"In 1924, Warburg hypothesized that cancer, malignant growth, and tumor growth are caused by tumor cells mainly generating energy (as e.g. adenosine triphosphate / ATP) by nonoxidative breakdown of glucose (a process called glycolysis) and the subsequent recycling of the metabolite NADH back to its oxidized form, for reuse in the glycolytic cycle to complete the process (known as fermentation, or anaerobic respiration). This is in contrast to "healthy" cells, which mainly generate energy from oxidative breakdown of pyruvate. Pyruvate is an end product of glycolysis, and is oxidized within the mitochondria. Hence, and according to Warburg, cancer should be interpreted as a mitochondrial dysfunction.
"Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. But, even for cancer, there is only one prime cause. Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar." -- Dr. Otto H. Warburg in Lecture "
Warburg got a Nobel Prize for this.
Last edited by Paleobird; 12-26-2012 at 08:29 PM.
I am not reenacting caveman times.
I have looked at the evidence regarding ancestral diets (which is broader than paleo) since 2000 or so, and most of it is interesting, modern science. None of this says that we need to "think" like our ancestors, but rather that if we eat in a way similar to our ancestors, and also do a ocuple of other things like they *might have* done (exercising by LHT for example), then we will be healthy.
Otherwise, I'm an entirely modern person, who eats a wide variety of foods (which on rare occasion includes wheat, and on less rare occasion includes rice, and on even less rare occasion includes sugar), who fits well into her environment, who is happy with her modern, city lifestyle, and so on and so forth.
The life of a caveman woman would be as strange and foreign to me as my life would be to her. No need for us to "try" to be like the other.