IS IT WORTH THE RISK?

Every time I backslide where food is concerned I ask myself the question - is it worth the risk ? and the answer is always no.........so why do I do it?
When I can answer that I wont do it again now will I?
Here is what Dr. Ritamarie Loscalzo has to say on this topic:

Is it worth the risk ? is a great question to ask yourself when making lifestyle choices that affect your health.
What risks do you take on a regular basis?
Driving or being a passenger without a seat belt?
Riding a bicycle without a helmet?
Going to bed without flossing your teeth?
Life is filled with risk/reward/choices. Are you clear enough about your core values and goals that the choices are easy to make?
Here are 5 risks that most people take on a daily basis:
1. Eating heated oils. The threshold temperature is slightly different for each oil, yet the result is similar. Above the threshold, the heat causes oxidation of the fat,making it damaging to your immune system and antioxidant status. This puts you at risk for cancer, heart disease and a host
of degenerative ailments. Poly-unsaturated oils like safflower, corn, sunflower and soybean are the most risky,and are generally oxidized in the bottle, before you even
open them, due to exposure to light, heat and air.
2. Eating sugar. Sugar not only contributes to poor dental health, it also feeds cancer cells, and its consumption dramatically increases your cancer risk. Sugar also creates hormonal disruption, contributes to a condition called
insulin resistance and its characteristic fat around the waist, and results in impaired energy metabolism and decreased immunity. As if that's not enough, sugar
contributes to focus and concentration, heart disease, and dozens of other health maladies
3. Exposure to pesticides, herbicides and chemicals in the air and water. These tax your inborn detoxification systems, leading to toxic buildup, mental health issues and digestive disturbances.
4. Worrying. Getting yourself in a tizzy about things that may happen, could happen and would be horrible if did happen is a sure fire way of putting yourself at risk for heart disease, cancer, stroke and chronic fatigue. It puts your body into 'fight/flight' mode, creating a cascade of chemical reactions that impairs digestion and absorption of nutrients and can contribute to cancer.
5. Eating processed and refined cooked foods. These are deficient in nutrients and usually contain harmful preservatives, additives and flavorings, which disrupt hormone pathways, drain your body of B-vitamins and other nutrients needed for energy metabolism and leave you exhausted, toxic and undernourished
Go through the list and determine how much you're putting yourself at risk. Then ask yourself when confronted with a food or lifestyle choice, “Is this worth the risk? Is the momentary pleasure worth long-term disconnection from what really matters?
Making choices consistent with your higher good takes some effort on your part. You'll need to educate yourself,learn to make different food choices and risk being “different”.As one of my potluck participants said when asked about his
food choices and whether he felt deprived,“Nothing tastes as good as being healthy feels".

Well I don`t succumb to most of those risks but I love a good steak and prime rib of beef, so when I succumb that's what I do.....I always eat too much protein....and I must say that although it doesn't happen very often, I consider eating cooked food backsliding as it makes me feel completely different than when I'm eating completely raw....but completely raw comes with its own set of problems like not being able to backslide without being sick so I tend to always have a little cooked in my diet, but a little cooked and eating cooked every day for a week is 2 different things...Is that worth the risk ? NO!

BE HEART AND CANCER SMART

There is an ad for Nutrigrain that I saw on TV recently and it is spot on......it shows that if you start the day eating well you usually end the day eating well . I find once we come off track e.g. eating a piece of fried chicken - the cravings start and can`t stop......Once we start with the fruit and vegetables our taste buds get used to it and we adjust to eating that way for the day and as we eat that way we feel good, we look good, all bloat is gone and we continue eating that way....Then comes the day when we don`t prepare the right things to eat or our eyes are bigger than our stomachs and we are right back to square 1.
I saw today that Kentucky Fried Chicken will be donating heavily to the Susan G Komen centre for breast cancer when you buy their pink buckets of chicken.... God help us !! I would never say Kentucky Fried Chicken causes us to have breast cancer , but if you have breast cancer should you be eating Kentucky Fried Chicken??...........
Just asking?
In Jamaica KFC is doing lots of good things for needy communities like their partnership with the Jamaica Library Service to promote literacy among children and the recent opening of another one of their homework centres, but with the rising awareness of the dangers of childhood obesity I would love to see some indication that the ingredients being used in the production of their products are not contributing to this problem.
This talk about fried chicken leads me to another serious health issue - heart attacks - the #1 killer,.....
Even if you eat well and get plenty of exercise, your arteries can inevitably get hard, stiff and full of gunk during your lifetime.
As early as age 10, you may start to accumulate fat in your arteries and by the time you’re 20, you may have up to a 20% closure of three coronary arteries causing poor
circulation. Surely we are always stunned when we hear of young people suffering massive heart attacks..They usually don`t make it!
One tell-tale sign of poor circulation is tingling or feeling cold in your hands and feet - you think you are cold but sometimes there is a deadlier reason.....
As you approach your 40s, unhealthy lifestyle practices like eating your beloved fried foods cause more damage to the arterial linings and a steady coat of plaque may surround your arteries. Left unchecked this arterial plaque may multiply and restrict blood flow…
By the time you are 50, your arteries are likely to be full of thick, sticky plaque and too narrow for optimum blood flow.
At this stage you need to have a by-pass of some sort.
At 60, the linings of your arteries are so full of stiffened and restricting plaque that blood flow is drastically reduced.
At that stage you have a one in three chance of experiencing a heart or brain disaster.
So take the first step to preventing such a disaster - don`t bodda with the fried chicken no matter how much they are donating to a good cause.

CLEANSING AND DETOXIFYING CONFUSION

Let me share information from someone who I respect a lot, DR. RITAMARIE LOSCALZO , expounding on a topic that is confusing too many of us - cleansing and detoxifying - here is what she has to say -

Have you ever felt like you're on a roller coaster when it comes to your diet and your never ending quest to cleanse and detoxify ?
Fact of the matter is, the information on diets and cleansing programs is very confusing ! And the more you read and study, the more confusing it becomes.
I for one am not a fan of wild claims and miracle cures.
What I've discovered in my almost 2 decades of changing lives through diet and detoxification is a closely guarded secret in the nutrition field....
Are you ready for it?
There is no one plan that works for everyone!...not raw foods, not fasting, not juicing, not medical food powders, not the cranberry juice flush, or liver flushes or
macrobiotics or.....fill in the blank.
As much as I'd like it to be so, 'cause it would make my job a lot easier, I have yet to find any one thing that across the board works for everyone straight “out of he box.
It would be nice if we were all cookie cutter perfect, but the truth is we're not.
Just as you look different than me on the outside, there are subtle differences between us on the inside. What that translates to is simply that even if we follow the same program to the letter, your results will most likely be different than mine.

That's why I preach daily that moderation is the key !
The other thing that this makes me believe even more is that we should eat according to our blood type.
I feel this is why I may react to something that you don't react to. We eat the same thing and have 2 totally different reactions... I feel it's our blood type that contributes big time to us being so different..doesn't hurt to test this theory now does it?

CANCER PANEL SAYS CHEMICALS THREATEN OUR BODIES !

One day one of my cosmetology students gave me a case with eyeshadow that had to be at least 12 years old and instinctively I told her thanks but no thanks......it went straight into the garbage as should most of the makeup I see friends and foe using ...they are not only old but many of them are filled with carcinogens,the names of the chemicals they contain can`t even be pronounced. That also goes for some of the things we bathe and wash our clothes with....as to everybody walking around with their bottled water in plastic bottles - they are drinking more BPA than anything else.....and forget about the excuse that you "can`t afford it" meaning you can't afford to eat organic or buy soaps and makeup that are made with things that wont add more toxins to our already toxic lifestyle.....Think about this - Can you afford the chemo when the inevitable happens ?
Read this NY Times article by Nicholas D. Kristof and take heed !

New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer
The President’s Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream, so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join ranks with the organic food movement and declare: chemicals threaten our bodies.
The cancer panel is releasing a landmark 200-page report warning that our lackadaisical approach to regulation may have far-reaching consequences for our health.
I’ve read an advance copy of the report, and it’s an extraordinary document. It calls on America to rethink the way we confront cancer, including much more rigorous regulation of chemicals.
Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regular doctor visits, self-examinations and screenings such as mammograms. The President’s Cancer Panel suggests other eye-opening steps as well, such as giving preference to organic food, checking radon levels in the home and microwaving food in glass containers rather than plastic.
In particular, the report warns about exposures to chemicals during pregnancy, when risk of damage seems to be greatest. Noting that 300 contaminants have been detected in umbilical cord blood of newborn babies, the study warns that: “to a disturbing extent, babies are born ‘pre-polluted.’ ”
It’s striking that this report emerges not from the fringe but from the mission control of mainstream scientific and medical thinking, the President’s Cancer Panel. Established in 1971, this is a group of three distinguished experts who review America’s cancer program and report directly to the president.
The report blames weak laws, lax enforcement and fragmented authority, as well as the existing regulatory presumption that chemicals are safe unless strong evidence emerges to the contrary.
“Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety,” the report says. It adds: “Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated.”
Industry may howl. The food industry has already been fighting legislation in the Senate backed by Dianne Feinstein of California that would ban bisphenol-A, commonly found in plastics and better known as BPA, from food and beverage containers.
Studies of BPA have raised alarm bells for decades, and the evidence is still complex and open to debate. That’s life: In the real world, regulatory decisions usually must be made with ambiguous and conflicting data. The panel’s point is that we should be prudent in such situations, rather than recklessly approving chemicals of uncertain effect.
Some 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and they include Democrats and Republicans alike. Protecting ourselves and our children from toxins should be an effort that both parties can get behind — if enough members of Congress are willing to put the public interest ahead of corporate interests.
One reason for concern is that some cancers are becoming more common, particularly in children. We don’t know why that is, but the proliferation of chemicals in water, foods, air and household products is widely suspected as a factor. I’m hoping the President’s Cancer Panel report will shine a stronger spotlight on environmental causes of health problems — not only cancer, but perhaps also diabetes, obesity and autism.
This is not to say that chemicals are evil, and in many cases the evidence against a particular substance is balanced by other studies that are exonerating. To help people manage the uncertainty prudently, the report has a section of recommendations for individuals:
- Particularly when pregnant and when children are small, choose foods, toys and garden products with fewer endocrine disruptors or other toxins. (Information about products is at www.cosmeticsdatabase.com or www.healthystuff.org.)
- For those whose jobs may expose them to chemicals, remove shoes when entering the house and wash work clothes separately from the rest of the laundry.
- Filter drinking water.
- Store water in glass or stainless steel containers, or in plastics that don’t contain BPA or phthalates (chemicals used to soften plastics). Microwave food in ceramic or glass containers.
- Give preference to food grown without pesticides, chemical fertilizers and growth hormones. Avoid meats that are cooked well-done.
- Check radon levels in your home. Radon is a natural source of radiation linked to cancer.

Well after this story was published Dr. Michael Thun, an epidemiologist from the American Cancer Society , responded saying that the report was “unbalanced by its implication that pollution is the major cause of cancer,” and had presented an unproven theory — that environmentally caused cases are grossly underestimated — as if it were a fact. Dr.Thun went on to say that suggesting that the risk is much higher, when there is no proof, may divert attention from things that are much bigger causes of cancer, like smoking.
They never cease to amaze me.........how can we overstate cancer risks? All causes of Cancer need to be OVERSTATED! People need to be aware of these things....Some of us just don`t know that carcinogens are in lipstick and bath soap, worse toothpaste and dishwashing liquid.......Now that someone is trying to make us aware they are saying its excessive!!! COME ON AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY - BY THE WAY I WONDER IF THE JAMAICAN BRANCH IS STILL SERVING PEOPLE JERK PORK AT THEIR FUNCTIONS ?

THE WILL TO LIVE!

32 years ago , the doctors said I had 2 weeks to live and although I have had 2 recurrences since then - in 2006 I had stage 4 colon cancer-I am here to tell you that no one, no doctor can tell you how long you have left on this earth if you have the will to live........
Here is a fabulous story as told by Katherine Russell Rich another SURVIVOR!

17 Years Later, Stage 4 Survivor Is Savoring a Life Well Lived -
Each year on a day in January — the 15th, to be precise — I go to a Web site and post a message to hundreds of women I’ve never met, saying, essentially, “I’m still here.”
Within days, a thunderous chorus comes back, 200 voices, 300. A few of them ask, “How can this be?” Sometimes they begin, “I’m crying.” Many answer in kind: “I’m here, too. It’s now three years.” “Five years.” “Three months.” “Seven.”
What we’re doing, in a way, is checking for lights in the darkness.
Now there probably aren’t a lot of Web sites where the announcement that you’re around and breathing would cause anyone to take notice, let alone respond. But this is a site for people with Stage 4 breast cancer, something I’ve had for 17 years. The average life expectancy with the diagnosis is 30 months, so this is a little like saying I’m 172 years old: seemingly impossible. But it’s not. I first found I had the illness in 1988, and it was rediagnosed as Stage 4 in 1993. That’s 22 years all together, which is the reason I post each year on the anniversary of the day I learned my cancer was back: to let women know that it happens, that people do live with this for years.
I tell them that when the cancer returned, it came on so fast, spread so quickly, that I was given a year or two to live. Within months, the disease turned vicious. It started breaking bones from within, and was coming close to severing my spinal cord.
Nothing was working, till a doctor tried a hormone treatment no one used much anymore, and the cancer turned and retreated, snarling. It remains sluggish but active. Every so often, it rears its head; when it does, we switch treatments and it slides back down. In that way, I stay alive.
I tell them: you just don’t know.
Two and a half years after the Stage 4 diagnosis, I confessed to my mother that the doctors had said I had two years to live, tops. I’d kept this information to myself because if you say it, it’s true. I told her this laughing, as if we were trading preposterous stories. “Well, I guess you’re going to have to hold your breath if you’re going to make that deadline,” she replied, in her slow Southern drawl when I gave my previously stated expiration date.
I spent the next five years holding my breath, then did the same for another five. I enacted every New Year’s resolution, past and future, all at once. Quit work that had grown stale and became a writer. Wrote a book. Went to India on assignment, fell in love with the language that was swirling around me, went back to live for a year and learn Hindi. Didn’t realize the reason I’d come to dislike that hyperbolically overachieving Lance Armstrong was that his behavior was too familiar. Take a nap, Lance! I’d think to myself, though in truth I couldn’t either.
But if I was verging on radical levels of life consumption, I had a reason: No one had told me I wasn’t going to die soon. About 12 years out, my doctor finally did.
There’s a small subcategory of people with Stage 4 breast cancer, it turned out, who live for years and years. “Twenty. Thirty,” said my doctor, George Raptis. This group constitutes about 2 percent of all cases. Doctors can’t predict who will fall into this category. They can’t say you’re in it till you’re in it — till you’ve racked up the necessary miles.
The reason they can’t is that for all the pink-ribbon hoopla, despite the hundreds of millions that have been poured into breast cancer research, hardly anyone has looked into the why of long-distance survival; not one doctor has specialized in this field.
Here’s pretty much the sum of collective knowledge: People in this group tend to have disease that has spread to the bone (as opposed to lung or liver, say) and feeds on estrogen. They tend to do well on hormone treatments. End of commonly known story.
But as Dr. Gabriel N. Hortobagyi at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston told me, you can also find women whose breast cancer spread to organs other than bone, for whom hormone therapy did exactly nothing, who had their lesions surgically excised and who have been free of cancer for 30 years. None of these women could have expected to live.
You just don’t know, and neither, unfortunately, does the medical field.
One reason, as the breast surgeon Dr. Susan Love told me, is that “many clinical trials are funded by the drug companies to run for five years,” obviously not enough if you’re investigating long-term survivors. But through her institute, the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation, she has begun to conduct research.
Dr. Love said she was inspired by a colleague who told her that in World War II, aviation experts focused on planes that went down until someone said, “Why aren’t we studying the planes that stay up in the air?” By no means a reflexive optimist, she thinks there’s hope we’ll find a cure.
On the Web site, I tell the women how deeply I believe there’s no such thing as false hope: all hope is valid, even for people like us, even when hope would no longer appear to be sensible.
Life itself isn’t sensible, I say. No one can say with ultimate authority what will happen — with cancer, with a job that appears shaky, with all reversed fortunes — so you may as well seize all glimmers that appear.
I write to them (to myself) that of course this is tough: the waiting to see if the shadows are multiplying, the physical pain, the bouts with terrible blackness.
“But there can be joy in this life, too,” I say, “and that’s so important to remember. This disease does not invalidate us. This past year, I’ve had the joy of falling in love with my sister’s kids, who live states away and whom I hadn’t had the chance to know. I’ve had a second book come out, one I worked on for eight years, about going to live in India with Stage 4 cancer. I’ve had so many moments of joy this year, but when I’m in blackness, I forget about those.” Then I ask them to write and tell me about theirs, and lights begin to flash.
“Had a pajama party with my oldest friend, laughing through the night in matching pajamas about old times.”
“Came in second in a bridge tournament.”
“I went on a wonderful camping trip with my family.”
“Seeing my older daughter grow taller than me. She’s now 5-9.”
One thing I don’t ever think to say: When I was told I had a year or two, I didn’t want anything one might expect: no blow-out trip to the Galápagos, no perfect meal at Alain Ducasse, no defiant red Maserati. All I wanted was ordinary life back, for ordinary life, it became utterly clear, is more valuable than anything else.
I don’t think to say it, and I never will. The women on the site already know that.