To think the PoW’s diagnosis makes healthy living seem pointless?

[Notsuretoputit]

I try my best to live heathily (although definitely not fanatical). I try and stay away from ultra processed foods, try and avoid saturated fat, too much meat etc., try and exercise every week. I’ll have the odd takeaway and definitely overindulge on wine, but always try and be mindful of living heathily because so much information is constantly battering me through the radio, media etc. about getting ill from various foods and not exercising.

I’ve recently lost my mother far too young too, so I suppose it’s particularly on my mind at the moment. But then you hear Kate’s diagnosis, who obviously exercises regularly, has the best instructors, best food, best ingredients, best preparation, and she still falls ill, and it all seems a bit pointless.

AIBU to feel this way? I just wonder whether I really should make an effort to watch what I eat and run when I don’t feel like it if really, what will be will be regardless.

It was relevant when someone posted about seatbelts

Your family maybe. Three of my grandparents were dead before I was even born. The final one died whilst I was still at junior school.

No it was not.

Yes it was

(Do you see what I did there)

It was not.

the seatbelt an example that because something isn’t a guarantee you don’t disregard the reduction in risk.

A side topic of libertarianism has nothing to do with the point being made or the overall thread.

@doublec

I've had no monitoring of my lungs, heart etc.

They haven't even taken my bp , temperature and pulse before my last two chemos.

I have no opportunity to discuss it with the mdt and my oncologist complained to me how expensive my treatment was!

I have bc. I'm doing EC currently then pax and carbo.

I appreciate you replying to my question especially with the typo ( meant to be chemo ages you...).

Can not does. It depends on a multitude of things.

There's more to health than not getting cancer. Heart disease is a big one and being overweight hugely increases risk. It's worth it making the effort.

It's about the use of data and understanding the reduction in risk.

When seatbelts were introduced, there was a backlash.
It takes data and an understanding of risk reduction to get people to change their mind and adopt different ways of doing things.

Which is relevant to this discussion on lifestyle habits and impact on health

Really? Are you sure? So before you have chemo, usually the day before, they don't take your bloods - these should be taken when you have PICC care the day before chemo. Do you have access to your records online? I think it's called Patient Knows Best. These are updated with all bloods taken prior to chemo.

On chemo day itself, are you sure they don't take your blood pressure and pulse before they even start your infusion?

And what about before you even started chemo? Surely you had an ECG or whatever it's called then?

When they take your bloods, they check your kidney and liver function, as well as your white cell count and numerous other things. If anything is awry, they might make you delay chemo.

If you're not having your bloods taken at the PICC care immediately before chemo, you have to insist on it. I find it incredibly odd that they're not because this is common practise - they aren't allowed to administered chemo without these basic checks.

As for your oncologist complaining to you, why haven't you complained to PALS and asked to see someone else. Speak up, use your voice - demand better care. Ask to see a different oncologist. At the very least, talk to Macmillan and they will advise.

--

Carbo is intense. Sorry you're on it. I couldn't be given carbo as they were concerned it would make me horrendously unwell. Ha, something that happened anyway as I refused all steroids.

I’m in my mid 60s and know so many ‘healthy’ people of all ages who nave got/had or have died from cancers. Breast, lung, ovarian, thyroid, leukaemias, pancreatic, liver. There just seems to be no rhyme nor reason for so many of these - healthy eaters, active throughout their lifetimes, never smoked, low to moderate alcohol consumption.

definitely there is a huge rise in lifestyle related cancers and I think moderation is important in times of diet, excercise, alcohol and no smoking. But the older I get, the more I think, taking this to extremes in the hope it will protect you from cancer, is pointless. There must be a siginificant genetic imperative as well as environmental. And the older you get, the more the chance of having some sort of cancer. Many just seem completely unfair and random.

Also, it was well documented that she and her mother followed the very low carb Dukan diet. Not sure how healthy that is or whether that’s a even true. But it does limit fruit and is protein heavy. Not great for the bowels.

No it is not. You can keep saying it is but it’s not. you have entirely missed the point.

So you saying that understanding data, understanding large studies on people and what they eat / behave and looking at the outcomes on health is irrelevant to a discussion on the effect of diet and lifestyle on cancer?

Ok.

If there were 1000 people who wore a seatbelt and 1000 people who did not wear a seatbelt and there were 10 accidents in each group and 1 person in the first group died and 8 in the second died , are you saying that is irrelevant to the discussion?

Data shows that wearing a seatbelt reduces the risk of injury.
But you can get injured if you wear a seatbelt/

Data shows that leading a healthy lifestyle reduces your risk of cancer.
But you can get cancer if you lead a healthy lifestyle.

But I guess that's irrelevant

No. That is not what I said. I’m saying the side topic of libertarianism is not relevant to the point.

Which was EXACTLY the point I made. And you did a side topic of libertarianism that is not relevant.

And that's not what I am talking about.

I am talking about data
And people had to be shown the data to be convinced that seatbelts had a place.

The data is there regarding the topic of the original post. It’s quite clear you actually agree with the original point I made so I have no idea why you’re wasting our time with this side bar.

It was a link showing that people were against seatbelts - that's all

And that data had to be used to convince people

You started it.

I truly can’t see how the seatbelt argument relates to the statistics around who will get cancer.

Put a sack of potatoes in a car seat and slam on the brakes and it’s obviously going to be thrown around far more than if you’d secured with a seatbelt. We are dealing with a speed/safety issue. It’s far harder to establish why a non smoking, non drinking person who is a healthy weight, lives an active lifestyle, doesn’t work, live or regularly go to obviously risky environments , does get lung cancer. It’s pretty apparent why you are significant risk of serious accident or death if you don’t fasten your car seatbelt.

Not at all. There’s other diseases aside from
cancer isn’t there. And cancer is often just something that occurs, 1 in 3 will get it.

And to those who are experts in health it’s pretty obvious why if you smoke you’re at greater risk of cancer.