For nearly as long as I can remember, the edict, 'You are what you eat,' has been a general rule of thumb to sustained good health, and, quite frankly, I'm betting on it.
I am considered high risk for developing a potpourri of cancers, not because of any risky, smooth nicotine filled lifestyle, but because of my parentage.
My father and mother both died of cancer within 17 months of each other and both at the age of 56. My father was a career smoker who reached the pinnacle of tobacco vocations with the development of bladder cancer that metastasized over his body like suicide bombers in the Middle East. (While the simile may seem inappropriate, it works because cancer is like that.)
My mother was "cured" of colon cancer in her early 40s then developed lung cancer in her mid 50s that was the same type of cancer as her colon cancer, but dad's second hand smoke may have weakened her lungs, or so I was told.
Now here I am at 41, thirteen years since the passing of my mother, and my high risk factor has me hyper-aware of cancer prevention.
I had a colonoscopy a little over three years ago. While most people do not generally get them until they are 40, given my family history, my doctor recommended the procedure (euphemistic noun spoken in low tones). The doctor who performed the procedure told me that most people have the procedure done every ten years, but given my family history, I should have one every five.
In case you're wondering, the pipes were clean, polyp free, and, for anyone who is considering undergoing the procedure, it really isn't that bad. The worst part is the night before when you need to take a spring cleaning portion of laxatives.
I'm okay with regular exams, periodically poked and prodded in the name of prevention. What has me spinning is the constant barrage of cancer fighting foods.
It seems every other day we are told of how another food can help avert cashing it in at the big casino.
Just last year there was a study that found vitamin E rich foods like olives and nuts can cut the risk of bladder cancer in half. This obviously is of particular interest to my cancer phobic appetite.
However, while nuts may be rich in vitamin E, they are also pretty affluent in fat, and I?m trying to keep to a low fat diet. There?s no need to go overboard, though, experts tell me. Eighteen grams of good fat a day is all that it takes for healthful benefits, which is equal to about a half a cup of guacamole. Have you ever really measured out a half a cup of anything? That's only about two decent sized dips with a hearty tortilla chip. Where's the satisfaction in that?
All of this carcinogen combating cuisine has me in a dither. You see, while nuts may fit in with a low carb diet--I mean a low carb lifestyle--the sweet potato, rich in antioxidant beta-carotene cancer fighting goodness, certainly does not.
Other foods that are known to be high in anti-cancer agents include tomatoes, spinach, and garlic, which, along with some whole milk regatta cheese, long flat pasta, ground beef, baked at 350, and you've got yourself a delicious lasagna dinner.
I recently read that onions, the ones with the strongest flavor, are inhibitors of liver and colon cancer. I also read that curry can kill off melanoma skin cancer cells. So the other night I fried up a mess of onions so pungent they took the skin off my eyes and added a shovelful of curry. Actually, with a bit of salt, it didn?t taste that bad.
Another study tells me it's not just curry that have anti-cancer qualities, but other spices, too, like cinnamon, capsicum (whose ground form is paprika), and ginger. All these spices make me hungry for take-out Chinese and big fluffy cinnamon buns.
Taking garlic or whatever else in pill form seems ridiculous to me when they taste so good on so many things. Besides, nutritionists say that the best benefits come from the foods themselves and not supplements.
So, to tip the odds in my favor of a life extended past my parents, I'll eat as much of what I am told may prevent any type of cancer I can because I long to be what I eat: a cancer fighting force.
Then again, another recent study says that people who are overweight at 40 are more likely to die three years earlier than there slimmer counterparts, meaning, the study by Dutch researchers says, being fat at forty is as much a negative effect on life expectancy as smoking.
FEEDS: News | Pop Culture | Ledger Pop | Ledger DC
