A diet to prevent cancer
There is no diet that can guarantee you that you'll never get cancer. As many of us know from personal experience, sometimes people who do everything "right"--the ones who eat a healthy diet and exercise and the whole works--get cancer anyway. Nonetheless, you can dramatically reduce your risk of cancer by avoiding risky behaviors (like smoking) and embracing healthy diet and lifestyle habits.
Last month, several hundred of the world's leading cancer experts met in Washington, DC to discuss the latest developments in cancer research. Part of their agenda was to discuss a set of diet and lifestyle recommendations for the prevention of cancer. These guidelines are the product of five years of work by a team of some of the world's leading experts in food, nutrition (including obesity), physical activity, epidemiology and cancer, who have examined literally thousands of studies on the interactions between cancer, diet and lifestyle.
Here's what the experts say:
1. Be as lean as possible within the normal range of body weight.
ND TIP: Not sure what's normal? Use our Daily Needs Calculator to calculate your BMI. A BMI of 18 to 25 is considered healthy.
2. Be physically active as a part of everyday life.
3. Limit consumption of energy-dense foods. Avoid sugary drinks.
ND TIP: Choose foods that fall in the upper right hand corner of the Nutritional Target Map. These foods are nutrient-dense but not energy-dense.
4. Eat mostly foods of plant origin.
5. Limit intake of red meat and avoid processed meat.
6. Limit alcoholic drinks.
7. Limit consumption of salt.
8. Aim to meet nutritional needs through diet alone.
ND TIP: see also this recent blog post: "100% of daily needs: Can it be done with supplements?"
9. Mothers to breastfeed; children to be breastfed.
10. Cancer survivors- Follow the recommendations for cancer prevention.
You can purchase a copy of the entire expert report from the American Institute for Cancer Research or download a free brochure with more details on the guidelines for free.
So, what do you think? Do these guidelines seem on target to you? How does your current diet and lifestyle measure up?
 older posts |
home | newer posts  |
| A safe way to burn more calories | | Nutrition Data Blog | | Coffee and diabetics |
Posted by: Pook | Nov 22, 2008 6:46:23 AM
There are many tropical fruits that prevent cancer as well.
http://tropicalfruitswithantioxidants.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Jade | Jun 8, 2008 9:56:47 AM
I say prevent cancer by raw organic food and blending the fruits and veggies to release anti-cancerous phytonutrients! and don't microwave and use cancer causing chemicals on your skin!
feel free to visit my blog: http://healthmiracles.net
Posted by: Rache | Mar 26, 2008 10:13:11 AM
I know that green tea is considered good for Cancer prevention.
Posted by: Bryan-oz4caster | Feb 2, 2008 2:27:23 PM
From what I have been reading, these are the top three things most of us should do for avoiding cancer and heart disease:
1) Minimize sugars and refined carbohydrates and maximize nutrition
2) Minimize omega-6 fats and eliminate artificial trans-fats
3) Get plenty of vitamin D from sunshine and/or diet
Most people get way too much sugar, refined carbohydrate, omega-6 fat, and artificial trans-fat, and not enough pre-formed EPA and DHA omega-3 fat and CLA (the only good trans-fat), and not enough natural vitamins D, A, and K2 from good quality pastured or wild animal foods.
Posted by: Monica Reinagel | Jan 29, 2008 12:16:13 PM
Steve, you might be interested in this recent post on the topic: http://blog.nutritiondata.com/ndblog/2007/12/the-debate-over.html
Posted by: Steve Parker | Jan 29, 2008 2:33:19 AM
I agree with all 10 guidelines except the one about limitation of salt intake. There is a national push now in the healthcare community to once again limit salt intake, for reduction of blood pressure and, apparently, for reduction of cancer risk. This latter point is new. I will have to do my own literature review when time allows. When I reviewed the salt and hypertension link ten years ago, I was not convinced EVERYONE needed to limit salt intake. There seems to be a subset of the population that indeed has elevated blood pressure sensitive to salt intake. But that subset is in the range of 10% to 25% of us.
-Steve Parker, M.D., author of The Advanced Mediterranean Diet: Lose Weight, Feel Better, Live Longer
Posted by: Dorice L Moylan | Jan 28, 2008 12:17:25 PM
I am a breast cancer survivor (4 1/2 yrs) and a personal trainer of 25 years. I eat clean most of the time, before and after cancer. Monica is right, there's no guarantee but it's definitely worth following these guidelines because it made going through treatment much easier than for those with cancer and are out of shape, obese, etc. and I didn't get fanatic after cancer because I already have low bodyfat, work out regularly etc. What I've been working on is stress managemant because I think besides all the crap in the environment that we can't control, how we handle stress, anger and other trauma has a lot to do with cancer.
Posted by: Curtis Churico | Jan 28, 2008 11:06:22 AM
I have just been sent a link on "you tube" regarding the connection between Cancer and Vitamin K.
This documentary was created by a man named G.EDWARD GRIFFIN. The documentary is called "A WORLD WITHOUT CANCER".
Check this out folks, it is very interesting.
I think it also important to note that many of our vaccines today carry a lot of toxic substances that are known to cause cancer. Many vaccines, like the "polio" were not even needed in most cases because the disease itself was already declining rapidly. The improved sanitation, and food supply was a direct result of many illnesses being depleted.
HEALTH & HAPPINESS TO ALL!
Curtis
Posted by: Monica Reinagel | Jan 21, 2008 9:15:54 AM
Dear Jan,
I can understand your frustration. As I said in the opening of my post, there are no guarantees and plenty of cases where people who do every thing right get cancer anyway. And I agree that there is a lot we don't know about cancer. Why were cancer rates lower 50 years ago? Complex question. For one thing, life expectancy was lower and your risk of cancer escalates with age. Secondly, we had just started to use DDT and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals in agriculture and their long term effects had yet to reveal themselves. Even though no one had gym memberships, people drove less, walked more, and had more physical activity in their lives. And even as I write that, I have to acknowledge that there is no way to monolithically describe how "we" as a nation lived. Family farms dominated the center of the country and those folks led EXTREMELY physical lives, ate lots of vegetables and the only ones that were canned, they canned themselves.
All kinds of disparate lifestyles are boiled together to come up with national "cancer rates." Obviously the devil is in the details. I think one potential danger of guidelines to prevent cancer is that it makes it seem as if people who get cancer are somehow at fault and that is clearly not the case. That said, with so much about cancer that we CAN'T control, I personally want to know what I CAN do to reduce my risk and I think that's the main attraction to these sorts of guidelines. I'm curious to know: As a cancer survivor, do you try to follow these types of guidlines (even though they understandably tick you off)?
Posted by: jan | Jan 20, 2008 4:33:22 PM
I think there is a lot we still don't know about cancer. I get ticked whenever I read the recommendations to prevent cancer. I did all that stuff and the rest of my family didn't. I got breast cancer they didn't get any cancer. 40-50yrs ago cancer rates were not like today even taking into consideration that we are catching it earlier through our technology. I'm not saying they didn't have problems but cancer wasn't one of them. By the way I don't have those other problems.
Our ancestors chowed down on beef, smoked, drank, didn't go to the gym, veggies were all canned and you probably got only 1 serving at dinner.
Forget the fresh salads, the hot house veggies were like cardboard. Now we have everything including increased rates of cancer.
Sorry to vent
jan
Posted by: Monica Reinagel | Jan 19, 2008 9:19:09 AM
Dear Judy and Crust-y Curious,
good questions and near and dear to my heart as a good pie crust is one of life's finest pleasures. Look for a post on this topic soon.
Posted by: Sam Hartman | Jan 19, 2008 1:07:18 AM
Summary: go vegan, eat a varied diet, and get moving!
Posted by: Judy | Jan 18, 2008 2:11:53 PM
Like Crust-y Curious, I've been wondering about lard and pie crusts, as well as other saturated fats. If we limit our intake of saturated fats to recommended amounts, does it matter what TYPE of saturated fat we use? Are palm oil, coconut oil, butter, lard, and beef drippings (for homemade gravy) all equivalent, nutritionally? Or is there some good reason to avoid certain of these?
Thanks in advance--this is a *great* site!
Judy
Posted by: Angel | Jan 18, 2008 11:22:23 AM
I think sometimes people hurt themselves more on their diets than help themselves simply because they deprive themselves of healthy nutrition and nutrients. Then they cave in and eat the worst food for your body. The best and most healthy thing one can do is eat right and not eat crap. Nutritional shakes are great because they include so much good stuff. Go to your drug store and see what you can find.
Posted by: Monica Reinagel | Jan 18, 2008 11:21:14 AM
Jonathan,
I don't agree that the BMI is "useless" but as you've pointed out, it's major limitation is that people with very high muscle mass will be categorized as overweight for their height when this is clearly not the case. While ND has a disproportionate number of users that fall into this category (kudos!), the percentage of the general population that are in this category is very small, and they usually are aware that the BMI equation does not apply to them.
I think the point about limiting energy-dense but otherwise nutritious foods (these would be the foods that fall into the lower right hand category of our Nutritional Target Map) is likewise oriented toward the vast majority of Americans who are overweight or obese.
Thanks for your comments!
Posted by: Jonathan Benson | Jan 18, 2008 7:48:26 AM
I love how the first point relates to BMI, quite possibly the most useless scale in the world.
My BMI is 'overweight' yet I've sub 5% bodyfat and a number of friends are 'underweight' yet perfectly healthy.
Anyway, mini rant over I think point 3 is worded badly. Items such as nuts, seeds, eggs could all be called energy dense but you don't really need to limit the quantities as they're all very healthy foods.
Avoiding high GI items I agree with.
Posted by: Crust-y Curious | Jan 16, 2008 6:24:42 PM
Sorry, don't mean to go off topic but can't seem to find a way to ask a question privately.
I've been reading (BA Feb08 most recently) that 'lard' is now considered a good fat, so long as it's not hydrogenated, still saturated fat so not 'good' like olive oil and like all fats, to be eaten in much moderation.
But I'm wondering what you think about going back to Gramma's pie crust recipe. Crisco/butter just never did make the same good crust ...
PS I've long been a fan of Nutrition Data and it's really great what you're doing here, making nutrition information so easily accessible to everyone. I applaud the CondeNast folks for bringing you into their fold and opening you up to the public so beautifully.
Posted by: Monica Reinagel | Jan 15, 2008 5:36:34 PM
no, I think they're talking about cold cuts, sausages, that sort of thing.
