http://www.wcrf-uk.org/audience/media/p ... p?recid=82

Finally some sense whereby a charity is basically saying that cancer doesn't just happen. It is massively influenced by a person's lifestyle and diet.

Every individual has a greater or lesser genetic predisposition to be susceptible to one disease or another. However, lifestyle and dietary choices are the biggest factor imo.

A useful cancer prevention matrix is here: http://www.wcrf-uk.org/images/photos/va ... ix_big.jpg

Ross wrote a decent article about it too: http://www.energiseforlife.com/wordpres ... line-life/

That matrix is pretty good, however I would not take that as gospel. Especially the red meat part. Epidemiological studies don't provide causal links, and unless you've got the study at hand and can interpret the statistics, I wouldn't really trust them.

health4ni wrote:
Ross wrote a decent article about it too: http://www.energiseforlife.com/wordpres ... line-life/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course the recent press release is not being used to further his profits! ie the link to his course that costs £44.99!!! I get so pissed off by blatant opportunism like this. Praying on those who will jump at anything as the dreaded C word has been mentioned. That site is solely aimed at marketing 'alkaline' products under the disguise of helping towards better health.

RoB wrote:That matrix is pretty good, however I would not take that as gospel.

Indeed. But it is certainly very good for the majority of the public. People like ourselves that invest a lot more time in researching nutrition may find some things difficult to agree with. But as I say, overall it's damn good guide for people to follow.

RoB wrote:Especially the red meat part. Epidemiological studies don't provide causal links, and unless you've got the study at hand and can interpret the statistics, I wouldn't really trust them.

I disagree with the red meat part. afaik it's pretty clear that too much will massively increase the risk of colon cancer. and imo that's mainly sue to the very acidic nature of it.

health4ni wrote:

RoB wrote:That matrix is pretty good, however I would not take that as gospel.

Indeed. But it is certainly very good for the majority of the public. People like ourselves that invest a lot more time in researching nutrition may find some things difficult to agree with. But as I say, overall it's damn good guide for people to follow.

Good point, I do forget that the majority of people don't have a clue. Following that advice is certainly a good place to start.

health4ni wrote:

RoB wrote:Especially the red meat part. Epidemiological studies don't provide causal links, and unless you've got the study at hand and can interpret the statistics, I wouldn't really trust them.

I disagree with the red meat part. afaik it's pretty clear that too much will massively increase the risk of colon cancer. and imo that's mainly sue to the very acidic nature of it.

Well I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Take a look at this meta-analysis study though, I found it quite interesting :-

Meta-analysis of animal fat or animal protein intake and colorectal cancer.
Alexander DD, Cushing CA, Lowe KA, Sceurman B, Roberts MA.

Exponent Health Sciences, Wood Dale, IL, USA. dalexander@exponent.com
BACKGROUND: In the recent World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research report of diet and cancer, it was concluded that there is limited but suggestive evidence that animal fat intake increases the risk of colorectal cancer. Objective: To clarify this potential relation, we conducted meta-analyses across a variety of subgroups, incorporating data from additional studies. DESIGN: Analyses of high compared with low animal fat intakes and categorical dose-response evaluations were conducted. Subgroup analyses, consisting of evaluations by study design, sex, and tumor site were also performed. RESULTS: Six prospective cohort studies with comprehensive dietary assessments, contributing 1070 cases of colorectal cancer and approximately 1.5 million person-years of follow-up, were identified. The summary relative risk estimate (SRRE) for these studies was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.83, 1.31; P for heterogeneity = 0.221) on the basis of high compared with low intakes. When data from case-control studies were combined with the cohort data, the resulting SRRE was 1.15 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.42) with increased variability (P for heterogeneity = 0.015). In our dose-response analysis of the cohort studies, no association between a 20-g/d increment in animal fat intake and colorectal cancer was observed (SRRE: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.95, 1.09). In a separate analysis of 3 prospective cohort studies that reported data for animal protein or meat protein, no significant association with colorectal cancer was observed (SRRE: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.70, 1.15). CONCLUSION: On the basis of the results of this quantitative assessment, the available epidemiologic evidence does not appear to support an independent association between animal fat intake or animal protein intake and colorectal cancer.

Resurrected wrote:

health4ni wrote:
Ross wrote a decent article about it too: http://www.energiseforlife.com/wordpres ... line-life/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"

Of course the recent press release is not being used to further his profits! ie the link to his course that costs £44.99!!! I get so pissed off by blatant opportunism like this. Praying on those who will jump at anything as the dreaded C word has been mentioned. That site is solely aimed at marketing 'alkaline' products under the disguise of helping towards better health.

Whether or not Ross uses this to help the energiseforlife profits (and why the fuck shouldn't he btw? I would use it to help support the notion that living a MORE alkaline lifestyle is healthier than standard western diets) disregards the fact that having meet Ross in the flesh he is a very nice and genuine guy who follows what he believes in and makes money from this "alkaline lifestyle choice" (why not do something you love?). He is simply using a piece of info from a respected organisation to support his own beliefs that of the company he works for.

By you rationale, the simple act of me training Shicky in the gym (for example) is promoting my own training protocols in the belief of getting someone healthy (and fit & strong) for money. Jeez, everything people do has some kind of motive. To think they don't is foolish. But I think most people know that, so why you have to bring it up I don't know.

If he said: "check this link. Now buy this course cos it will prevent cancer" would be wrong and certainly require a slagging off as it were. But his blog (yes, linked to energise4life) contains some great info and links to studies supporting the idea that being more alkaline (or eating more vegetables and drinking more clean water if that is how you wish to think about it) is healthier for you.

I created this thread as I believe it is useful and interesting for people to read that a cancer charity has said that nutrition is so important in preventing cancer; and Ross is correct in his interpretation that they recommend a MORE alkaline diet.

I keep capitalising the word MORE since eating MORE vegetables and (certain) fruits, eating less red meat, drinking less acidic liquids like alcohol and fizzy drinks is healthier. And by doing so you will become MORE alkaline. Note, I did not say you're following a fully alkaline diet.

How eating these healthy foods can be considered bad is beyond me.

Yet again I have to resort to a long reply to your useless post. If I didn't know better I'd think you were trolling.

And unfortunately yet again I've been reeled into a debate with you *sigh*. Never mind, I guess it was time for another Res-attack...

Cue the "it wasn't an attack" zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

moving on

the matrix seems good and common sense in terms of good foods.

Like anything - its all about moderation Id say

Gota remember - there are still nations who eat foods of various sources that have very little cancer rates - alot of China is a good example as is parts of the Med - so its a mix of evolution and their diets Id say

^^ indeed there are many factors. Lots of (sensible) sunshine exposure (due to increased Vit D levels) is a huge benefit to health and thus imo cancer too (the Med). And Vit D & sunshine makes you happy. A happy person with happy thoughts is less likely to get ill. Lots of good oils like Olive Oil are so good for you (and alkaline), such as they eat in the Med. China doesn't eat as much meat as you'd think. And they do eat a lot of vegetables.

So yeah, lots of factors. But as we are mainly British & Irish here (ok, Northern Europe), we have to then look at that population more specifically. We get very little sun; and when it is sunny we're told not to got out in it ffs! lol Most people try to avoid ALL fats in the misguided belief that they are bad. So really the UK lifestyle (inc diet) is terrible and a major factor in the illnesses so many people are getting.

As a side note there has been a report published in the UK recommending that the daily calorie allowance should be increase by 400Kcals in both men and woman but only, and I quote, "if they exercise sufficiently". Talk about mixed messages and it's no wonder that dietry related Cancers are on the increase if these are the sorts of guildlines being proposed.

ollie wrote:Cue the "it wasn't an attack" zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Ollie butt out. I am just about fed up with you and your shite.

Your right it was not an attack at Scott at all. I dare not attack Scott. In fact I rarely reply to any thread that Scott posts in as he accuses me of attacking him. I have not attacked him. In fact I have not actually attacked the alkaline diet if you want to be pedantic about things. I have attacked someone for using some research to back up a 'dietary regime' that he makes money from.

Alex wrote:As a side note there has been a report published in the UK recommending that the daily calorie allowance should be increase by 400Kcals in both men and woman but only, and I quote, "if they exercise sufficiently". Talk about mixed messages and it's no wonder that dietry related Cancers are on the increase if these are the sorts of guildlines being proposed.

I thought this too. I can see it now, I can have another 400 calories worth of pizza or chocolate etc. Plus, unfortunately, I get the impression that many people think "exercising sufficiently" is walking on the treadmill for 30 minutes 2 or 3 times a week, or lifting pink dumbbells and thinking that qualifies as a weight training session...

What frightens me is the poor "official" guidance given. I know how hard it has been for me to make the improvements I have, and I am absolutely cringing at how I used to eat even a year ago. Something has got to change, and this certainly isn't it!!!

Pingu wrote:

Alex wrote:As a side note there has been a report published in the UK recommending that the daily calorie allowance should be increase by 400Kcals in both men and woman but only, and I quote, "if they exercise sufficiently". Talk about mixed messages and it's no wonder that dietry related Cancers are on the increase if these are the sorts of guildlines being proposed.

I thought this too. I can see it now, I can have another 400 calories worth of pizza or chocolate etc. Plus, unfortunately, I get the impression that many people think "exercising sufficiently" is walking on the treadmill for 30 minutes 2 or 3 times a week, or lifting pink dumbbells and thinking that qualifies as a weight training session...

& what is wrong with pink dumbells?

The Rilla uses them all the time

Sorry Res, what shite exactly?

If that wasn't your intention, then I'm sorry - but the bold bit makes it look a lot like an attack:

Resurrected wrote: That site is solely aimed at marketing 'alkaline' products under the disguise of helping towards better health.

If you'd stopped your sentence short of that, there wouldn't have been an issue. It's just boring hearing the same people adopt the same tone when they talk about the same issues.

I must admit the selling aspect that accompanies the article is a little shady and has that T-Nation familiarity to it and for me detracts away from what is fairly decent reading material. It has that whole "lose-20lbs-in-just-7-days" vibe about the page layout which isn't necessary.

Publish the article but lose the ad.

I didn't even notice the ad tbh.

The "Online Alkaline Diet Course" picture ad is a blog specific ad. It is shown on ALL posts on all pages (seemingly). It's been there all this year afaik. Ross does add one link to the course in the blog though. I would also do a similar thing if I added this on my blog. It is his (and mine if I were to do it) business after all.

I only added the link to his blog post as in fairness that's where I read about the WCRF article first. Plus it added some extra info that I concur with.

Anyway lol ...

Alex wrote:I must admit the selling aspect that accompanies the article is a little shady and has that T-Nation familiarity to it and for me detracts away from what is fairly decent reading material. It has that whole "lose-20lbs-in-just-7-days" vibe about the page layout which isn't necessary.

Publish the article but lose the ad.

Be very careful Alex all you will be accused of trolling by Scott.

Ollie, apology accepted. Not sure what you meant by the bold bit. As already stated I was having a go at the website and NOT Scott.

Scott,

I am not trolling & i am not attacking you. I am stating exactly what Alex has posted.

However now I will have a go as you have took it upon yourself to so publically have a go at me.

Please remove your head from your arse & stop being so damn paranoid. I states a long time ago that I had no issues with you personally at all due to the fact I had never met you. But in all honesty mate your now starting to annoy me as a complete dick.

Resurrected wrote:Ollie, apology accepted. Not sure what you meant by the bold bit. As already stated I was having a go at the website and NOT Scott.

Fair enough, it was just your choice of words, but I understand that it was a dig at the website. Anyway, we cool x

Can someone please be the bigger person here and just stop with the fucking sniping - it's all getting rather pathetic.

health4ni wrote:The "Online Alkaline Diet Course" picture ad is a blog specific ad. It is shown on ALL posts on all pages (seemingly). It's been there all this year afaik. Ross does add one link to the course in the blog though. I would also do a similar thing if I added this on my blog. It is his (and mine if I were to do it) business after all.

I only added the link to his blog post as in fairness that's where I read about the WCRF article first. Plus it added some extra info that I concur with.

Anyway lol ...

For an article of this nature though you would have thought there would have been a little more sensitivity towards it. There is a fine line between advertising/suggesting a diet/lifestyle can have a positive effect on an individuals well being and general health but to make even a suggestion that this same diet/lifestyle can be a preventative for some cases of Cancer is in my eyes walking very much on the line and crossing it.

It's this suggestive aspect that I take exception to and not the content of the article itself.

Alex wrote:to make even a suggestion that this same diet/lifestyle can be a preventative for some cases of Cancer is in my eyes walking very much on the line and crossing it.

Do you not think that it can though? Ignoring the minatue of the Alkaline diet (much of which I find very arbitary), I really think the general consensus now is that a healthy diet is stacking the odds in your favour, and that's what the WCRF article is saying. Of course you can never prove a definitive causal link because we each only have one body, but much like avoiding cigarettes is a smart move if you don't want lung cancer, I think the same applies for e.g. nitrates in processed pork and bowel cancer.

^^ what he said.

Alex wrote:to make even a suggestion that this same diet/lifestyle can be a preventative for some cases of Cancer is in my eyes walking very much on the line and crossing it.

and plus when you see people that have recovered from cancer, esp very bad cancers, using dietary "intervention" (alkaline or some other very healthy way) then is it so bad to suggest such a thing?

Doctors often say that chemo is your only chance, and it's a small one at that. If you recover they say you "were strong", if it doesn't work they say "it was too aggressive" and/or "it was too aggressive and you weren't strong enough".

Cancer is horrible.
Getting the message out that you can massively help prevent getting it is so important.
And from what I've seen some people reverse naturally without poisonous drugs like chemo (some do recover from it with chemo but for how long).

You're missing the point somewhat in that I have no issue with the data being presented but I take issue with the use of the subject for the purpose of making profit. Given that most Cancer research is funded by charity it doesn't sit so well with me.

I don't think it's that bad a thing to do. Cancer prevention through diet is just one of many facets of being healthier. It's not like they're stating outright that people that use their products won't get cancer. Ethically it's a fine-line I suppose.

Either way, I take much less issue with this than with most of the mass-marketing that goes with a lot of "healthy" alternatives.