It’s official, ginger really can ease nausea associated with the side-effects of chemotherapy. A recent study has shown that a mere half teaspoon of ginger reduced nausea by 40%. Although they used ground ginger, I’d recommend two tablets of 100% ginger. There are some on the local market that are cheap, Australian made and sold for travel sickness. Unless someone has trouble swallowing, it would be a more palatable way to take it and it still works fast.
Also on an aromatic note, New York chef extraordinaire Mark Bittman has a great recipe for a Mexican Chocolate Mousse – made with tofu. I have made tofu-based desserts before and they work extremely well, fooling even hardened tofu-haters. The video on the site takes a couple of minutes to watch and shows just how easy it is to make.
Walnuts may prevent breast cancer. This new research is promising but it is still at the ‘rats and stats’ stage, with no testing on actual women as yet. Walnuts contain omega-3 fatty acids but they are also a great source of fibre and trace nutrients. Part of the so called “French Paradox” regarding lower incidence of heart disease despite a high intake of cigarettes and alcohol, involved walnuts being a regular part of the diet. My walnut tips are –eat them raw and keep them in a cool place to stop them from going rancid. There are some great new season Tasmanian walnuts available at the moment – so add them to your cereal, have them as a snack or add a handful to a small bowl of sheep’s milk yoghurt with a drizzle of honey for dessert.
More Bittman love – how to set up a no frills-kitchen. A great little video backed up by a more detailed article, the down-to-earth Mr Bittman takes a novice cook by the hand and shows them what they need to set up a kitchen on the cheap. Though the costs are in US dollars, the generic catering supply stores are the same and you can find them dotted all over Melbourne. I use my local one for cheap but sturdy glasses, stainless steel bowls for mixing and prep work (doubling as salad bowls), graters, colanders and the like. Though I’m not a fan of aluminium cookware and I love my wok (though admit that a good fry pan on high heat does a passable job), Bittman’s guide is a great place to start.
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Life, death and cartography
A great candid interview with author Stella Duffy on the BBC Radio 4 is worth clicking on if you have a spare 7 minutes. She discusses her novel “State of Happiness” (a very moving story of love, death and cartography) and her own journey with breast cancer.
As Stella says, “I don’t think we talk about death enough, we don’t talk about disease enough, it’s a really normal life thing. People die, we are all going to die, it’s how it is – and unless we embrace it easier, better, more willingly I think we are going to keep on giving ourselves a really hard time.”
It is a refreshing discussion about life, death, language and much more (and surprisingly uplifting too.)
While you are there, you might like to listen* to writer Sally Brampton talk about depression and her memoir “Shoot the Damn Dog”. She also discusses tools for contentment and ways of helping a child deal with a depressed parent.
*Note: interview with Sally begins 10 minutes into the podcast.
As Stella says, “I don’t think we talk about death enough, we don’t talk about disease enough, it’s a really normal life thing. People die, we are all going to die, it’s how it is – and unless we embrace it easier, better, more willingly I think we are going to keep on giving ourselves a really hard time.”
It is a refreshing discussion about life, death, language and much more (and surprisingly uplifting too.)
While you are there, you might like to listen* to writer Sally Brampton talk about depression and her memoir “Shoot the Damn Dog”. She also discusses tools for contentment and ways of helping a child deal with a depressed parent.
*Note: interview with Sally begins 10 minutes into the podcast.
Monday, November 12, 2007
diet and cancer risks
An American study has just released, updating the latest findings regarding what we eat and our cancer risks. According to the media representation, this research means great news if you are short but cause for concern if you are overweight. It is the usual swings and roundabouts. The report itself is not a new or definitive study, rather it is a systematic review of recently published health studies.
Perhaps what fascinates me more about the report, released jointly by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research, is what sound bites the media runs with. The Age ran with Tall people 'at higher cancer risk’ over the weight issue (News Radio, ABC and the BBC). The Age also promoted the American Institute for Cancer Research study into people’s perception of cancer risks, making big news of there being no proven link between pesticides and cancer:
However, is this what the report actually says and does the lack of evidence actually prove that these people’s perceptions are truly wrong? What the Diet and Cancer report actually found, concerning pesticide and herbicide risks, were much more complex than The Age implied.
The panel did find studies that showed links between conventional food production and cancers but no specific epidemiological studies have been produced as yet. However they are concerned enough with the preliminary findings to suggest that “women of a reproductive age” (a significant chunk of the population) should take a “precautionary approach” to eating conventionally grown foods. Perhaps a more accurate headline should have screened “Don’t eat conventional food if you plan to get pregnant!" 71% of the 1000 Americans interviewed may not be so wrong after all.
The actual study document is dense and takes a lot of reading. I wonder if any of the journalists reporting on it poured over it? I always find inclusion criteria in such large scale analysis interesting. For example although we may think this all about humans and the food they eat, the panel included animal studies (genetically modified animals and rodent).
Overall the dietary recommendations made as a result of the report mimic much of what the naturopathic community has always said – pull way back on meat and dairy (yes, dairy a got specific mention) and focus more on plant foods such as whole grains, fruit and vegetables. Alcohol, salt, sweet drinks, processed meat and moulds (specifically afllatoxins, which are common to peanuts) got the thumbs down, while moving your body more received a predictable tick.
But the report is actually a lot more specific than this as there is no single "cancer", it exams the published literature on diet and specific cancers. The findings link eating carrots with cervical cancer protection, soy reducing prostate cancer and so on. However it was perplexing to find suggestions about cancer reduction linked to nutrients such as vitamins E, C and Selenium (the presumed link the panel was making regarding certain groups of foods) yet categorically implied people should not take nutritional supplements, which were not within the scope of the review.
Selenium is an interesting case in point. The cancer protective effects of this nutrient, would depend entirely on the soil it was grown in. New Zealand for example, has little or none, while in Australia anywhere near medicinal doses of selenium are considered a poison. So unless each individual study did an actual lab analysis of the foods these people were eating, they are making some leaps of faith in their conclusions.
The weight issue that was such a popular tag line in the press, is also slightly misrepresented. The Panel acknowledged being over weight (a BMI of 25-29) or obese (BMI >30) as a significant health risk. But will the lifestyle factors they surmised as being likely causes of weight gain, such as being sedentary, watching too much TV and consuming ‘energy dense’ (sugary or fatty) foods and drinks actually cause cancer? The conclusion was increased body fat “should be considered to be additional, indirect causes of (some) cancers”. (Chapter 8)
What about tall people, does height really determine cancer risk as the other popular headline suggests? The conclusion was not so obvious: “The Panel emphasizes that greater adult attained height, meaning how tall people are as adults, is unlikely directly to modify the risk of cancer”. Though there are odd implications that being tall may be a factor in some gynaecological and colorectal cancers, it was not suggesting that being short is necessarily a “get out of cancer free” card.
Keeping in mind that the study looks at the swings and roundabouts of individual cancers and that all cancers are not the same, the general conclusions about diet and cancer risk confirm nutritional and naturopathic commonsense:
Breastfeeding has benefits for both mother and child
Eat lots of vegetables, legumes and fruit
Ensure your diet has sufficient amounts of plant fibre, folate, vitamins B6, C, E, beta carotene (the vegetable form of vitamin A) and nutrients selenium, caratenoids, quercetin and lycopenes.
Eat less meat, this includes all meat of which processed meats get a special increased cancer risk mention
Cut out the cheese, though there are cancer factors for and against milk drinking
Don’t drink alcohol
There is a handy graph showing food risks and benefits at this summary.
Remember this study looked primarily at diet, rather than all lifestyle factors such as smoking and other recreational drugs).
So what’s for dinner tonight?
Perhaps what fascinates me more about the report, released jointly by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research, is what sound bites the media runs with. The Age ran with Tall people 'at higher cancer risk’ over the weight issue (News Radio, ABC and the BBC). The Age also promoted the American Institute for Cancer Research study into people’s perception of cancer risks, making big news of there being no proven link between pesticides and cancer:
71 per cent thought that pesticide residue on produce was a cause - something that has never been shown; 56 per cent thought stress causes cancer, again not proven; and 49 per cent believed hormones in beef cause cancer.
However, is this what the report actually says and does the lack of evidence actually prove that these people’s perceptions are truly wrong? What the Diet and Cancer report actually found, concerning pesticide and herbicide risks, were much more complex than The Age implied.
There are theoretical grounds for concern, which are constantly reviewed by international and national regulatory bodies. However, there is no epidemiological evidence that current exposures are causes of cancers in humans, and so the Panel has made no judgements. Nevertheless, a precautionary approach is wise for women of reproductive age, since vulnerability during embryonic phases of development is increased, and early exposure may result in increased risk at later stages in life. (Diet and Cancer Report)
The panel did find studies that showed links between conventional food production and cancers but no specific epidemiological studies have been produced as yet. However they are concerned enough with the preliminary findings to suggest that “women of a reproductive age” (a significant chunk of the population) should take a “precautionary approach” to eating conventionally grown foods. Perhaps a more accurate headline should have screened “Don’t eat conventional food if you plan to get pregnant!" 71% of the 1000 Americans interviewed may not be so wrong after all.
The actual study document is dense and takes a lot of reading. I wonder if any of the journalists reporting on it poured over it? I always find inclusion criteria in such large scale analysis interesting. For example although we may think this all about humans and the food they eat, the panel included animal studies (genetically modified animals and rodent).
Overall the dietary recommendations made as a result of the report mimic much of what the naturopathic community has always said – pull way back on meat and dairy (yes, dairy a got specific mention) and focus more on plant foods such as whole grains, fruit and vegetables. Alcohol, salt, sweet drinks, processed meat and moulds (specifically afllatoxins, which are common to peanuts) got the thumbs down, while moving your body more received a predictable tick.
But the report is actually a lot more specific than this as there is no single "cancer", it exams the published literature on diet and specific cancers. The findings link eating carrots with cervical cancer protection, soy reducing prostate cancer and so on. However it was perplexing to find suggestions about cancer reduction linked to nutrients such as vitamins E, C and Selenium (the presumed link the panel was making regarding certain groups of foods) yet categorically implied people should not take nutritional supplements, which were not within the scope of the review.
Selenium is an interesting case in point. The cancer protective effects of this nutrient, would depend entirely on the soil it was grown in. New Zealand for example, has little or none, while in Australia anywhere near medicinal doses of selenium are considered a poison. So unless each individual study did an actual lab analysis of the foods these people were eating, they are making some leaps of faith in their conclusions.
The weight issue that was such a popular tag line in the press, is also slightly misrepresented. The Panel acknowledged being over weight (a BMI of 25-29) or obese (BMI >30) as a significant health risk. But will the lifestyle factors they surmised as being likely causes of weight gain, such as being sedentary, watching too much TV and consuming ‘energy dense’ (sugary or fatty) foods and drinks actually cause cancer? The conclusion was increased body fat “should be considered to be additional, indirect causes of (some) cancers”. (Chapter 8)
What about tall people, does height really determine cancer risk as the other popular headline suggests? The conclusion was not so obvious: “The Panel emphasizes that greater adult attained height, meaning how tall people are as adults, is unlikely directly to modify the risk of cancer”. Though there are odd implications that being tall may be a factor in some gynaecological and colorectal cancers, it was not suggesting that being short is necessarily a “get out of cancer free” card.
Keeping in mind that the study looks at the swings and roundabouts of individual cancers and that all cancers are not the same, the general conclusions about diet and cancer risk confirm nutritional and naturopathic commonsense:
Breastfeeding has benefits for both mother and child
Eat lots of vegetables, legumes and fruit
Ensure your diet has sufficient amounts of plant fibre, folate, vitamins B6, C, E, beta carotene (the vegetable form of vitamin A) and nutrients selenium, caratenoids, quercetin and lycopenes.
Eat less meat, this includes all meat of which processed meats get a special increased cancer risk mention
Cut out the cheese, though there are cancer factors for and against milk drinking
Don’t drink alcohol
There is a handy graph showing food risks and benefits at this summary.
Remember this study looked primarily at diet, rather than all lifestyle factors such as smoking and other recreational drugs).
So what’s for dinner tonight?
Monday, July 30, 2007
ginger
If I were only allowed to take one herb on a desert island it would be a toss up between garlic and ginger. But with the current voluminous research on the humble rhizome, ginger would probably come tops in its versatility as both a medicine and a culinary staple.
As an ancient medicine in both China and India, ginger was hailed primarily as a heating herb – bringing warmth to ‘cool’ conditions of the lungs and stomach. There is documented proof of its spread to the West, at least 2000 years ago, in the Roman Empire. Later it became the darling of the spice trade.
As a modern herbalist, like the ancients before me, I have always loved the slow warmth that ginger brings to the body. Different to chilli, with its searing heat that causes a sweat and cools us down, ginger is the perfect winter spice. It has an affinity to warm the internal organs – such as the lungs, digestion and uterus.
Here are some reasons why you should keep some fresh ginger on hand (for tea) or as tablets or capsules (for an easy to take medicine)
Anti-nausea: Ginger is a powerful anti-emetic, what’s more it is considered to be safe and effective in treating nausea in pregnancy. It works well for motion sickness and has been used in post-operative and chemotherapy induced nausea. It is worth packing some ginger tablets for your next boating trip.
A strong cup of ginger tea has been known to help the general queasy and biliousness that results from drinking too much alcohol.
Bloating: Ginger can ease bloating and flatulence – either as a tea or tablet.
Coughs: In India a spoonful of ginger mixed with honey is still a favourite remedy for a cough.
Pain: Ginger has been found to be both a COX-1 and COX-2 inhibiter. Basically this means it is, amongst other things, antiinflammatory and an effective painkiller – without the negative side effects of the pharmaceutical drugs that achieve this (such as Vioxx). Before the scientific validation, ginger has long been used as a remedy for rheumatism and arthritis. Taking 2 ginger tablets is also a fast and effective treatment for period pain. Topically, in conjunction with a caster oil pack – it is traditionally used to treat adhesions such as in endometriosis and other causes of period pain. In Bali, the locals use ginger topically – placing a slice of the fresh rhizome on the forehead for headaches.
Cancer: More recent research suggests that ginger could be a key in preventing colon cancer. It is also being investigated in the treatment of ovarian cancer.
Ginger is considered safe to have in food but as a medicine (tablet, capsule, tincture, fluid extract) high doses it is theoretically problematic for people with bleeding disorders (it can slow down clotting activity), especially those on anti-clotting drugs like warfarin.
Other theoretical considerations can be viewed at medline.
Using fresh ginger
Look for plump, fresh roots where the flesh hasn’t dried out.
For tea: grate 1 tsp of ginger per cup of water. Simmer on the stove for about 10 minutes, as a root this is more effective than just steeping in a teapot. Strain and add a little honey as straight ginger can be very acrid to drink.
In food: fresh ginger is delicious in stir fries, curries, steamed fish, in soups with orange vegetables. It is a favourite in many sweet foods, such as gingerbread – however the sugar, fat and flour content tends to counteract the benefits. Good quality, naturally fermented ginger beer that hasn’t been over sweetened, can be useful for the early stages of nausea or indigestion.
Monday, June 04, 2007
ginseng for cancer
Some promising evidence that ginseng decreases the fatigue associated with cancer and the side effects of orthodox cancer treatments.
Ginseng 'reduces cancer fatigue'
The Chinese herb ginseng could give exhausted cancer patients a physical and emotional boost, research suggests.
A US team at Rochester's Mayo Clinic found daily doses improved energy levels and emotional well-being, in a study of 282 patients.
They say that as studies show over half of cancer patients experience crippling fatigue, adding ginseng to cancer therapies is worth exploring.
Cancer experts urged caution until more work was carried out.
The work was presented to the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Stress effects
Cancer fatigue is the most common side effect of cancer treatment and, according to Cancer Research UK, affects up to 90% of cancer patients.
Many people with cancer say it is the most disruptive side-effect of all, rendering them so tired they are unable to perform everyday tasks.
Of the evidence currently available, exercise and support seem to be most effective at tackling tiredness in cancer patients
Josephine Querido, Cancer Research UK
Ginseng has already been hailed as a remedy against colds and diabetes.
Scientists believe it works by acting as an "adaptogen" - a substance that helps the body overcome stress effects.
Since cancer patients can face high levels of stress, both physical and psychological, the Mayo team decided to test whether ginseng would be of benefit.
They enrolled 282 cancer patients and divided them at random into four groups - a control group, who received their normal cancer treatment and a dummy drug, plus three treatment groups who received one of three daily doses of ginseng (750mg, 1,000mg or 2,000mg) alongside their usual therapy.
After eight weeks, they surveyed the patients.
Marked improvements
The group given the dummy drug reported no improvement, but the patients who had been taking the ginseng reported improvements in overall energy levels and experienced less fatigue-affected activity.
The ginseng groups said they felt better mentally, physically, spiritually and emotionally.
The improvements appeared to be dose related, with those on the highest dose reporting the greatest gains.
But the scientists stressed it would be premature to recommend ginseng supplements to cancer patients.
Lead researcher Dr Debra Barton explained: "Whilst the results were promising, we have more research to conduct."
Her team now plans to look at what dose is most appropriate.
Dr Barton said there were many different formulations of ginseng available on the market and that all might not work identically.
Josephine Querido, of Cancer Research UK, said: "It's too early to say whether using ginseng will help reduce tiredness in people with cancer. Further work may shed more light on this.
"Of the evidence currently available, exercise and support seem to be most effective at tackling tiredness in cancer patients."
She added: "If you're considering using complementary therapies, such as herbal supplements, you should always discuss this with your GP."
Ginseng 'reduces cancer fatigue'
The Chinese herb ginseng could give exhausted cancer patients a physical and emotional boost, research suggests.
A US team at Rochester's Mayo Clinic found daily doses improved energy levels and emotional well-being, in a study of 282 patients.
They say that as studies show over half of cancer patients experience crippling fatigue, adding ginseng to cancer therapies is worth exploring.
Cancer experts urged caution until more work was carried out.
The work was presented to the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Stress effects
Cancer fatigue is the most common side effect of cancer treatment and, according to Cancer Research UK, affects up to 90% of cancer patients.
Many people with cancer say it is the most disruptive side-effect of all, rendering them so tired they are unable to perform everyday tasks.
Of the evidence currently available, exercise and support seem to be most effective at tackling tiredness in cancer patients
Josephine Querido, Cancer Research UK
Ginseng has already been hailed as a remedy against colds and diabetes.
Scientists believe it works by acting as an "adaptogen" - a substance that helps the body overcome stress effects.
Since cancer patients can face high levels of stress, both physical and psychological, the Mayo team decided to test whether ginseng would be of benefit.
They enrolled 282 cancer patients and divided them at random into four groups - a control group, who received their normal cancer treatment and a dummy drug, plus three treatment groups who received one of three daily doses of ginseng (750mg, 1,000mg or 2,000mg) alongside their usual therapy.
After eight weeks, they surveyed the patients.
Marked improvements
The group given the dummy drug reported no improvement, but the patients who had been taking the ginseng reported improvements in overall energy levels and experienced less fatigue-affected activity.
The ginseng groups said they felt better mentally, physically, spiritually and emotionally.
The improvements appeared to be dose related, with those on the highest dose reporting the greatest gains.
But the scientists stressed it would be premature to recommend ginseng supplements to cancer patients.
Lead researcher Dr Debra Barton explained: "Whilst the results were promising, we have more research to conduct."
Her team now plans to look at what dose is most appropriate.
Dr Barton said there were many different formulations of ginseng available on the market and that all might not work identically.
Josephine Querido, of Cancer Research UK, said: "It's too early to say whether using ginseng will help reduce tiredness in people with cancer. Further work may shed more light on this.
"Of the evidence currently available, exercise and support seem to be most effective at tackling tiredness in cancer patients."
She added: "If you're considering using complementary therapies, such as herbal supplements, you should always discuss this with your GP."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
