Consuming Consciousness

Everyone is afraid of cancer, and most people feel helpless to avoid it. Aside from quitting smoking, some of the most important steps you can take to reduce your cancer risk have to do with your diet. A new report explains what you can do to help yourself, and provides a very useful chart listing foods and their associated cancer risks or benefits. The report is online at http://www.dietandcancerreport.org.

Like smoking, risky eating and drinking is a form of Russian roulette… except you won’t know for 15-20 years later whether you’ve won or lost. Russian roulette, if you’re unlucky at games of chance, at least has the benefit of blowing your head off in the moment you decide to try it — usually an unhappy moment when life doesn’t seem worth living. Cancer, on the other hand, takes you out later, at a time when you might no longer think your life is so awful or worthless that you’re willing to throw it away. Not much is worse than struggling through the hard times, making a life for yourself with people you love and enjoy, and then finding something stupid you’ve been doing without thinking for the last twenty years ago is going to take it all away…

There are certainly cancer risks you don’t have control over (genetic predispositions, environmental pollution, workplace hazards) but there’s no sense compounding them with things you can change.

AICR’s Second Expert Report, Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective, is the most comprehensive scientific analysis of cancer prevention and causation ever undertaken. This landmark document, authored by an international expert panel, reviewed 7,000 research studies and classified the accumulated evidence for specific diet-cancer links.

The most recent biennial survey commissioned by the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) shows that Americans rate cancer their number one health concern, believe it to be impossible to prevent, and continue to blame the disease on factors they cannot control.

“These are three distressing, interconnected trends, and they help to explain something we at AICR have been sensing for years,” said AICR Nutrition Advisor Karen Collins, MS, RD. “Popular frustration about cancer is on the rise. An ‘everything causes cancer’ mindset is taking hold, which causes Americans to throw up their hands and overlook the steps that can lower their risk.”

According to the 2007 AICR Facts vs. Fears Survey, which asked respondents about both proven and unproven risk factors for cancer, most Americans remain unaware that they can lower their cancer risk by changing their diet, getting more physical activity and managing their weight.

“Sometimes nothing is better than something,” said actress Ruth Gordon, when questioned about her single state. And she appears to have been right, in at least one regard. If you’re in a negative relationship, it’s probably better for your health to get out of it.

The quality of your social relationships has an effect on the condition of your heart, according to a new study released in the October 8 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives Journals.

An extensive body of research shows that social relations are associated with better health and reduced risks of cardiovascular disease. However, contradictory findings on the health benefits of structural support and the limited protective effect of marital status against cardiovascular disease among women have stimulated further scientific inquiry into the quality of social relationships.

As usual, women and poor people suffer disproportionately from the negative aspects of close relationships:

Women are more likely to be sensitive and invest more time and energy in social relationships than are men. Women report higher psychological distress and negative social interactions, despite having more close relationships and giving and receiving more support than men.

People of lower social position are generally more likely to be exposed to stressful socioeconomic circumstances that can negatively influence interpersonal relationships.

Negative close relationships were more likely to be experienced by younger individuals, women and men in the lower employment grade, and were less likely to be reported by people who were never married. Exposure to negative close exchanges was also associated with negative affectivity, deression, work stress, low confiding/emotional support, and partner as a source of support.

But, male or female, rich or poor, the evidence seems to point in the direction of beating feet when things get too bad for too long.

From the press release:

Roberto De Vogli, Ph.D., M.P.H., and colleagues at University College London studied 9,011 British civil servants who completed a questionnaire about negative aspects of their close relationships either between 1989 and 1990 or between 1985 and 1988. Although the questionnaire assessed up to four close relationships, the researchers focused specifically on the primary close relationship. In addition, participants answered questions about how much emotional and practical support they received from that person on a regular basis. They were then followed for an average of 12.2 years to see if they experienced fatal or non-fatal coronary events, including heart attacks or chest pain.

Of the 8,499 individuals who did not have coronary heart disease at the beginning of the study and who provided sufficient information for the analysis, 589 reported a coronary heart disease event. After adjusting for other factors that influence heart disease risk—such as sociodemographic characteristics and health habits—those who experienced a high level of negativity in their close relationships were 1.34 times more likely to experience a coronary heart disease event than those with a low level of negative close relationships.

The association was weakened somewhat but still significant after the researchers adjusted for negative personality traits and depression. This suggests that emotions may partially mediate the association between negative relationships and heart disease. “When one considers emotional factors and their biological translation into the body, research shows that negative marital interactions are associated with depression, often in combination with reduced self-esteem and/or higher levels of anger,” the authors write. “These emotional reactions have been found to influence coronary heart disease through the cumulative ‘wear and tear’ on organs and tissues caused by the alterations of autonomic [involuntary] functions, neuroendocrine changes, disturbances in coagulation [blood clotting] and inflammatory and immune responses.”