Old age and performance...

[faithsdaddy]

Well... Effectiveness depends upon how you view it. Survival rates for cancer are improving all the time- it's not the death sentence it would have been say 20 years ago. On the other hand, 100 years ago, there was about a 1 in 100 (I think) chance of getting cancer. It's somewhere around the 30% mark now.

So, are we really winning the war on cancer, when a higher % of the popluation is getting it?

I know plenty of doctors who've said that diet plays little or no part in the prevention or cure of disease.

They also told me to leave my swollen ear, because the blood will naturally drain out.

And that my wife's blood clot was a sprain

And that my Dad's cancer was just an infection

Sorry mate, but if all a doctor offers is death or an awful list of 'side effects', then I have to think that there's a better way.

I propose that better way is to prevent disease in the first place.

[6million$man]

Well... Effectiveness depends upon how you view it. Survival rates for cancer are improving all the time- it's not the death sentence it would have been say 20 years ago. On the other hand, 100 years ago, there was about a 1 in 100 (I think) chance of getting cancer. It's somewhere around the 30% mark now.

So, are we really winning the war on cancer, when a higher % of the popluation is getting it?

I know plenty of doctors who've said that diet plays little or no part in the prevention or cure of disease.

They also told me to leave my swollen ear, because the blood will naturally drain out.

And that my wife's blood clot was a sprain

And that my Dad's cancer was just an infection

Sorry mate, but if all a doctor offers is death or an awful list of 'side effects', then I have to think that there's a better way.

I propose that better way is to prevent disease in the first place.

I don't think any doctor would argue with you that prevention is better than cure. I agree that diet plays an important role in prevention and treatment of many diseases and most doctors would agree on that too.

As for the proportion of the population getting cancer increasing, that is because people now live to be old enough to get cancer. Before modern medicine developed antibiotics etc etc etc. few people lived beyond their 40s and therefore were never old enough to develop cancer. That is the reason for the increasing cancer rate.

[errol]

That’s very true. In 1900 the average age of death was approx 47. Today the average age at which cancer is diagnosed is somewhere around 60. Also, 100 years ago (40 years before the birth of the national health service) there would have been many people who died from undiagnosed cancer.

[liamwandi]

I'm 31. I know that's not old but I've been playing sports for years and I haven't notice any drop in my (shitty, I admit but anywho!) performance but rather a drop in my recover-ability. It takes me longer to recover. Thank heavens there's supplements for that.

Oh and yeah I eat a lot more veg, fruit and nuts now than I did when I was in my 20s