Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / March 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Anorexia nervosa protects from cancer?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ignoramus16578 - 11 Mar 2004 14:21 GMT
  JAMA, March 10, 2004?Vol 291, No. 10
Caloric Restriction and Incidence of Breast Cancer
Karin B. Michels, Anders Ekbom

Design, Setting, and Participants Retrospective cohort study ....
Participants were 7303 Swedish women hos-pitalized for anorexia
nervosa prior to age 40 years between 1965 and 1998. Women were
excluded (n=31) if they were diagnosed with cancer prior to their
first +discharge from hospitalization for anorexia nervosa....

Results Compared with the Swedish general population, women
hospitalized for anorexia nervosa prior to age 40 years had a 53% (95%
confidence interval [CI], 3%-81%) lower incidence of breast cancer;
nulliparous women with anorexia +ner-vosa had a 23% (95% CI, 79%
higher to 75% lower) lower incidence, and parous women with anorexia
nervosa had a 76% (95% CI, 13%-97%) lower incidence.

Conlusions Severe caloric restriction in humans may confer protection
from +inva-sive breast cancer. Low caloric intake prior to first birth
followed by a subsequent pregnancy appears to be associated with an
even more pronounced reduction in risk.

RESTRICTING CALORIC INTAKE is one of the most effective ways to extend
lifespan and to reduce spontaneous tumor occurrence in experimental
animals.1,2 Caloric restriction has an important protective role in
experi-mental mammary carcinogenesis.3,4 A recent meta-analysis
summarized the available evidence of the effect of energy restriction
on spontaneous mammary tumors in mice.5 The com-bined estimate for the
14 included studies implied that the energy-restricted animals
developed 55% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41%-69%) fewer mammary
tumors than did those in the control groups, irre-spective of the type
of restricted nutri-ent.5 The authors called for dietary cohort
studies to gain insight into the effects of energy restriction on
devel-opment of breast cancer in humans.5
Julianne - 11 Mar 2004 16:08 GMT
Hardly a sensible approach to breast ca prevention!

If you think about the role of estrogen in some breast cancer and how
adipose tissue is associated with estrogen, it makes perfect sense.  It is
like the runners who lose so much body fat they stop menstruating.  I wonder
if it is the caloric restriction as opposed to the amount of body fat
leading to this reduction in the rate of cancer.  Seems to me that the
latter would be a healthier solution.  Also, I seem to have read somewhere
that obesity does increase the risk of breast cancer again, supporting the
notion that it is the amount of body fat rather than calories.

j
>    JAMA, March 10, 2004?Vol 291, No. 10
> Caloric Restriction and Incidence of Breast Cancer
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> studies to gain insight into the effects of energy restriction on
> devel-opment of breast cancer in humans.5
Ignoramus16578 - 11 Mar 2004 16:25 GMT
> Hardly a sensible approach to breast ca prevention!

true.

> If you think about the role of estrogen in some breast cancer and how
> adipose tissue is associated with estrogen, it makes perfect sense.  It is
> like the runners who lose so much body fat they stop menstruating.  I wonder
> if it is the caloric restriction as opposed to the amount of body fat
> leading to this reduction in the rate of cancer.  Seems to me that the
> latter would be a healthier solution.

You are suggesting that CR is better than anorexia, right?

> Also, I seem to have read somewhere
> that obesity does increase the risk of breast cancer again, supporting the
> notion that it is the amount of body fat rather than calories.

Good points.

Here's what I understand. Calorie restriction has been studied for a
long time in various animals such as rodents and even
monkeys. Everywhere, calorie restriction coupled with adequate
nutrition (not Auschwitz style nutrition), produced great health
improvements and increased mean and maximum lifespan.

There has not been a formal study of CR in humans. So, some
researchers noted that anorexics somewhat emulate CR, and anorexics
also often eat relatively good food, just very little. No one claims
that anorexia is a healthy thing to do, as they could lose too much
weight and die from starvation. Unlike anorexia, CR is not starvation
in that the objective of CR is to reduce calories, but no to the
levels that are dangerous to health.

Anyway, all that it means is that anorexics are an interesting group
that sometimes emulate CR. Especially the anorexics who starve for
wrong reasons, but cannot quite starve to actually die, due to
their [fortunate] lack of willpower.

As for female reproductive cancers, they have been linked to
estrogen. CR does lower estrogen (and also lowers male hormones in
men), hence, possibly, a part of its protective effect on breast ca is
due to that. Also, CR means lower levels of blood glucose and
oxidative damage to DNA, so that could account for lower mutation
rate, as an independent factor.

That's my understanding and it is pretty limited.

So, eating less seems to be beneficial, unless it becomes starvation.

i
223/174/180
Dally - 11 Mar 2004 18:21 GMT
> So, eating less seems to be beneficial, unless it becomes starvation.

Wrong conclusion.  Having less fat is beneficial to the reduction in
occurance of estrogen-related cancer.

Dally
Meaghan - 12 Mar 2004 04:39 GMT
> > So, eating less seems to be beneficial, unless it becomes starvation.
>
> Wrong conclusion.  Having less fat is beneficial to the reduction in
> occurance of estrogen-related cancer.

This is a little rant
I think a healthy way to live, is to not try and "avoid" things that cause
cancer, but to simply live life, and live it healthy.   Eat right, exercise,
and try to enjoy the life we have.

Everything we do can cause cancer, breathing can cause cancer.  I recently
found out, not having children, can cause ovarian cancer, cervical cancer,
breast cancer.  Breathing the air we do, can cause lung cancer.  Some of the
chemicals we injest can cause liver cancer, brain cancer.  Men with too much
testosterone are prone to prostate cancer.  Busy people who work too much
and don't take breaks are prone to colon cancer, and kidney cancer.

We are all going to die some day.  That is inevitable, something you have no
choice over.  So why not choose to life life to the fullest, in the way that
makes you happy.  Live life to the fullest, and the healthiest you can, and
you will probably be a happier person than if you had worried all your life
about what was cancer causing and what wasn't.  I'm not saying to
deliberately put yourself in front of the mac truck, but don't avoid going
for a walk because you might get hit by a truck.

Meaghan
who's had a long bad day, and is appologizing now if this offends anyone
Renee - 12 Mar 2004 14:43 GMT
> > > So, eating less seems to be beneficial, unless it becomes starvation.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> testosterone are prone to prostate cancer.  Busy people who work too much
> and don't take breaks are prone to colon cancer, and kidney cancer.

 The biggest cause of cancer is growing old. If you live long enough
you will eventually get cancer. So, the best way to avoid cancer is to
die of something else first.

Renee
Ignoramus28275 - 12 Mar 2004 14:50 GMT
>> > > So, eating less seems to be beneficial, unless it becomes starvation.
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>> prostate cancer.  Busy people who work too much and don't take
>> breaks are prone to colon cancer, and kidney cancer.

do not confuse correlations with causations, and remember that you can
control some factors. If some factor that you can control can decrease
your chances of cancer, why ignore it?

Try going to a cancer center somewhere accompanying an incurable
patient, and see if that changes your mind. Cancer is horrifying, once
you witness how it progresses, personally. Pain, false hopes,
confusion, desperation, doctors giving up on you etc.

We depersonalize it a little bit and hide what it really is like, so
to us it is an abstract risk like a risk of being killed by a falling
brick. A statistic. Truth it, it is much better to be killed by a
brick than by cancer.

>   The biggest cause of cancer is growing old. If you live long enough
> you will eventually get cancer. So, the best way to avoid cancer is to
> die of something else first.
>
> Renee

That is not true.

i
Dally - 12 Mar 2004 23:44 GMT
> Try going to a cancer center somewhere accompanying an incurable
> patient, and see if that changes your mind. Cancer is horrifying, once
> you witness how it progresses, personally. Pain, false hopes,
> confusion, desperation, doctors giving up on you etc.

Really?  My mother used to be a home health nurse in a hospice program
and she was always enlisting me to come help at dying people's houses.
I saw sorrow and adjustments and sometimes despair, but also joy and
contentment and chances to say good-bye.

> We depersonalize it a little bit and hide what it really is like, so
> to us it is an abstract risk like a risk of being killed by a falling
> brick. A statistic. Truth is, it is much better to be killed by a
> brick than by cancer.

I just heard an interesting conversation about this from cancer
sufferers.  Their consensus (overwhelmingly) is that they'd prefer to
die from cancer than any sudden death.  Cancer gives them time for
closure and lets the relatives ease into it.  Sudden deaths are terribly
traumatic for their families in a way that a gradual sickening isn't.

The only death they preferred was "in their sleep of extreme old age."

>>  The biggest cause of cancer is growing old. If you live long enough
>>you will eventually get cancer. So, the best way to avoid cancer is to
>>die of something else first.

> That is not true.

True enough.  Getting old doesn't CAUSE cancer (I don't think) but it
certainly increases your odds that some cells will be abnormal during
your life just based on having a longer life.

When my grandmother was in her 80's she used to marvel that she was the
only one of her friends with boobs.  She lived until 90 and died in her
sleep with her daughter holding her hand, of congestive heart failure.
(Now that's what I call a good death.)  I'm wearing the shoes right now
that we bought when we went shopping together three weeks before she died.

Dally
Julianne - 13 Mar 2004 00:41 GMT
> > Try going to a cancer center somewhere accompanying an incurable
> > patient, and see if that changes your mind. Cancer is horrifying, once
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I saw sorrow and adjustments and sometimes despair, but also joy and
> contentment and chances to say good-bye.

Wendy, your mom must be really cool!  Most of my work is in home health,
nursing homes and I do a little work for a couple of hospices.  I love the
hospice nurses.  I just completed a review of a large hospice looking for
areas where improvement could be noted.  I do these 'mock' surveys for a lot
of clients.  It is only in the Hospice ones that I can't find problems in
delivery of care.  More importantly, I always feel so good in a hospice.
Who would have thought that spending the afternoon reviewing clinical
records of terminally ill patients would be one of the most pleasant ways I
could find to spend a day!

Death is a part of life - not necessarily one I want to happen at the
moment, but still a part of life.  I would have never thought that death
could be as peaceful, beautiful as the first death I ever had as a nurse.
True story.  A woman in her late 80's was admitted to the CCU when I was
still in orientation right out of nursing school.  She was spry and
delightful and had opinions she was willing to share.  Later in the
afternoon, her cardiologist came to me and told me I could give her whatever
I wanted to make her comfortable - Lasix and morphine for CHF, she could eat
whatever she wanted and I could extend visiting hours for as long as her
family desired.  I thought the doc was nuts.  He said she had the largest MI
he had ever seen and there was no chance for this sweet patient.  I left
that night after watching Gone with the Wind with her in her room in CCU -
after all she didn't appear to be sick to me.

I got to work the next morning and she was breathing 40 times a minute on
100 percent oxygen. (Try breathing 40 times a minute or ten times in 15
seconds - it is exhausting.)   She was pale, diurphoretic and I thought a
little out there neurologically.  Her heart rate was very, very fast trying
to make up what it lost in strength by beating more often.  I went in to
assess her and thought she might like a little OJ reasoning her mouth had to
be dry breathng that fast.

"Look at the woman up there with her bare feet." she said to me as I
approached the bed.

"Sweetheart, there is no woman up there and shoes are required in the
hospital setting," I responded.  "Here, have some orange juice."

"You don't see the lady with all the lambs," she asked.

"No, we don't allow animals here,  I told her matter-of-factly.  "Have a sip
of juice,"

"Look at the man with the halo," she said with a peaceful expression clearly
out of sorts with her physcial condition.

Now, I wasn't about to deny the man with the halo so I just said, "Here have
a sip of juice."

A half hour later, she asked me to open the door for her.  She was looking
out the window.  I explained that the door was on the other side of the room
and it was opened.

"No," she said.  "I want to go through that door."

And she did.  Her heart rate went from 140 to asystole just like that.  In
all the years answering codes in the hospitals and cath labs I have only
seen that happen one other time.  Most people have a series of arrythmias or
a gradual slowing down until a heart rate becomes 'agonal'.  Only twice have
I seen, on a monitor, someone go from a fast regular heart rate to asystole.

I covered her with her crocheted blanket and called her family.  I am not a
very religious person but I have never been surrounded by such warmth and
peace as her family said goodbye.  It was sad - not tragic, not desperately
so.  Just sad.  And joyful.  And peaceful.

I will tell you this, had I not had another patient die in a more regular
fashion later in the week, I would have never stayed a CCU nurse.  The
emotional energy of that first death was like none I have experienced since.

So, death is part of life.  Regardless of spiritual beliefs, I want to be as
ready for my death as my first dying patient was.  I want my death to be a
part of my life and I want to share it with those who are special to me.

> > We depersonalize it a little bit and hide what it really is like, so
> > to us it is an abstract risk like a risk of being killed by a falling
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> (Now that's what I call a good death.)  I'm wearing the shoes right now
> that we bought when we went shopping together three weeks before she died.

My grandmother died at home, too.  She broke her hip when she was 92 and
came to live with me when my son was an infant.  Talk about a mess.  The
infant and the old woman!  She became increasingly senile after the surgery.
In retrospect, I would not have had her undergo surgery.  She never
recovered from the anesthesia.  Up until the day she broke her hip, she
lived by herself.   Just before she died (at age 94), she started a
breathing pattern known as Cheyne Stokes which often precedes death.  I sat
with her and held her hand.  After she died, I called the coroner for legal
stuff and had the funeral home come get her body.  I sat in my son's room
while he slept in the middle of the night and opened the window.  For a
couple of hours, I sipped on wine and visited with my memories of Granny
Sarah - the woman she was long before the hip surgery.  Later in the week,
she was buried.

Next week, we will celebrate my Grandmother's birthday.  Yes, this is
retarded.  We always enjoyed her birthdays as a reason for the family to get
together and we didn't see any reason to stop just because she died.  Do
you?

> Dally
MH - 13 Mar 2004 00:59 GMT
> > > In article <f6980f4e.0403120643.3e783fe2@posting.google.com>, Renee
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
>
> "No," she said.  "I want to go through that door."

(snipped rest of cool story)

Thanks for sharing that! Death is part of life. If one has a fear of death
and wants to live forever, they gotta get over it, they will die, as we all
will.

Martha
Julianne - 13 Mar 2004 02:34 GMT
> > > > In article <f6980f4e.0403120643.3e783fe2@posting.google.com>, Renee
> > wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 82 lines]
>
> Martha

Yeah.  Years ago, there was a circulated satire piece about how consumer
industries let us down.  In spite of aerobics, diet therapy, etc., it was
still apparent that 100 percent of people died.

Me personally?  I am more interested in the quality of life I enjoy before
assuming room temperature.

j
Ignoramus28275 - 13 Mar 2004 03:13 GMT
> Me personally?  I am more interested in the quality of life I enjoy before
> assuming room temperature.

I am looking for quality of life multuplied by its duration.

I wonder who it is that person who wants to live forever, that  "MH"
is referring to. I am not aware of any people who seriously believe
that they can live forever.

i
Ignoramus28275 - 13 Mar 2004 01:53 GMT
>> Try going to a cancer center somewhere accompanying an incurable
>> patient, and see if that changes your mind. Cancer is horrifying, once
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I saw sorrow and adjustments and sometimes despair, but also joy and
> contentment and chances to say good-bye.

I was at such a center yesterday and it was quite miserable looking
place and sick, sad looking people.

>> We depersonalize it a little bit and hide what it really is like, so
>> to us it is an abstract risk like a risk of being killed by a falling
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> terribly traumatic for their families in a way that a gradual
> sickening isn't.

I guess that it depends on the person. I wuold prefer that I and my
loved ones do not suffer.

> The only death they preferred was "in their sleep of extreme old age."

wouldn't we all prefer such death...

>>>  The biggest cause of cancer is growing old. If you live long enough
>>>you will eventually get cancer. So, the best way to avoid cancer is to
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> certainly increases your odds that some cells will be abnormal during
> your life just based on having a longer life.

But, the likelihood of contracting a new cancer does decline after
70s.

> When my grandmother was in her 80's she used to marvel that she was the
> only one of her friends with boobs.  She lived until 90 and died in her
> sleep with her daughter holding her hand, of congestive heart failure.

How come her daughter was holding her hand, if she was asleep?

> (Now that's what I call a good death.)  I'm wearing the shoes right now
> that we bought when we went shopping together three weeks before she died.

Sounds like your family has it all together, so to speak.

i

> Dally
Julianne - 13 Mar 2004 02:33 GMT
> >> Try going to a cancer center somewhere accompanying an incurable
> >> patient, and see if that changes your mind. Cancer is horrifying, once
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> I was at such a center yesterday and it was quite miserable looking
> place and sick, sad looking people.

And today I was at a hospice that takes care of people in their home.
Obviously, there were no patients but plenty of staff.  I was privy to phone
calls, interdisciplinary team conferences, staff updates, etc.  And we had
fun.  I hate to charge these people for the experience, but I will.  The
only complaining I heard was related to a nurse with a foot problem - and it
didn't stop her from seeing patients although I contend it should have.  She
would not give in because her patients needed her.

> >> We depersonalize it a little bit and hide what it really is like, so
> >> to us it is an abstract risk like a risk of being killed by a falling
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> But, the likelihood of contracting a new cancer does decline after
> 70s.

But the likelihood of dying does not decline after age 70.  Going back to
the original intent of this thread - severe caloric restriction in
relationship to longevity, it stands to reason that there are not very many
overweight people who attain age 70.  Furthermore, I think Carol posted a
really good article today that explored the relationship of fat to hormomes.
In my humble opinion, it is not the length of life that is important as much
as the quality of our lives.  And my humble opinion stems from being at the
bedside of 1000's of deaths over many years.

So, should we restrict calories to reduce our incidence of CA?  Maybe.  If
the restriction is not such that it impairs our ability to enjoy life.  Back
to my original point, decreasing fat percentages is a good thing but does
not always mean decreasing calories.  Rather, it can be accomplished by
increasing lean body mass.  And exercise does so much more than simply burn
calories!

So, whatare you waiting for?  Go hop on the treadmill or something!

j

> > When my grandmother was in her 80's she used to marvel that she was the
> > only one of her friends with boobs.  She lived until 90 and died in her
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> > Dally
Ignoramus28275 - 13 Mar 2004 03:12 GMT
>> >> In article <f6980f4e.0403120643.3e783fe2@posting.google.com>, Renee
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> seeing patients although I contend it should have.  She would not
> give in because her patients needed her.

I have always been wondering, what are hospice people are like in real
life.

>> >>>  The biggest cause of cancer is growing old. If you live long enough
>> >>>you will eventually get cancer. So, the best way to avoid cancer is to
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> But the likelihood of dying does not decline after age 70.

that's right.

>  Going
> back to the original intent of this thread - severe caloric
> restriction in relationship to longevity,

I have to object to your use of the word severe. Even mild caloric
restriction has mild good effects.

> it stands to reason that there are not very many overweight people
> who attain age 70.  Furthermore, I think Carol posted a really good
> article today that explored the relationship of fat to hormomes.  In
> my humble opinion, it is not the length of life that is important as
> much as the quality of our lives.  And my humble opinion stems from
> being at the bedside of 1000's of deaths over many years.

I am not sure what is your implied conclusion Julianne.

> So, should we restrict calories to reduce our incidence of CA?
> Maybe.  If the restriction is not such that it impairs our ability
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> So, whatare you waiting for?  Go hop on the treadmill or something!

The damn windows XP refuses to boot, I need to reinstall it. What a
piece of flaky garbage. I cannot believe it, the logon process dies.

Contrast this to my linux box, which has always been running smoothly.

If not for that B/S, I would be exercising.

i
Julianne - 13 Mar 2004 03:46 GMT
> >> >> In article <f6980f4e.0403120643.3e783fe2@posting.google.com>, Renee
> > wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> I have always been wondering, what are hospice people are like in real
> life.

They are fun people who add value to your life if you take the time to get
to know them!  I have three regular hospice clients and know several more.
There is something special about health care workers who devote their lives
to caring for terminially ill patients.  At the end of the day, they have
PTA meetings, cranky husbands, etc., like the rest of us.  Still, they take
time to go to funerals of patients and come back to the office to finish
paper work.  I know they must be sad at times, but, I have never seen a
hospice nurse get overly emotional to the point where it impairs their
judgement.

> >> >>>  The biggest cause of cancer is growing old. If you live long enough
> >> >>>you will eventually get cancer. So, the best way to avoid cancer is to
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> I have to object to your use of the word severe. Even mild caloric
> restriction has mild good effects.

Show me!  Mild caloric restirctions in overweight people is indisputable.
Show me where mild caloric restirctions benefit normal weight folks.

> > it stands to reason that there are not very many overweight people
> > who attain age 70.  Furthermore, I think Carol posted a really good
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> I am not sure what is your implied conclusion Julianne.

My implied conslusion is simply that as much as we want a cut and dried
solution to aging, longevity, etc., it is still elusive to us.  So, until we
have all the information needed regarding low cal diets, anti aging, etc.,
wouldn't it be better to focus on quality of life?

> > So, should we restrict calories to reduce our incidence of CA?
> > Maybe.  If the restriction is not such that it impairs our ability
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> If not for that B/S, I would be exercising.

I love XP.  The problem is obviously with you.  This comes from someone who,
until last year, had two machines with ME installed.  No wonder I got them
on sale.

j

> i
Julianne - 13 Mar 2004 03:52 GMT
> "Ignoramus28275" <ignoramus28275@NOSPAM.28275.invalid> wrote in message
> > I have always been wondering, what are hospice people are like in real
> > life.

As an addendum to my own post - please be aware that medicare certified
hospice (pretty much all hospices) are required to use volunteers.  If you
want to really know about hospice and the employees, why not volunteer?  The
volunteer work is not clinical in nature.  For instance, if  there is a
fairly young man with a terminal illness, maybe yard work would be of
assistance to the family.  Running errands such as grocery shopping can be a
huge benefit to a hospice patient.  If you like this idea, be prepared to
orient, etc.  It is a good thing to do.  I highly encourage it.

j
Dally - 13 Mar 2004 04:27 GMT
>>"Ignoramus28275" <ignoramus28275@NOSPAM.28275.invalid> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> huge benefit to a hospice patient.  If you like this idea, be prepared to
> orient, etc.  It is a good thing to do.  I highly encourage it.

I replied with my hospice experience (babysitting and weeding) before I
saw this.  I had never considered myself a "volunteer" before!  That
sounds so noble.  From my point of view I was conscripted to help some
people that my mother knew needed help.  :-)

Dally, feeling more proud suddenly!
Dally - 13 Mar 2004 04:24 GMT
>>>>My mother used to be a home health nurse in a hospice program
>>>>and she was always enlisting me to come help at dying people's houses.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> I have always been wondering, what are hospice people are like in real
> life.

Well, from my perspective as a teen lackey, it's about babysitting so
the wife and husband can go out to dinner with her wearing her bright
headscarf and the pain meds she's taking for her spinal cancer making
her a bit loopy.  Or weeding her garden so she can feel comfortable that
it isn't being neglected.

It's also about taking the upset family members aside and providing some
counselling for them and persuading them not to invalidate the dying
person's feelings.  (It's not rare for family to be railing against
things when the dying person is ready to accept, or vice versa.)

It's about teaching everyone to flush an IV, helping move a hospital bed
into a common room, teaching people how to use a morphine pump.  (Stop
me if I'm wrong, Julianne.)  As far as I can tell the Hospice nurses
teach the people in the home what they need to know in order to make
dying as comfortable an experience as it can be.

I don't even know what you mean by a "center".  Hospice is about
individualizing your death.  You make it sound like it's someplace
people are sent off to die away from all the living people.  That does
sound horrible.

Dally
Julianne - 13 Mar 2004 13:28 GMT
> >>>>My mother used to be a home health nurse in a hospice program
> >>>>and she was always enlisting me to come help at dying people's houses.
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> Dally

Wendy,

I will call on you the next time I am asked to write policies for a hospice.
You have it down pretty much exactly the way it is.

There are some respite or inpatient hospices.  The are used only temporarily
such as when the other family members are unable to care for a patient -
example, a car wreck injures the main caregiver or when beginning a new
therapy that the family is not able to learn on a single home visit.  Very
rare.  We do not have any of these here although we do have a broader
respite center.  Since the hospice benefit is designed to allow people to
die at home, only a small percentage of hospice days are allowed to be
inpatient.

Hospice care can also be provided in a nursing home in some instances if the
nursing home is considered to be the patient's residence.  Nursing homes
typically do not have staff that are able to manage high tech pumps, etc.
In Louisiana, LPN's (LVN's elsewhere) are not licensed to administer IV
drugs and that is a large part of hospice.

But, as far as I know, in this country, there are no central warehouses of
death.  Boy, wouldn't that be cheery?:)

Ig, this facility you visited was licensed strictly as a hospice?  What was
the length of stay?  Was this a permanent arrangement for the patients or
was it a temporary place for them to reside?

j
Dally - 13 Mar 2004 13:59 GMT
> There are some respite or inpatient hospices.  The are used only temporarily
> such as when the other family members are unable to care for a patient -
> example, a car wreck injures the main caregiver or when beginning a new
> therapy that the family is not able to learn on a single home visit.  Very
> rare.  

That's right, I do recall my grandmother putting my grandfather in a
nursing home for a week here or there when she went on vacation.  She
used to love to go gambling in Vegas with her friends.  He considered it
a vacation, too!  It was almost like going on a cruise - "exotic" menus,
planned activities, entertainment, new table mates, a salon to do your
nails...

Speaking of which, what she did for my grandfather still stands out as a
standard of behavior.  They separated in the early 70's.  He moved to
Florida - she didn't want to.  Eventually he had a live-in girlfriend
down there.  While he and his girlfriend were on vacation in Hawaii he
had a stroke.  The girlfriend called the wife to come get him!  So
Grandma flew out to Hawaii, brought him back home, and somehow managed
to settle his affairs in Florida while nursing him day and night for the
next three years.

He died at home in his den in the house that he built.  When I asked
Grandma why she was willing to do such a thing for a man who hadn't been
her husband for over 10 years, she said, "Oh, he would have done the
same for me."  Hmmmm.  I sincerely doubt it.  But she taught her
children and grandchildren what you do for family when they need it.

BTW, this grandfather was overweight, had Type II diabetes, Parkinson's
Disease and whatever else caused his stroke.  He died at the age of 80
having been active until age 77.  (In Hawaii with his lover!)  His
overweight (no, obese) sister is still alive (and at home) at age 96.

Dally
Julianne - 14 Mar 2004 05:37 GMT
> > There are some respite or inpatient hospices.  The are used only temporarily
> > such as when the other family members are unable to care for a patient -
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> having been active until age 77.  (In Hawaii with his lover!)  His
> overweight (no, obese) sister is still alive (and at home) at age 96.

Good genes.  You will appreciate them in another 40 years!

There was another thread recently about how tacky it was to name it 'another
dead cat'.  This thread makes clearly illustrates that those of us who have
dealt with death are less intimidated by it.   Make no mistake.  I do not
want to experience it the near future, but for me, at least, the quality of
my life is far more important than the duration.

j

> Dally
Dally - 14 Mar 2004 06:08 GMT
> There was another thread recently about how tacky it was to name it 'another
> dead cat'.  This thread makes clearly illustrates that those of us who have
> dealt with death are less intimidated by it.   Make no mistake.  I do not
> want to experience it the near future, but for me, at least, the quality of
> my life is far more important than the duration.

Yep, that was my post.

Wasn't it you whose family sustained the gut-wrenching tragedy of losing
both your brothers in a car accident?  Do you suppose seeing the worst
death can do makes you less intimidated by it?

Dally
Julianne - 16 Mar 2004 02:10 GMT
> > There was another thread recently about how tacky it was to name it 'another
> > dead cat'.  This thread makes clearly illustrates that those of us who have
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Dally

Yes.  That was me.  A very bad night if I do say so myself.  Seeing the
worst death can do and surviving it undoubtedly makes us more confident.  In
our own way, we have beaten death - at least the part that really matters to
us.  Although we will die, we know, painful as it is, that we can say
goodbye to loved ones without saying goodbye to ourselves.  And for me
personally, and likely for you, as a hospice assistant, we know that there
are times when death is appropropriate.  Who would want to see a loved one
live past the point where life can be enjoyable?

j
MH - 16 Mar 2004 02:23 GMT
> > > There was another thread recently about how tacky it was to name it
> 'another
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> j

I will always be thankful the hospice workers who helped my mother before
she died. She battled cancer for 7 years, was only a few pounds overweight
(at the most 10), was active, healthly, didn't smoke, rarely drank, etc.,
etc. The hospice was a wonderful resource for her and my family.

Martha
Ignoramus16930 - 14 Mar 2004 13:52 GMT
>> Disease and whatever else caused his stroke.  He died at the age of 80
>> having been active until age 77.  (In Hawaii with his lover!)  His
>> overweight (no, obese) sister is still alive (and at home) at age 96.
>
> Good genes.  You will appreciate them in another 40 years!

My grandma was obese and had horrendous hypertension. She is not so
obese now and her hypertension is medicated.  She is now 81 and is in
excellent mental shape and okay physical shape.  My grandpa had cancer
34 (I think) years ago, whiwh was cured, he is in decent mental shape
and somewhat tolerable physical shape.  My other grandma has diabetes
now (a relatively recent news) andis 80, also in great shape, although
she always complains about missing her husband of 52 years. That one
died at 78, but he went through the entire WWII on the eastern
front. He was a jew and his last battle assignment was participation
in complete destruction of the german city of Koenigsberg, with his
artillery unit. Perhaps it gave him some feeling of satisfaction,
although he hated to talk about the war.  Dietwise, when his division
was in reserve in 1942, for 8 months, they ate nothing bue pea soup
and pea porridge.

> There was another thread recently about how tacky it was to name it 'another
> dead cat'.  This thread makes clearly illustrates that those of us who have
> dealt with death are less intimidated by it.   Make no mistake.  I do not
> want to experience it the near future, but for me, at least, the quality of
> my life is far more important than the duration.

For me, both are important.

i
Beverly - 13 Mar 2004 13:07 GMT
> The damn windows XP refuses to boot, I need to reinstall it. What a
> piece of flaky garbage. I cannot believe it, the logon process dies.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> i

I've had XP installed on this machine for over a year with no problems.
We're getting ready to go to XP at work in the next few months.  Work is
always a little behind the times<g>  I guess it has to do with the number of
machines they support.

Beverly
Dally - 13 Mar 2004 04:18 GMT
> Back
> to my original point, decreasing fat percentages is a good thing but does
> not always mean decreasing calories.  Rather, it can be accomplished by
> increasing lean body mass.  And exercise does so much more than simply burn
> calories!

I've been wondering about this.  Clearly having heart disease puts you
at risk, but doesn't having some extra padding on you make you more
robust at fighting some of the wasting diseases?  It's just not true
that overweight people don't live to an old age.  Some do.

It also seems to me that being heavier would lead to denser bones which
would lead to less hip fractures (and you know the correlation between
fracturing your hip and being dead within the year.)

Dally
Julianne - 13 Mar 2004 13:20 GMT
> > Back
> > to my original point, decreasing fat percentages is a good thing but does
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Dally

I am on the fence.  This is an interesting read from junkscience, though.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113975,00.html

j
Dally - 13 Mar 2004 04:15 GMT
>>When my grandmother was in her 80's she used to marvel that she was the
>>only one of her friends with boobs.  She lived until 90 and died in her
>>sleep with her daughter holding her hand, of congestive heart failure.
>
> How come her daughter was holding her hand, if she was asleep?

Cheyne stokes.  Grandma was breathing funny and couldn't be roused.  My
Aunt decided to just sit up with her.  You don't call an ambulance for a
90 year old with congestive heart failure.  Grandma passed away around 3
in the morning.  She hadn't been particularly ill when she went to bed.

Yes, Julianne, we do still celebrate her birthday.  It's the first day
of winter and I doubt I'll ever NOT think of her that day.

A cousin dying of Hodgkins disease saw the door Julianne's patient saw,
too.  He tried to tell his parents about it.  It was enormously
comforting to my aunt and uncle who saw the look of joy on his face as
he died.

Dally
Julianne - 12 Mar 2004 02:33 GMT
> > Hardly a sensible approach to breast ca prevention!
>
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
> i
> 223/174/180

Eating less than what?  Obviously, eating less than the average seems
healthy as it appears that the average person eats too much in the USA.

Still, there are two ways to decrease percentage of body fat.  One is to
lose body fat and the other is to gain lean tissue.  If you think about it,
the normal process of aging leads to less lean body mass and more adipose
tissue.  And, since the incidence of most cancers increases with age, it
seems to reason that at the cellular level, the aging body is less resistant
to influences that cause mutations.  So, ideally, reversing the aging
process is the key.  Alas, we cannot do this.

We can mimic youth by behaving as younger folks do.  We can exercise, add or
maintain lean body mass and increase our metabolism.  Also, exercise
improves many other endocrine functions including regulation of insulin,
estrogen, hGH, etc.  There are probably many more but I am challenged when
it comes to the endocrine system.

So, maybe, caloric restriction can help but I cannot see that reversing
ratios of fat to lean tissue as much as exercise can  (except in severely
anorexic patients) so therefore, I vote for exercise to decrease total body
fat percentages.

j
MH - 12 Mar 2004 03:08 GMT
> Eating less than what?  Obviously, eating less than the average seems
> healthy as it appears that the average person eats too much in the USA.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> j

First off, it is painfully (for us readers) obvious that ig knows nothing
about anorexia. Anorexia is NOT, repeat NOT about food. It is about power,
control and lack of self esteem.

Young women and some men become anorexics because frequently, it is the only
part of their lives where they are in control. It certainly was with me. I
couldn't the horrible things that were happening to me, but boy I could
control what I ate. Everytime I saw myself in the mirror, I saw a big, fat
person, yet I was underweight by at least 15 pounds.

Anorexia kills. If one suffers from this and they do not stop, they will
die. It eats away at their vital organs and finally their heart will give
up.

It is an extremely difficult addiction to stop. I don't know how many of you
saw the TV special on the ex-news reporter who looks like a concentration
camp victim, yet she could not be convinced to eat. (I wonder what's
happening with her now...) Anyway, anorexics have a terrible record. Many do
not stop and many die.

Martha
this thread wins the "Are You Freakin' Serious??" Award of the day
MH - 12 Mar 2004 02:04 GMT
> Hardly a sensible approach to breast ca prevention!

Well, yeah. If you do not stop being an anorexic you will DIE before cancer
has a chance to ever form. It's a no-brainer and the OP should have thought
about it. I'm beginning to think he has the beginnings of anorexia.

Martha

> If you think about the role of estrogen in some breast cancer and how
> adipose tissue is associated with estrogen, it makes perfect sense.  It is
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> > studies to gain insight into the effects of energy restriction on
> > devel-opment of breast cancer in humans.5
Dally - 12 Mar 2004 02:12 GMT
>>Hardly a sensible approach to breast ca prevention!
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Martha

I think he just has an avid fascination with the 120-year-life ideas
that recommend eating a very low calorie diet forever.  The
near-starvation diet appeals to some people as a way to ascert their
extreme discipline.  Judging by his other regimens - an hour + a day of
walking, never eating after 6 pm, etc, I'd say this appeals to him.

Igor, your fascination with starving to death (I remember some other
posts on this subject) is starting to be a little unnerving.  Maybe you
should talk to someone about this!

Dally (other than us, I mean)
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.