Nutrition Diva available on QuickAndDirtyTips.com
More episodes of the Nutrition Diva available on QuickAndDirtyTips.com
Image: Quick & Dirty TipsScientific American presents Nutrition Diva by Quick & Dirty Tips. Scientific American and Quick & Dirty Tips are both Macmillan companies.
There are some miracle stories out there about people who cured themselves of incurable, end-stage cancer with a macrobiotic diet. Not surprisingly, people facing cancer often find these stories very compelling. One of the many things that makes cancer so difficult is the feeling of helplessness that this disease can engender in patients and loved ones. Diet and nutrition is something we can take control of—but we need to be realistic about the role that nutrition plays in cancer treatment.
Although a well-balanced and nutritious diet of wholesome foods would benefit any cancer patient, there is no credible evidence that a macrobiotic regime has any miraculous powers to cure cancer. Believe me, if there were, I’d be the first to tell you. Like so many of you, I’ve lost too many people I love to this disease and I, too, have felt desperate enough to believe or try just about anything.
> Continue reading on QuickAndDirtyTips.com
See what we're tweeting about
3 Comments
Add CommentYou're preaching to the choir. The issue is not weather 'holistic' treatments work (they don't by all clinical measures), but is quality of life enhanced by modern cancer treatment. I watched a friend's mother die of treatment and cancer (and the treatment side effects were nasty). A comprehensive study about quality of a life extended by treatment is what is needed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo specific offence intended to the writer of this article, which might be a fine article, but I really wish that there were a way to subscribe to Scientific American's RSS without also subscribing to these article stubs that actually direct me to another site -- usually Quick n Dirty Tips. I feel there is some financial relationship or some other reason I am constantly being directed to Quick n Dirty Tips -- a site I have no interest in as the advice is usually quite rudimentary, as promised in the title. I expect something better than "quick n dirty" from Scientific American -- that is why I subscribe. Forcing me to subscribe to this kind of article stub along with the package, is not working in Scientific American's favour. Instead, it is negatively affecting my appraisal of the worth of this RSS feed. I do not feel there is a worthy competitor at this time, but if a competing science publication appeared with at least equal science coverage but a cleaner RSS feed, I would quickly bolt from Scientific American, probably never to return.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bloggification of SciAm has resulted in some wonderful posts, like the recent one on mirror neurons. But more often, it simply pollutes the feed with factoid-style articles that are really beneath what I have always thought of as Scientific American's mission.
I agree completely. In my case, I am not going to pay for a subscription because I have lost faith in Scientific American's curation of information soley based on the website content.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know that is a little extreme, but I don't believe it is unwarranted. I'd rather read a good science book than bits of electronic trash.