Healthy Living DIY

They don't.

Quick summary of the study:

• Researchers recruited 3088 women from several different test sites who had already been treated for early stage breast cancer.
• At the time of entering the study, participants were already eating an average of over 7 servings a day of fruits and vegetables (more than the general population).
• Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups.
• The "Intervention" group received 3 phases of telephone counseling (confidence-building, self-monitoring and barriers to adherence, and retaining motivation) plus a series of up to 12 cooking classes and a series of newsletters.
• The "Comparison" group received print materials describing a healthy diet, up to 4 cooking classes, and its own specially-tailored newsletter.
• The "Intervention" group was encouraged to consume a diet of 8+ servings a day of fruits and vegetables, 30 grams of fiber, and fewer than 20% of daily calories from fat, where the "Comparison" group followed standard "5 a Day" guidelines. In other words, what the researchers were really looking for is whether or not exceeding the standard dietary recommendations for fruits and vegetables would cause less recurrence of cancer than simply following standard dietary recommendations.
• There were no statstically significant differences in their measures of cancer recurrence or of death for any reason throughout the period of the research study.
• The participants from both groups who enjoyed good health throughout the study period hovered around 73%.

I have so many questions about this study! Don't you?

Here's a short list of what I'd really like to know:

1. Why did they clump increased intake of fruits and vegetables with a low-fat diet? They're two separate issues. And what about the quality of the fats consumed, which as I understand it has quite a bit to do with permeability of the cell walls and therefore susceptibility to cancer.
2. They administered two questionnaires measuring psychosocial functioning, but there was no mention of any psychosocial intervention in the study report. It appears that the main use for these measures was to see if one group or the other was unduly stressed out by the process of conducting the study. Where was the data indicating whether these patients matched group norms for psychosocial function in the first place?

But the main thing I want to know is this:

3. Why would researchers think they could take one little piece of health promoting advice out of the context of these women's lives and have that little piece alone make a big outcome difference? What about the rest of whatever was going on at the time?

I'll admit I think holstically. But I'm serious about this question: If a woman is stressed to the hilt by her chaotic life... And if that stress is affecting her body's immune responses... How on earth is an extra serving of carrots going to change anything?

My hunch: Resolve the stress, eat a moderate-but-not-rigid selection of quality foods, get some fresh air and exercise, surround yourself with a supportive community, live life as your conscience guides, and watch that health return.

Key factor: Resolve the stress. Until you do, the rest won't really matter.