Overloaded with Instructions

I get it. I have a lot of ailments so I am in a lot of groups and follow a lot of organizations for their health tips. So I get lots of email. Tons of email to be precise. Some of it gets the delete button right away - especially if the subject line doesn't tell me anything.

But then I read glance at a lot of them before deleting. But often they provide suggestions or instructions how to be healthier for whichever ailment. But now I am overloaded with instructions/suggestions this week:

• No more asparagus for me because it can lead to breast cancer spread. I like asparagus. Damn.
• Exercise can reduce breast cancer recurrence. I'm exercising, I'm exercising, I'm exercising.
• Milk and beef can trigger RA. What? No more cheese?
• Yoga can help with fibromyalgia. Too bad my doctors told me no yoga because of my bad back. And my knees don't bend that way.
• Fibromyalgia can cause dizziness. This is actually good news because we have been trying to figure this one out.

This is a partial list of what I have received this week. Last week there was something about coffee being bad. I have gotten instructions on so many things, I can get confused (which is not difficult at times). 

I realize one option is to stop reading about my ailments and receiving these emails. But I think it is important to understand as much as possible on your ailments. The more you understand about what is wrong with your body and what you can do to improve your situation.

On the other hand, it is definitely an overload. I do not have time to read all the emails I get. I pick and choose which get deleted immediately. Some I save for more in depth reading scanning at a later point. 

So not only do I get bombarded with ailments, I also get overloaded with instructions. Sometimes I cope by taking a nap or going to the gym to burn off stress. A nap usually sounds best.

I Am Very Confused

I realize this must be part of the vast conspiracy to keep breast cancer patients confused. Nancy, over at Nancy's Point, blogged about the AJCC’s Updates to the Breast Cancer Staging System, asking if we are confused about it. Well, since I didn't know about the updates (or even who the AJCC is) I was and still am very confused.

Let's start with the AJCC or the American Joint Committee on Cancer. Apparently they are the people who set up cancer staging criteria. They set the original TNM staging system in 1959. TNM means Tumor size, Nodes positive, and Metastases. 

"The panel recognized the need to incorporate biologic factors, such as tumor grade, proliferation rate, estrogen and progesterone receptor expression, human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) expression, and gene expression prognostic panels into the staging system. AJCC levels of evidence and guidelines for all tumor types were followed as much as possible. The panel felt that, to maintain worldwide value, the tumor staging system should remain based on TNM anatomic factors. However, the recognition of the prognostic influence of grade, hormone receptor expression, and HER2 amplification mandated their inclusion into the staging system."

I used to know what stage I am - IIA. Now I can't figure it out. With all this other stuff included. I am very confused. I looked at the American Cancer Society's website for help. And I am even more confused. There is no more little chart that shows what you stage you are. 

So here is my game plan: I will ignore all this new information until I meet with my oncologist sometime next summer and ask her. I feel this is better for more. A little ignorance and confusion will go a long way in reducing my stress. 

Now all of us breast cancer people can have these little conversations:

'What stage are you?'

'IIa, I think.'

'Is that the old staging or the new staging?'

'What new staging?'

'You didn't hear about it?'

'No.' 

All the breast cancer staging changed in 2018. They added all sorts of new information, grade, hormone status, etc'

'Oh, so if I was stage IIb, do you know what new stage I am?'

'No, I don't even know what stage I am. I can't figure  it out. I'm going to ask my oncologist.'

'Crap, let me call my oncologist too.'

But I swear there is a vast conspiracy out there to keep us all confused.

More Confusion

So a recent study shows that one third of all breast cancer diagnoses that are treated unnecessarily. I find this statistic a bit appalling.

First of all, we are all aware of the issues of over treatment for breast cancer and other ailments. Technology is advanced to the point that it can find little teeny tiny things that may or may not turn out to be nasty. Second of all, the standard these days is to treat all these potentially bad things as bad things because there is no way to know which are good and which are bad.

And that is my point. Since we don't know which ones are bad (i.e. potentially fatal) or not going to do anything bad, how did they come up with this statistic? That one-third of diagnoses are over treated.

The article cites a Danish study which showed an over treatment rate of 2.3%. The American College of Radiology also states the rate is there but definitely lower than what is cited in this new 'study'.

So this new 'study' is a piece of crap designed to scare the crap out of all of us breast cancer people. We are the ones that hear a 90% survival rate and convince ourselves we are in the 10% so of course we are all going to think that that we are in the one-third that was over treated.

I have one request: breast cancer research should be done to figure out what could be bad and what won't be.

When To Get a Flu Shot?

This is part of the big conspiracy to confuse patients. When am I supposed to get a flu shot? In previous years I would go to my primary care physician and get a flu shot. I saw her a couple of weeks ago and was told it was too early. I should wait until the hospital has its clinic in October or go to an other flu shot clinic I find. Hmmmm...

So I did some research. The latest wisdom is to get a flu shot between Halloween and Thanksgiving. But there is other evidence that it may be different for over 65 or the medically frail. Am I medically frail?

I don't know. I do know I am confused.

My doctor confused me

I went for blood work last week for two doctors. As usual I got the results the next day, or so I thought. This morning I got more blood work results back. And I don't understand them.

These are more thyroid blood tests. Originally I got my TSH level back. Then this morning I got T4, thyroglobulin AB and thyroglobulin. I didn't get my T3 levels. I don't always get all these thyroid tests done so I don't understand them as well as my TSH levels.

And why all of a sudden do I get all these blood tests? To be fair, the hospital switched to a new computer system last year with a patient portal where I get my test results directly instead of getting them from my doctor's office or the records office. So maybe they did these tests and I just wasn't aware.

So it means I definitely need to call my doctor about them.... But I'll give her until the end of the week to contact me first.

I think its a vast medical conspiracy to confuse the patients. I have been blogging about this for years. If you can't cure them, confuse them.

Too much advice = too much confusion

With every ailment, comes a list of advice. Do this, don't do that; eat this, don't eat that; these exercises, not those.That's fine with one ailment. But with my list of ailments, it quickly gets very confusing.

I subscribe to multiple Google Alerts - one for each ailment. Each one sends me a new list each day of articles or blog posts or some other piece of information found on line on each topic. The daily melange can include anything from somebody ran a race to fund raise for someone with one of the ailments to a medical research advancement. So there can be everything.

Including advice. Today's advice included diet secrets for arthritis, prescription review for fibromyalgia, a male oncologist who got breast cancer, and some woman and her family get lots of support after her thyroid cancer diagnosis. First of all its too much information for me to digest this early in the day, never mind later in the day.

Second of all, if I tried to select a specific topic (food/lifestyle, for example), it gets very confusing. Eat this, not that; drink this, not that; do cardio, skip cardio and do yoga, but my doctor says no yoga. Aaarrrgggghhh!

I give slightly more weight to advice from medical professionals, especially from my doctors. If one doctor gives me advice that conflicts with another doctor, I will ask what I should do.

So how do I handle all this? I do what feels right for me. That's the only way to deal with the piles of advice.

Those pesky breast cancer screening recommendations

Can I ask who is confused over the 'revised' breast cancer screening guidelines? Or should I just ask who isn't confused? Yes, no, yes, maybe, no one, everyone? How old? Not that young, should be older. Well maybe not. Not for everyone. Wait, oh just test everyone. No only for some people, talk to your doctor. That's a lot of different answers.

And in both my cancers I was clearly not a candidate for hitting the so called criteria for any testing. So I just ignore all the comments about too young or too old. Those really should be less likely or more likely instead of age related if you ask me. But they didn't ask me.

Anyway, so the USPTF (US Preventative Task Force) released a clarification on their breast cancer screenings earlier this week. They also claim they were misunderstood. And they want to clear up confusion. Well maybe the confusion was because what they said back in 2009 concerned everyone.

"The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released its final recommendations for breast cancer screening Monday in an attempt to clear up some of the confusion.

The group recommends that women at average risk for breast cancer should have a mammogram every other year beginning at age 50 up to the age of 74. Women in their 40s are advised to make an individual decision in partnership with their doctors, since the likelihood of benefiting from screening is lower for women in that age group.

Though this is an update from the group’s 2009 recommendations, the guidelines remain largely unchanged and a draft was released earlier this year.

The report, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, also concluded that there’s not enough evidence to determine if newer 3D mammography is a good option for routine screening, or if women with dense breasts need extra testing.

The group’s 2009 report drew controversy for questioning the usefulness of mammograms for women in their 40s. But the task force says their words were widely misunderstood."

Blah, blah, blah. So in their clarification here they state that a mammogram every other year is all that is needed starting at age 50 if you have average risk. Let me ask all my friends in their 40's with breast cancer what they think if they had waited until 50 for a mammogram.

Okay, so medically maybe there is some logic in their plan. Or maybe not. If you look at breast cancer occurrence rates (from Cancer.gov):

Age 30 . . . . . . 0.44 percent (or 1 in 227)
Age 40 . . . . . . 1.47 percent (or 1 in 68)
Age 50 . . . . . . 2.38 percent (or 1 in 42)
Age 60 . . . . . . 3.56 percent (or 1 in 28)
Age 70 . . . . . . 3.82 percent (or 1 in 26)

It sees clear that most breast cancers occur after the age 40. So I don't understand this wait until 50 business at all. Now I am even more confused.

I am unsure

So I have had the same doctor for pain management, Dr G, for a good six years now because of my back pain and later fibromyalgia. We have had a good relationship and he has helped control my pain. I have always liked him and thought he was doing right by me.

I have a friend, L, who has been also going to him for pain management for her issues, which have included curvature issues with her spine. We have compared notes and treatments in the past and both like him.

I had lunch with L this week for the first time after some extensive back surgery last spring. She told me she will never see Dr. G again. He continued to treat her pain, never referred her to a surgeon or anyone else, or sent her for more scans. As a result, her back surgery was much more extensive than if she had had the surgery five years ago. She is very mad at him.

L got a new primary care last year who referred her to a surgeon for her back pain who told her she should have had surgery years ago. But Dr G is an anesthesiologist so he didn't ever refer her to a surgeon.

Now I do not know what to think. Dr G has always told me there is now surgical cure for my pain and I have believed him. I have also done some research on my own on potential back surgery and found that back surgery is very iffy in most cases so I have continued to agree with him. I know every patient is different but this makes me unsure about the whole situation.

I find this very disappointing and disheartening in that we assume a doctor has our best interests at heart but L clearly had a different experience. Dr G believes in medicine to treat pain as that is what he does as an anesthesiologist. A surgeon always believes that surgery is best because that is what they do. Patients get stuck in the middle. And we want to believe that what our doctors tell us is in our best interest.

I think I need to shift my focus from believing Dr G is always correct to doing some double checking. And I have a plan. I see Dr G this coming Friday as a follow up. But then I see my new primary care in a couple more weeks and I will talk to her about my pain issues, particularly my back. I do not want unnecessary surgery but I do want to do whatever I can to feel better.

We must trust our doctors but sometimes we need to do a little double checking. I don't like that part.

Soy and breast cancer, again

I hate tofu (as you may know) and have been avoiding soy and soy products since my breast cancer diagnosis. There has been a lot of controversy on the subject of soy and breast cancer because of estrogen issues. Now I think I have found some better information.

Some new research was done at the University of Illinois - Champaign/Urbana that was released earlier this week.

"Researchers at the University of Illinois found that the compounds in minimally processed soy flour stimulate genes that suppress cancer, while purified soy isoflavones stimulate oncogenes that promote tumor growth."

Hence the confusion. Soy is good if not processed and helps prevent cancer but if it is processed it can increase cancer risk.

So if you really want you can eat tofu (without me) and soy flour but skip anything with processed soy.

I'm still reading the news

I'm not glued to the health news in the search for the cure for cancer, and my other ailments, anymore. I had to take that step for my own sanity. But I still read the news.

For some reason, I am very intrigued by the surge in measles cases in California where unvaccinated students are being told to stay home. I just don't understand why some parents never got their children vaccinated. Why, why, why? The UK doctor who said that vaccines contributed to autism or whatever has since been debunked.

One of the parents of a child who is forced out of school for 21 days said that if any students do get measles during the forced home stay, her daughter will be forced to stay home for another 21 days. So the suspension could go on and on. And her daughter can't get a vaccine for another 30 days because she was exposed to the disease. So this could go on for months.

I never understood this whole anti-vaccination stuff anyway. I know there are people who do not believe in vaccinations or flu shots. But if you don't get a shot you can't expect that there won't be a price to pay. You could get the flu or measles or whatever, you might have to miss work or school, and people might want to avoid you.

To me this is the same as for anyone who doesn't follow traditional cancer or other treatment and expect their insurance company to continue to cover all tests and treatments.

If you don't go with the flow, you may find yourself left behind.

I am confused

I admit to being confused. I have rheumatoid arthritis. I am on injected methotrexate. Am I supposed to be feeling better? Because I am not. I keep forgetting to ask my rheumatologist about this.

I know I have other pain causing ailments - degenerating disks in my back cause pain in my lower back. I know all about these pains. If I bend over to pick things up, my back reminds me I should not - never mind that you are supposed to squat and lift with your knees. But that is one set of pains.

Then I have the fibromyalgia induced pains. Those are the ones which are not back pains or rheumatoid pains. They appear as things like bone deep pain in my arms or elecgtrical pains across my lower back.

And I have osteoarthritis pains. That is when my  knees crunch when I bend them. I have Snap, Crackle, and Pop and their extended family reunion living in my left knee. And my right knee and a few other assorted places.

But I know I have RA pain in places that never really feel better. This includes my hands where my knuckles always feel inflamed and swollen. My wrists, my shoulders, my ankles, and my feet. And other places that are symmetrical. RA pains are easier to pin point as they are symmetrical. I am on medication and anti-inflammatories but they are always there.

If I judge my health based on the television commercials where people are moving about freely while they are on medication for their RA. I clearly not atfor a commercial any time soon.

But my real question is am I supposed to not have pain from my RA? Or is the treatment not working or am I living in a constant flare? And combined with fibro fog and fatigue, I am a walking disaster.

I think I need to write myself some notes and bring them with me to my next rheumatologist visit in January. Crap. That's a long time from now.

My story is that I have chemo brain, fibro fog and something else I don't remember....

Now I might be able to also claim Tamoxifen fog. I was on tamoxifen for two years so now I have something else. But I think there is still something else. I just can't remember.

About that risk assessment

There is all this talk these days about what you can do to reduce your risk of cancer, dementia, chicken pox, or the common cold, among a million other things. You know all the advice - eat broccoli, exercise, don't drink, lose weight, exercise, eat margarine no eat butter, drink red wine no white - and all it does is confuse the crap out of us.

Then they start to give people personal risk assessment for an ailment and expect us to believe them. How much conflicting medical advice do you hear on a given day? A lot. Eat red meat and chocolate, no don't, yes, well a little, and the famous words - in moderation. How can you be expected to believe anything?

When you are told what your risk of some thing is - whether being diagnosed with cancer or being hit by lightening, don't you always harbor that little thought in the corner of  your brain that of course they are only talking about other people and not you or anyone you care about. Its always going to affect those other faceless people you don't know.

So why all the surprise when a new study shows that one in five women don't believe their breast cancer risk? I can honestly tell you I was very surprised by both my cancer diagnoses. I thought my back pain was the result of muscle strain and not the permanent debilitating state of the disks in my spine. I thought my aches and pains that turned out to be rheumatoid and fibromyalgia were just normal aging.

Sometimes I think, they were all wrong and I am really a healthy person who can live the way I used to - working full time, having a social life, and going off on adventures regularly that involve beaches, mountains, and the great outdoors.

Seriously, we hear so much conflicting medical advice and then if someone gives us a risk assessment, we are supposed to believe them? I think a risk assessment is like listening to the weather forecast - there is a good chance Saturday will be rainy and it should clear out for Sunday but watch out for a hurricane next week. How do they really know?

Too many screening tools

Now the big 'hoo haw' in the medical world is preventative care. You know they want people to have annual physicals and get certain screening tests - mammograms, PSA, and colonoscopies. I personally think a bit of prevention goes a long way.

But we can't focus on that and test everyone to death (bad choice of words there?) can we? I mean its bad enough that I go to my PCP for a physical and I get sent for blood tests. I used to get annual chest x-rays because I have had a thingy in my lungs but after thirty years of annual commemorative pictures, they have changed protocols and said I no longer need those.

I also still get annual visits with the radiation oncologist and breast surgeon, three times a year with the medical oncologist, twice a year with the endocrinologist and four times a year with someone in rheumatology which is more than the average bear. Because with my medical history, they need to be sure but I am not so sure about the rest of the population. How many tests do they need? I question this.

Last year medical organizations came out about tests we generally do not need. I blogged about these somewhere in my blog but can't find them... I have to get to work, I don't have hours to dig through my blog so trust me it is there.

Now medical research is busy adding new screening tests. Some British researchers have found a link between lifestyle and developing rheumatoid arthritis. They found:

they found that smoking, obesity and having diabetes all increased the risk. It was also found that drinking a small amount of alcohol and being in a higher social class were associated with a reduced risk of developing the disease.

Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-03-links-lifestyle-rheumatoid-arthritis.html#jCp

 "... they found that smoking, obesity and having diabetes, all increased the risk. It was also found that drinking a small amount of alcohol and being in a higher social class were associated with a reduced risk of developing the disease."

Their recommendation, as a result, is to develop a screening tool to identify patients with a higher risk and who could be given advice on  how to reduce their risk. (I'm not signed up for any special social class so how would I know if I am at a lower risk?) Not helpful.

So let me review this. The movement these days is to reduce unnecessary tests and research is creating more tests. Sounds like a vast conspiracy to me.

they found that smoking, obesity and having diabetes all increased the risk. It was also found that drinking a small amount of alcohol and being in a higher social class were associated with a reduced risk of developing the disease.

Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-03-links-lifestyle-rheumatoid-arthritis.html#jCp

they found that smoking, obesity and having diabetes all increased the risk. It was also found that drinking a small amount of alcohol and being in a higher social class were associated with a reduced risk of developing the disease.

Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-03-links-lifestyle-rheumatoid-arthritis.html#jCp

they found that smoking, obesity and having diabetes all increased the risk. It was also found that drinking a small amount of alcohol and being in a higher social class were associated with a reduced risk of developing the disease.

Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-03-links-lifestyle-rheumatoid-arthritis.html#jCp

Its a vast conspiracy

Everything can now kill us off. Now they say the radiation for diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer can cause esophageal (I get points for spelling that right on the first try) cancer. And that's in addition to leukemia and ischemic heart disease. Gee thanks. So should I skip the breast cancer treatment to avoid all these side effects or do I go for getting rid of one ailment and hope I don't get all the other potential ones.

Tamoxifen has been known to cause endometrial cancer. Chemotherapy in general causes chemobrain and temporary or permanent neuropathy. Hormonal treatments cause weight gain. But you are supposed to stay thin to prevent increasing your risk of recurrence.

I can go on and on.

Its a vast conspiracy I tell you.

News flash: confusion among cancer patients

That's not really news. Nor is it the real title. This is the real one:

"Some 20 percent of women overwhelmed by cancer treatment options: study"

I doubt that number. I think its much higher. Like 100%.

And not just breast cancer patients but all cancer patients.

This article claims that 20% of breast cancer patients are overwhelmed by their options and mostly blame it on lack of education. I have a college degree and it was my second cancer and I was overwhelmed. My husband has a Master's degree and was overwhelmed by his options.

"And people who are overwhelmed tend to regret the choices they made." Hmmm... Maybe they felt they were rushed into a decision or couldn't understand the options and finally just did whatever their doctor made sound the easiest.

"The findings, which appeared in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, don't mean that women should not be fully informed about their treatment options, researchers said, but rather that doctors may need to find new strategies to communicate with patients, especially the less educated."

Skip the part about the less educated. I think the availability of information on the internet and other sources combined with their doctor's advice is a good combination. And its not the level or quality of  available information that's the problem. Its the lack of the doctor's support in making the choices.

No we don't want our doctors making our choices but we also need them to decipher the information - they went to medical school and here is an opportunity to use their knowledge to help the patient instead of just dumping it all on them.

Why don't they say things like:

"I recommend chemotherapy and the standard protocol is XYZ. This is the most common protocol for women with a similar diagnosis to you. The latest research supports this protocol. Most women do fairly well with it but these are the most significant short and long term side effects. Here is a little handout you can take home and read it. This is a systemic treatment which should kill off any cancer cells in your body.

Before surgery we recommend a lumpectomy instead of mastectomy because we think we can get clean margins (which means enough space around the tumor so we think we got it all.)

After chemo, we recommend radiation for seven weeks or so. This is a local treatment which will help kill off any cancerous cells in  your tumor's neighborhood. We recommend this protocol instead of mammosite because...

Finally, if you want to get more information on treatment options, I recommend these two or three websites."

What I want is a nice simple conversation with a doctor who lays out the information in an understandable fashion and welcomes a discussion on options. And who will explain the ups and downs of different options.

I don't need a medical lecture which feels like I wandered into medical school. I don't need someone to read a textbook to me. I don't need fear mongering to make me feel like I'm going to die. I can do that to myself 24/7.

I don't think this issue is limited to cancer patients. I think its fairly common. Doctor's should be required to share their secret decoder rings with patients.

I am confused

I know it is a leap but this confusing information has overwhelmed my tiny chemo brain. One article says yes and one article says no. This article about a Dutch study says that breast cancer screenings save lives. This article about a Norwegian study talks about how screenings in your 40s can lead to over diagnosis and over treatment of breast cancer.

So what to do? This really becomes a matter of personal choice (unless the evil health insurance companies make the decision for you) of when to start screenings of any kind. But once you start you need to realize that you do run the risk of being over diagnosed and over treated. Some cancers will never cause a problem for the patient later in life. But do they really know how to tell which one is not going to be a problem? I'm not sure.

This is a problem we have with medical studies in general. There will be one which says one thing and another that says the exact opposite. And both require more studies to prove right or wrong. How helpful. How confusing. 

Insurance insanity

I go to the hospital and pay my copay. Then I get a little statement in the mail which tells me how much more I owe - which is 15% of the allowed amount for whatever it was. Then I get a bill from the hospital and pay the rest. Simple? Right. Sure. Then I get a check back from the hospital telling me after an audit it shows I was owed this. They do not reference a specific visit so I never know what these are for. I called once and was told that often the insurance company changes what they cover and I get a refund or another bill. It drives me crazy.

The first year of my medical roller coaster I tried to match up bills and statements and copays and gave up as it simply didn't work. Especially with these stupid little refunds. Its not that I mind getting money back but since I cant attribute it to a specific thing I have to just assume that it is correct. I am not an accountant (and am not big on balancing my check book) but I don't think this is good accounting practice. But that's okay I am merely a patient at the mercy of the hospital and the insurance company.

This is a minor problem compared to what other people go through. First the insurance company tells you they will pay and then they change their mind. Can I tell you how wrong this is? Insurance companies should not have the ability to make medical decisions for patients. And the worse thing they could do is agree to pay and then deny it, retroactively. Are they inhuman or something? Or just need a smack in the head?

If we can kill them, lets confuse them part 993

Once again we are faced with the vast conspiracy to kill off all the cancer patients through confusion. First they said mammograms for everyone over 40. Then they said no, not until 50. Then the UK said only every 2-3 year after 50. Then Canada said after 50. Now the radiologists say mammograms should be done annually for women over 40.

Call me confused.

But what this is really telling us is 1, there is a vast conspiracy out there to confuse us all and 2, the only way to decide what is best for you is to talk to your own doctors and see what the two of you decide is really right for you.

More confusion

There was a new medical study (of course we needed another one) that offers advice for women to reduce their risk of breast cancer. This study says even 3-6 drinks/week can increase a woman's risk of breast cancer. That seems straightforward - don't drink and you can reduce your risk of getting breast cancer.

But here's the confusing part:

"Because moderate drinking has been associated with a lower death rate for heart disease, Chen said women should weigh the risks and benefits of drinking based on their own health histories."

So make a decision: drink and you are less likely to get heart disease but are more likely to get breast cancer, or don't drink and you are less likely to get breast cancer but more likely to get heart disease.

To all those politicians who claim there is an evil plot out to get them. It is true. There is an evil plot out to get all of us. It is run by a vast conspiracy to confuse us all. They are hoping they can confuse us into submission as we sit there and try to decipher all those 'so called' medical studies and get stuck comparing their recommendations eternally. Which recommendation is going to prove to be right in the long run and won't be disproved by the next study - that is the real question we all have.



I give up. I'm going to live in a cave and be confused. But I can age wine in my cave (and I'll be out of the sun so I can help prevent skin cancer). And I'll eat fried food daily, with a salad on the side, and take my fiber supplements.