You're misunderstanding what I said.

"A research doctor where I used to work once told me that cancer is %80 genetic and %20 what you do. So it seems almost like magical thinking to try to use your diet to ward off certain diseases."

So diet or exercise or smoking or environment or whatever could be TRIGGERS, but his point was that genetics play a large role in whether you will develop cancer or not, no matter what you do.

For instance, I don't have citations, (though I can look it up) but only a small percentage of smokers will get lung cancer (they may develop other problems). Something like 5%. Which would STILL be considered an epidemic in a population--I'm not defending smoking at all.

Which is why some people can smoke and drink all their lives, live into their 90's and die of old age, and some people live "perfect" lifestyles and die in their 40's or 50's.

Sometimes, genetically, you're just screwed.

------------------------------------------------------

Your research doctor or your memory is wrong. According to this page:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/COM/cancer-fs.html

"Thirty percent of all cancers are attributed to smoking or chewing tobacco."

So that's already more than your stated 20%. The page also says "Approximately 30% of cancers are related to diet." Related does not mean the same thing as "caused by" or "attributed to" so this doesn't mean another full 30% but certainly some portion of that.

Exercise also affects cancer risk. It seems quite likely that MOST cancer risk comes from "what you do".

"So it seems almost like magical thinking to try to use your diet to ward off certain diseases."

Everybody here in Ohio probably thinks it's perfectly understandable that Congress would want to watch some football...

...there aren't enough couches in the entire country to provide enough fuel for Columbus on gamenight.

My boyfriend has a theory that most of the Ohio State students are drawn from small, rural places (I won't say in Ohio specifically, as a lot of the kids I knew when I went to Ohio State were from upstate New York) where it's customary to have special-occasion bonfires. Interesting that he and you say the same thing, but you manage to sound awfully superior about it. Of course, my boyfriend is from one of those upstate New York towns--YOU probably don't live in flyover-country.

Look, the Buckeyes sucked last night--but will people PLEASE stop using it as an excuse to bash Columbus? I moved back here from the Chicago area and breathed a sigh of relief. No more 20-mile (and 1-hour-plus)commutes! No more punishing rent/mortgages! Sure there were probably more cultural opportunities available to me in Chicago, but it's useless if it's such a pain to GET to that it becomes easier to stay on the couch at home--at least here, pretty much anything I want to do (movies, food, theater, shopping, etc.) is 10 minutes or less away.

Let it go, guys. It's nice here, whether or not you pay attention to football. And a lot of us don't.

LisaD wrote:

What surprises me is that the majority of women I know in the industry have followed the same path as I have. Of the dozen or so women I went to school with, only 2 are still working in the industry. The rest have either become full-time mothers with no plans of ever returning to work, or have made complete career changes.

Surprise! A lot of engineering jobs are boring and unfulfilling! I could have told you THAT from watching the engineers that as a technical writer I interact with every day--not necessarily at my current job, but certainly at past jobs.

The difference between WOMEN making the choices you outline above and MEN making those choices is that (once again, from my entirely unscientific observation) the MEN don't feel that they can make those choices, and are subsidizing their WIVES' decisions to quit altogether or make career changes.

Hey, I don't blame them--if I were married, and hated my job, and my husband said "fine, quit--I'll support you" either because he loved me and didn't want to see me unhappy, or because he was just plain tired of listening to me complain, or for other more complex reasons having to do with dominance, men's roles, blahblahblah--then I probably WOULD quit.

Sometimes MY job is boring and unfulfilling, but I have no-one else to support me but me--and I like getting that paycheck as much as I like the feeling of accomplishment when I solve a problem or do a particularly good job.

Oh, and daytime TV sucks.

But teach them healthy portion sizes, don't let them eat out all the time, and allow fattening high-calorie foods IN MODERATION. I don't think any food should be forbidden. Then it becomes longed-for and overindulgence is much more likely.

Take them for walks. Encourage bike-riding. I think a lot of the problem is that parents don't actually let their kids go OUTSIDE anymore. I HATED organized sports as a kid, but was relatively thin because I spent alot of time outside, falling out of trees, playing hide-and-seek, climbing fences, bike riding and walking my dog. (Got fatter in college due to beer and pizza.)

In fact, dog walking is a good idea. Chances are the family dog is too fat also...