On February 5, the President cut about $11 billion from the National Cancer Institute budget. On March 20, one group -- the Colorectal Cancer Coalition or C3 -- will ask Congress to return some of this money.

Colorectal cancer advocates from all over the country will descend upon Washington DC on this day, in honor of National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. Their plan of action on behalf of C3's first-ever Call-On Congress includes meeting with members of Congress face to face, discussing cancer research and prevention funding, and informing these powerful people that the time to cure cancer is now.

These advocates have a lot to accomplish -- and they need your help. So they ask that while they are rallying in DC that you lend your support with a few simple phone calls.

On Tuesday, March 20, between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, pick up your phone and call two Senators and one Representative. Tell them now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the cancer cause.

C3 offers a step-by-step guide for making yourself heard. The group will help you locate your specific legislators and provides a script for what to say and how to say it.

"The more people who call on March 20th and ask for Congress to make funding the war on cancer a priority, the better for us all," says one advocate.

National Cancer Institute director John Neiderhuber worries the NCI 2007 budget could be slashed by five to 10 percent. And he worries that key cancer research will inevitably come to a halt as a result.

Worries stem from budget cuts proposed by President Bush. Cuts would cost the NCI between $36 million and $4.7 billion -- but Bush reports that NCI funding has doubled in the past 10 years and would still remain relatively high. And due to the recent American Cancer Society announcement that cancer deaths dropped for the second straight year, White House spokesman Tony Fratto says, "We're proud of the significant investment that we have made in cancer research. We're also proud of the results showing that researchers are delivering on that investment."

But researchers still worry. They worry cuts will undermine their successes. They feel like the rug is being pulled out from under them, just as they are making significant progress. They suspect 95 clinical trials could be postponed or cancelled, 3,000 patients could miss the opportunity of joining a trial, and some cancers will be completely eliminated from studies.

"There is a real cost in human life," says Allen Lichter, executive vice president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, of the more-than-monetary toll budget cuts will take on NCI research efforts.

One study already on hold, pending funding decisions, is the next phase of a study evaluating whether a class of drugs called aromatase inhibitors, can prevent breast cancer. Another research group has opted to stop studying brain tumors. This is a huge loss to patients with this type of cancer, says Lichter.

It's a huge loss to all of us really -- because cancer will affect each of us in some way, some day. And so with cut budgets come cut hopes, cut dreams, and sadly -- cut survival.

Calorie counting may be a bit tedious for some -- like me -- but for others, it may be just the ticket for the management of weight and overall health.

Charles Stuart Platkin, author of the new book The Diet Detective's Count Down, takes calorie counting one step further and offers the exercise equivalent of a nutritional label.

His 341-page book offers charts that detail the number of calories, fats, and carbohydrates in more than 7,500 foods and drinks and then translates these details into what it takes, in terms of minutes, to burn the calories with walking, running, biking, swimming, yoga, or dance.

Platkin, a syndicated nutrition and fitness columnist, says he is not trying to encourage people to count every calorie consumed in a day and to exercise until each calorie melts away. His goal is to help those who exceed their daily calorie budget -- the number of calories they can eat each day without gaining weight.

The Count Down goes like this -- you consume one martini at your New Year's celebration, pushing you beyond your allotted calories for the day. All you have to do is walk it off the next day in a mere 71 minutes. Or you can run it off in just 39 minutes. If a single cracker with one slice of Genoa salami and cheese tempts your palate, go for it -- then plunge into a 55-minute yoga class.

Before taking a stab at the diet detective's approach, there are several considerations to take into account. First, the book is based on a 155-pound person. A person carrying more weight would burn more calories per minute, and a person carrying less weight would burn less. Second, a person's basal metabolic rate (BMR) must be calculated -- Platkin offers formulas for this task -- so it's clear how much activity output is required by each person. And third, the exercise equivalents are based on scientifically researched metabolic equivalent tables that try to measure what is being burned versus a person's resting metabolic rate. So this is not just a crazy gimmick. It's science -- with a touch of personal perspective too.

Platkin, clinically obese for most of his life, lost 50 pounds a few years ago and came to realize that people just don't know what a calorie is. He wishes the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA) would include exercise recommendations on food labels and says, "I think that we are so confused in general as a population as to what's healthy and what's not, we confuse the term healthy with low-calorie. Sometimes they don't mesh. There's so much confusion out there that I think that it needs to be more defined. We need to have some sort of reference points so that people can make decisions before they consume."

Until the FDA delivers on Platkin's wish, he is taking matters into his own hands for those who choose to borrow from his wisdom.

Some of his wisdom includes eating calorie bargains (air-popped popcorn) instead of calorie rip-offs (potato chips) and substituting mustard for mayonnaise on a burger -- it will save 2,000 calories per month for someone who eats fast food three times per week.

Platkin's hope is simple -- he wants people to ask themselves whether certain foods are worth the cost. Is it worth a 54-minute run to burn the 510 calories in a McDonald's Quarter Pounder with Cheese? How about a 144-minute walk to rid yourself of a Subway six-inch Meatball Marinara sandwich?

It's a worthy hope, I think -- although this method is still a bit tedious for me. I think I will stick with my own formula -- eating moderate portions of what I enjoy and intensely exercising several times per week. I don't need to know how many calories I am consuming. I don't even need to know how much I weigh. As long as my clothes fit and my fitness routine keeps me sweating, I'll be a happy girl.

Living Beyond Breast Cancer (LBBC) -- a nonprofit organization dedicated to empowering all women affected by breast cancer to live as long as possible with the best quality of life -- recently began offering a new resource for breast cancer survivors, for both the newly diagnosed and those with metastatic disease.

"The first few weeks after diagnosis can be extremely difficult emotionally, and women with advanced disease often do not get the support and resources they need," said Jean Sachs, LBBC executive director. "We want to give them an understanding of their choices to help them make informed decisions regarding their physical and emotional health."

This understanding comes in the form of a 28-page brochure -- What to expect . . . today, tomorrow and beyond: Steps for coping with the medical, emotional and practical concerns of breast cancer -- available free on the Internet or by request. This guide, a road map, addresses topics such as coping with the news of a new diagnosis, telling family and friends, understanding pathology reports, choosing a medical team, asking for help, and finding support.

LBBC offers multiple addidtional resources -- including specialized navigation tools on its website that lead to a wealth of information. Visitors can Learn More about LBBC. They can Stay Informed through news, message boards, and other resources. They can Participate in events and programs. And they can Support LBBC through volunteer efforts and financial donations.

LBBC was founded in 1991 by a radiation oncologist who focused exclusively on meeting the needs of women post-treatment. She ran the organization out of the third floor of her home using volunteers. Few resources existed for women affected by breast cancer at the time, and so she tried to fill the void. In 1986, an executive director came on board, increased the LBBC budget from $100,000 to $1.8 million per year, expanded all programs and services, and worked to secure LBBC as a solid, dependable resource for all women, of all stages of breast cancer and in all phases of treatment and recovery. And now, in 2006, that is exactly what it is.

Over three thousand cancer patients, survivors, friends and relatives went to Capital Hill to lobby Congress. The group want lawmakers to reauthorize a program that provides breast and cervical cancer screening for the uninsured. They lobbied for more money for cancer research and detection methods.

The National Cancer Institute's budget will be cut by forty million dollars by President Bush's proposed budget for 2007. This can really hurt research programs and early detection methods to help the uninsured. Treatment programs now only reach one in every five women that are eligible for it.

The two day event was sponsored by the American Cancer Society and its sister advocacy group, the Cancer Action Network. The event attracted over ten thousand people. They also had large exhibits available to visit that showed the work of state and local cancer activists.

Radio Iowa reports that Lance Armstrong wants to fight the final battles against cancer by forming an army to wage war on cancer. Armstrong is in Iowa this week to participate in RAGBRAI, a cycling tour across the state of Iowa, and while there he is also giving interviews and making speeches about cancer and cancer survivorship.

"What we need is an army. We need an army of people. It starts in Iowa," Lance Armstrong said during an appearance in Newton on Wednesday. "Now's the time to make a difference and knock this thing out forever."

At the heart of the matter is federal funding for cancer research. For the first time in 35 years, the federal budget for cancer research has been cut -- which is essential to cancer research. Without federal funding, the advances made toward a cure for cancer are dramatically slowed. Armstrong is on a mission to ignite the political passions of the voters in this country to become an army against cancer.

"We hear every day how we're in the middle of a war, maybe a war in Iraq. It might be a war on terror. Let me tell you about a war. This is a war that's 35 years old and this is the war that's about time in my opinion that we get done with and that we finish," Armstrong said at a political event in Iowa City two days ago.

As part of Livestrong Day, Lance Armstrong and 100 cancer survivors and caregivers went to Washington, D.C. to lobby their congressional representatives for more cancer research funds. Armstrong criticized the Bush administration for cutting taxes while cutting the budget for the National Cancer Institute. "Taking from the poor and giving to the rich has never been a good policy," he told the audience at a Tuesday night reception at the Dirksen Senate Office Building. While visiting congressional representatives, Armstrong and cancer advocates were asking that Congress make cancer a national priority and to financially support the National Cancer Institute programs that result in early diagnosis and treatment and the Center for Disease Control programs that target cancer prevention, detection and treatment needs of each local community.

There are over 10 million cancer survivors alive today. Surviving cancer in such great numbers is a fairly recent phenomenon in the history of this country, as cancer was once considered a death sentence. The U.S. government, under President Bush's leadership has set back cancer research by cutting funding, and if more awareness is not raised about the budget for cancer research, further cuts will be made. Armstrong, and 10 million cancer survivors are becoming a visible and vocal force to be reckoned with, as these are serious issues. Cancer and cancer survivorship cannot be put on a financial back burner of lesser priority. One in three people will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their life. For more information, visit the Lance Armstrong Foundation's Livestrong.

In Medical News Today, is the feature one percent reduction in cancer mortality would be worth nearly $500 billion dollars. With the ever-increasing costs of the latest in cancer drug treatments -- and what a life is worth in deciding whether or not to allow access to  drugs for cancer patients needing them -- this is an interesting and valid perspective in calculating costs of disease. According to a new study by economists Kevin Murphy and Robert Topel of the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, a one percent reduction in mortality from cancer would be worth nearly $500 billion in social value of improved health and longevity. These estimates in dollars are based on the enjoyment of consumption and time during additional years of life, rather than how much a person earns.

"Since the benefits of cancer research are large, substantially greater research expenditures would be worthwhile," Murphy and Topel wrote. "A war on cancer that would spend an additional $100 billion on research and treatment may be worthwhile even if it had a one-in-five chance of reducing mortality by just one percent."

According to the researchers, from 1970 to 2000, gains in life expectancy added about $3.2 trillion per year to national wealth. While the economists are advocating in favor of additional research dollars, I believe the information from the study applies equally well when arguing if it is economically feasible to treat every cancer patient with drugs that will extend life. So for those who keep their focus on the pragmatic bottom line, and argue we simply cannot afford to treat everyone with expensive life-extending drugs, this is compelling evidence that in the long-run, you are losing money by not spending money now.