Blogger Kristina Collins wrote on February 11 about three great steps for reducing the risk of cancer. Her suggestions -- eat well, get fit, and stop smoking -- are such good tips and could certainly account for major health changes in those who heed this advice.

Each one of these recommended lifestyle alterations is a major undertaking. And if you're like me and find big, swift, sweeping changes a sure recipe for defeat, then this short to-do list may seem a bit intimidating. So I'd like to offer a bit of my own advice for accomplishing these health feats -- take baby steps.

Kristina has taken baby steps. She first quit smoking -- I'm not sure there's anything small about this success, however -- and now she's taking on membership at a gym. Cutting down on red wine comes next, she says, as she pursues a life driven by health.

I have just recently taken a baby step myself. I stopped drinking soda -- or pop as I called it before relocating from Ohio to Florida. I'd known for some time I wanted to rid myself of the sugar that comes packaged in my favorite drinks -- Dr. Pepper and root beer -- but for some reason, I was dragging my feet when it came to giving up this vice. Yet I did it. I stopped drinking soda, replaced it with water, and now have no desire for sugary drinks of any kind.

I am a creature of habit. I know this because I spent years drinking only water. But when cancer struck, I turned to the carbonation of soft drinks to settle my upset stomach. With time, my stomach stopped bothering me. But I didn't stop drinking soda. I kept drinking it for no other reason than pure habit. And when I convinced myself this practice was not necessary in my life, I cut it out.

Perhaps I'll tackle chocolate next. Or exercising more. Who knows. I'm just happy I accomplished one small task. And I hope you'll consider taking baby steps in your pursuits for better health. Just remember, we didn't hop up one day and start sprinting in infancy. It took years to fine-tune our ability to run on our own. And it may take years to carve out a healthful way of living.

Bubble bubble boil and trouble, look what the soft drink industry scientists have conjoured up as a way to boost the sagging sales of the sugary calorie-laden beverages an emerging weight conscious nation has begun to reject in favor of healthier choices in quenching thirst.

Hoping to appeal to the battle-of-the-bulge crowd and school administrators looking to ban soft drinks from school vending machines, beverage makers like Coca-Cola, Nestle, Snapple and Celsius are hoping consumers will be drawn to try drinks said to boost metabolism and burn up to a 100 calories per drink. Made with green tea and caffeine, the new product does not come cheap. A four-pack of Celsius costs $6.99, according to the price quoted in the LA Times New soft drinks claim to speed up metabolism.

Granted, based on previous research findings, the antioxidant epigallo catechin gallate (EGCG) found in green tea holds some promise in cancer prevention, but loose-leaf green tea is far less expensive than the new soft drinks being marketed as a replacement to obesity-inducing soft drinks. The new drinks are also causing some scientific eyebrow raising as to the true weight loss the consumer might realistically expect to experience.

I am not against healthier drinks, but in this case, it seems as if the simple exercise of moving more, eating less and drinking eight ounces of water a day might be as effective, if not more effective, in maintaining a healthy weight. For the antioxidant benefit of EGCG, a cup or two of green tea. I could be wrong about the new soft drinks, but at this point in time, I remain hesitant to embrace negative-calorie magic bullets.

I am curious: Will you try the new drinks? Do you think they are worth the price?

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.

Two topics of conversation sure to make people uncomfortable are obesity and poverty. But both are necessary to conversation about cancer prevention because both increase the risk of cancer and death from cancer. Obesity is a cancer concern because being overweight is linked to an increase for some cancers. Obesity often reflects a nutrition-deficient fat-laden diet and a physically-inactive lifestyle that increase the risks for cancer. This is why the topic of obesity is so important to cancer prevention. Poverty often prevents people from seeking medical care because they cannot afford to see a doctor or undergo early cancer screening tests or cancer treatments once diagnosed with cancer. Researchers and organizations are beginning to devote more time and money into understanding the problem and in finding the solution to the rising obesity epidemic. No where is it more important than in the lives of our children.

The Food and Drug Administration, FDA, announced it has identified the following soft drinks as containing high levels of benzene, a chemical known to cause cancer:

• Crush Pineapple
• Safeway Select Diet Orange
• Crystal Light Sunrise Classic Orange
• Giant Light Cranberry Juice Cocktail
• AquaCal Strawberry Flavored Water Beverage
  

Dr. Laura Tarantino, director of the FDA's Office of Food Additive Safety, said drinking sodas high in benzene does not pose a health risk -- while the people at the Environmental Working Group accuses the FDA of past and present suppression of information about benzene in soft drinks and views the benzene levels in soft drinks a problem. "FDA's test results confirm that there is a serious problem with benzene in soda and juices," said Richard Wiles, senior vice president at Environmental Working Group.

Basically, the problem is sodium benzoate and ascorbic acid, which together form benzene. Benzene is a known cancer-causing chemical.

This is a problem that has been going on for years -- both here and in Europe. Over the months we have reported on the possible cover-ups and controversy related to the cancer risks of some soft drinks and about the good guys and bad guys of this continuing story. You can read a bit of background on this issue here and here.

One of my good friends uses artificial sweeteners as a substitute for sugar, and she has been doing so for years. I wrinkle my nose mostly because I do not care for the metallic taste, and I am one of those people who believes if there is smoke there might be fire. The aspartame controversy has raged on for years, each side steadfast in their flame-fanning research-supported stated opinions.

Putting my personal preference and belief aside, I am sharing with you that The Calorie Control Council, established in 1966, as an international non-profit association representing the low-calorie and reduced-fat food and beverage industry, has released the results of a National Cancer Institute five-year epidemiology study indicating there is no risk between aspartame and cancer. For those who believe in the safety of aspartame, this conclusion will come as a welcome relief from worry. For those who strongly believe aspartame is a dangerous chemical, all I can say is -- do not shoot the messenger. I realize in an attempt to fairly report all things cancer-related and give both sides a voice, someone is not going to be happy about it. And if the past is any indicator of the future, I am sure this will not be the last word on the aspartame subject.