I'm writing today to share with you a victory -- a diet and exercise victory. Let me begin with a little background.

I've always been in the normal weight range for my height. I am about 5'7" and prior to each of my two pregnancies, I weighed 142. For me, that translates into size eight clothing, size six for some oddly made-garments. I've always been generally happy with my weight, and I've never obsessed about the numbers on the scale. Yet there's been one area that's bothered me ever since my first baby was born -- my tummy. Now I like to use the excuse that my babies were big -- 10 pounds, nine ounces and 10 pounds, two ounces -- but clinging to this explanation did nothing to remove the loose skin from my middle. And for years, I guess I wasn't ready to work at whittling it away.

Enter cancer. Research shows many breast cancer patients gain weight during treatment -- sometimes up to 30 pounds. And while I never did gain this much, my weight has increased over the past almost three years. Perhaps it was hormones, the chemotherapy drugs, the anti-depressant I just stopped taking. Regardless, I didn't like the extra weight. So I tried to do something about it -- and about that pesky tummy too. And herein lies the victory.

I've passed the two-year breast cancer survival mark and finally, I'm making a major life change. Why has it taken me so long? I'm not sure. I guess the time is right and it never was before. There's no reason to dwell on what I could have done sooner. What matters is that I'm taking charge right now.

First it was soda. I totally eliminated it from my diet. It wasn't such a big hurdle, though, because it was never much of a habit. But sweets -- another story entirely.

I love -- or shall I say loved -- sweets. Brownies, especially the gooey variety, were my favorite sugary treat. My oldest child loves them too and together, we would occasionally mix up a batch, wait impatiently while they baked, and then scarf down the whole pan.

There's a brownie mix in our pantry right now. Six-year-old Joey keeps asking me if we can make them. I keep telling him, "No, mommy is not eating sweets anymore." Which means he is not eating sweets anymore -- unless they come from a secret source. It's killing him that I won't give in and make our cherished chocolate dessert. So I promised him I will make the brownies one day soon. We have an upcoming party to attend and this will be my contribution. I just can't make them, keep them at home, and expect not to eat them.

It's been two weeks since I've consumed anything remotely sweet -- like candy, cakes, ice cream. I'm not counting sweeteners that are surely buried in the foods I normally eat -- I'll get there eventually -- but I am committed to passing on anything obviously dripping in sugar. That means no chocolate chip cookie bars that greeted me at work one day. No dipping into the mint bowls at restaurants. No bulk-sized bag of M&Ms sitting in my kitchen cupboard.

Nothing. I can't do it any other way. All or nothing. I'm going with nothing.

I like how I feel. The headaches I suspected were fueled by sugar are less frequent. My stomach feels less full. I know I am headed for better health. My kids are too. My body and my wallet should lighten up a bit too.

When I long for that sweet something, I reach for fresh fruit. Strawberries, apples, pears, bananas, and cantaloupe fill our kitchen now. Joey ate three bananas last night. I figure it would have been three brownies if he'd had the choice. For his sake and mine, I'm glad he didn't.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has something important to say about the sugar substitute aspartame.

Think about this:

Italian researchers concluded in 2005 that aspartame causes cancer. But Laura Tarantino of the FDA Office of Food Additive Safety concludes after a review of the study data that the low-calorie sweetener is not a carcinogen.

A similar review by the FDA's European counterpart agrees. There is no evidence this substance, used for 25 years to sweeten soda, gum, dairy products, and some medications, causes cancer.

Italian researchers say they will release their latest aspartame study results on Monday.

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.

When she asked her teenage daughters whether or not she should accept the American Cancer Society's Mother of the Year award, the response was a resounding, "Mom, of course." So Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, accepted the anti-cancer honor this week and told ABC's George Stephanopolous on Sunday why she is a good mom and a healthy role model.

"They see that I go running, I get on my bicycle, I do yoga, pilates, whatever else I do," Ferguson said. "Do you know what they do? Get up off the sofa, turn the television off, walk to work, walk around the block, more vegetables, more fruits at school, less soda pops, less fast food."

Ferguson, 47, says cancer prevention starts with good role modeling -- which is exactly what she has done as mom to princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.

"I can safely say one of the best things I've done is be a good mother," Ferguson said.

Ferguson, author of memoir My Story and spokeswoman for Weight Watchers, first became known as the wife of Britain's Prince Andrew, the Duke of York. The pair divorced in 1996, but Ferguson's positive public persona has remained untarnished.

Fast food and junk food snacks are not good for health. Smoking is not good for health. Little sleep and non-existent periods of relaxation are not good for health. Lack of exercise and weight gain from stress eating are not good for health. But according to researchers, women who work long hours are prone to some or all these habits, and that is not a good thing for their health. Smoking, damage to the immune system due to unrelenting levels of stress, lack of exercise and weight gain all increase cancer risks.

Leeds University conducted a study that showed women typically respond to the stress of working long hours by engaging in negative habits that are detrimental to their immediate and long-term health. According to researchers, the reaction to stress can manifest in choosing unhealthy high fat and high sugar snacks before choosing healthier food.

The study compared how men and women respond to stress, and if there was a difference. Some experts stated that men are less likely to be affected by working long hours because they are not expected to multi-task when they get home from work in the same way women are expected to do. Researchers said most women agree to their take on the matter.

Knowing that some women alleviate stress in unhealthy ways, gives women an opportunity to step back and assess how they might choose better strategies for dealing with stress -- or in minimizing some of the causes of stress in their life. Aside from these research findings, I think both men and women in modern society are under enormous daily stress and we all need to step back and evaluate how much of our health we are willing to compromise.

UK's Food Standards Agency, FSA, is suggesting a ban on television advertising of junk foods in a continuing effort to curb the rising number of overweight children. The FSA's three possible actions that could be taken in relation to television food ads, as reported by Reuter are:

1. Ban all food and drink ads during television programs that are made specifically for children, or that appeal to children of nine and under, which covers a broad range of programs like The Simpsons.
2. The first ban option except the restricted food advertising would simply be for junk food high in fat, salt or sugar.
3. Limits on the number of food and drink ads shown per hour at any time when children are likely to be watching.

No celebrities or animated figures will be allowed in food commercials aimed at children. What happened to the parental NO? Unless you have your child doing the grocery shopping alone, how is junk food making it into the home? I can understand a need to make certain lunch programs at school are regulated to ensure healthy foods are being served to our kids while they are away from home, but are we really all that incapable as parents of saying no when asked for the latest sugary-treat? Or, while the regulatory agencies wrestle over the fine print of the new proposed bans, why don't we just turn off the television, get up and go take a walk with our kids?

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.

Because cancer can take years to develop -- and because certain dietary habits have been linked to an increased risk of cancer -- and because helping children adopt informed healthy habits of eating during the early years seems a practical strategy to a lifetime of cancer prevention -- this headline Parents health food fads make children ill, grabbed my attention. According to eating disorder expert Dr. Steve Bratman, parents who encourage their children to choose healthy foods are dangerous role models. It seems that limiting the amount of sugar, fat, salt and artificial additives are putting children at risk of serious damage to their health, and in some cases, death by starvation. With great pain, Dr. Bratman shares that he is deeply disturbed to be receiving an ever-increasing amount of email from children interested in healthy eating habits.

Because no term exists in medical tomes to describe this condition, Dr. Bratman made one up. He calls the condition of junk food aversion and deprivation -- orthorexia. Dr. Bratman has written a book and developed a website devoted to this new life-threatening eating disorder where growing numbers of children, influenced by their parents, are taking an interest in eating healthy. To use the closing remark often used by John Stossel of ABC News 20/20 to a news story that defies sanity and common sense -- give me a break!

In an effort to fight childhood obesity, the William J. Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association have joined to form the Alliance for a Healthier Generation to establish new guidelines to limit portion sizes and reduce the number of calories available to children during the school day. Working with representatives of Cadbury Schweppes, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association -- the country's largest beverage distributors -- under the new agreement, only lower calorie and nutritious beverages will be sold to schools.

"If an 8-year-old child consumes 45 fewer calories a day every day for a decade, when he or she graduates from high school that child will weigh 20 pounds less," says former President Bill Clinton. Obesity is known to increase the risks of developing some cancers, as well as heart disease and diabetes. This agreement will affect 35 million public school kids nationwide, where studies indicate nine million kids are currently overweight.

According to the initiative, these science-based guidelines are just one part of a plan to help kids live healthier lives by decreasing excess calories consumed while increasing calories burned. The guidelines limit the number of calories in beverages to 100 calories per container, except for certain milks and juices whose nutritional value justifies the higher number of calories.

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.