Nutrition recommendations in cancer—from risk reduction to survivorship—have begun to resemble team competitions, complete with t-shirts, slogans, hashtags, and conferences all promoting the “best” diet.But why is it that unless you play on the “right” team, you don’t get the trophy for the best outcomes?We tend to pick teams: plant-based, keto, paleo, Mediterranean. We defend our plates like politics—each pattern backed by data, stories, and passion. But when it comes to nutrition and cancer, it’s essential to look at the science—but resist the urge to self-interpret it to match our own preferences or agendas. While these approaches are often well-meaning, they frequently lack the practical framework required to translate nutrition into real-world applications.When we fail to consider where and how an individual eats—what stores are nearby, what’s affordable, and what’s familiar—we risk offering recommendations that never even make it to the dinner table, thereby widening existing disparities related to socioeconomics, race, and geography in cancer outcomes.So maybe the real question isn’t which team we’re on—it’s how we reframe the conversation: What are the most important nutrition principles that can actually move the needle for better outcomes, cancer recovery, and survivorship?Nutrition—More Than TasteFood is information. Every bite sends a signal to our body—about energy, inflammation, repair, and recovery. Technically, the human body can survive 30–40 days without food (longer with hydration), but survival isn’t the same as living. Food is also energy, pleasure, and connection—it fuels not only our cells but our sense of community and culture.What’s often overlooked in the science of nutrition is the lived experience—what’s available, what’s accessible, and what’s realistic for the person sitting in front of you.While most of us can agree that food is a form of medicine, the next question is: what actually counts as food? Walk into any grocery store, and it’s clear that much of what lines the shelves is no longer food in its natural sense—it’s manufactured. From grab-and-go snacks to takeout meals, much of what we consume has been designed for convenience, shelf life, and profit—not health.To help make sense of this confusion, researchers at the University of São Paulo developed the NOVA food classification system—a framework that categorizes foods not by nutrient content but by the extent and purpose of processing (Monterio 2019).Group 1: Unprocessed or minimally processed foods (fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains, meats, eggs, milk) Group 2: Processed culinary ingredients (oils, butter, sugar, salt) Group 3: Processed foods (canned vegetables, cheeses, freshly baked breads) Group 4: Ultra-processed foods—industrial formulations containing little to no whole food, often made with preservatives, colorants, flavorings, and emulsifiers Why does this matter? Recent researc Read More