Here is a link to the list of relatively supplements I take that have been shown effective against prostate cancer in animals and in some human studies. Be careful when taking more than one supplement that has anti-coagulant effects to prevent excessive bleeding. Do NOT take any of these supplements without your physician's approval and under physician supervision:
This is a List of the Supplements I T... - Advanced Prostate...
Wow that's an extensive and detailed list. Some of these are not things I'd consider trying but there's enough information here to start my own research and discuss with my doctors.
Personally, I'm using:
- Crucera-SGS, 1 pill 4 times a day
- homemade capsule with mustard seed powder (for myrosinase), 4 times a day
- vit D 1000 IU, 4 times a day
- calcium/D3/magnesium vitamin, 4 times day
- Pomi-T, 1 capsule 4 times day
(I was Dx in Dec 2017 (GS 9, PSA 114) and begin ADT (Firmagon) in March. My bone density test indicated I had osteopenia (almost osteoporosis), so I'm trying to absorb more D3/magnesium/calcium. The other pills are to get a steady level of sulforophane in my system.)
Thanks for sharing an informative list.
Your osteopenia is likely due to excessively low estradiol [E2] (<12 pg/mL). Calcium will not solve that problem. You might consider a low dose E2 patch if this is so.
High calcium intake is associated with aggressive PCa. This is thought to be because calcium inhibits the conversion of calcidiol to the hormonally active form of vitamin D, calcitriol.
You will also need vitamin K2 (MK7) for calcium transport to bone.
BroccoMax now has myrosinase.
Thanks for this insight. I asked my oncologist about this and he gave me as much insight as he could from the prostate cancer perspective, but ultimately deferred to my GP. I will talk to her about E2 and Fit K2.
I should have asked my oncologist about the relationship with calcium intake and PCa but forgot.
Thanks for the tip about BroccoMax. I will look into that. Given my skepticism about supplements, I was sticking with the ones with which Jed Fahey was familiar (youtube.com/watch?time_cont...)
Thanks for sharing.
About vitamin D - no need to take divided doses 4 times per day. All of my doctors that know about supplements tell me to take the vitamin D all at once. You can even take it once per week in a big dose.
You need to get blood tests to know if you have the right dose.
"The only way to determine the correct dose is to get your blood tested since there are so many variables that influence your vitamin D status. I recommend using Lab Corp in the U.S. Getting the correct test is the first step in this process, as there are TWO vitamin D tests currently being offered: 1,25(OH)D and 25(OH)D. The correct test your doctor needs to order is 25(OH)D, also called 25-hydroxyvitamin D, which is the better marker of overall D status. This is the marker that is most strongly associated with overall health."
As a cancer patient, you want blood levels of 70-100 ng/ml. I have to take 10,000 IU per day to stay in that range. When people talk about toxicity, consider that if you stay in the sun long enough to turn your skin the lightest shade of pink you will produce about 20,000 IU of Vitamin D!
Thanks so much. I've asked both my GP and MO to do the 25(OH)D test so I can track this.
Be prepared to have them tell you that you are taking too much if the reading comes back reading more than 50 or so.
You can try to educate them if you want; I have plenty of papers discussing vitamin D toxicity. Tl:dr version: it's quite difficult to poison oneself with vitamin D, next to impossible. The basis for Dr. Mercola's recommendation of 70-100 for cancer patients is also well supported. Sadly, in my experience the less an MD knows about diet and nutrition the more certain they are of their unfounded opinions.
Thanks for the list. I know most of those, but 2 are new to me.
We could discuss doses; Vitamin D and melatonin in particular have some newer research.
I was going to suggest that links to references would be a help, but then I found that maxlifespan.com already has those. Thank you.
My research tells me you need to take Vit. D with a small amount of fat each day to get the full benefit of the vit.
Yes - some years ago, Life Extension, correlated 25-D levels in customers who had ordered blood tests, with vitamin D purchases. Some remained close to the insufficiency cutoff, even though they had purchased the highest dose. So LEF increased the maximum dose from 5,000 to 7,000 IUs and added an oil base for greater uptake.
Before this change occurred, Dr. Myers had noted that the only patients who were approaching his 25-D target were LEF users.
I don't recall anyone else offering a 5,000 IU product, let alone 7,000 IU back then. Today, you can find 15 brands on the Swanson site offering a 10,000 IU version in oil - (though not LEF).
Just a word of caution/sanity/obviousness Everything you put in your mouth changes your life. Ten or so years ago, Malecare was suggesting Vitamin E and Selenium .... we now know that was wrong wb.md/2HOWmDR Read EVERYTHING here about any treatment you may be considering, including supplements, etc. Use the search box in the upper right to search for articles about "whatever." And, engage your doctor(s) around your choices, BEFORE, you put it in your mouth.
Strongly agree that everything you put in your mouth changes your life. That starts with food; supplements can be important but diet is certainly key to health.
But I also caution against sweeping statements and over-simplification of complex issues. The SELECT trial of Vitamin E and Selenium has been widely reported to have shown that those supplements cause cancer. That is simply not true.
A followup of the men in the SELECT trial was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2011.
Items in quotes below are from that article. JAMA is as mainstream as medical journals get.
Remember, SELECT was designed and conducted by top-notch research scientists. They performed the study because of "considerable preclinical and epidemiological evidence that selenium and vitamin E may reduce prostate cancer risk."
The SELECT study was NOT stopped early because of high cancer rates, the responsible committee "recommended the early discontinuation of study supplements because of lack of efficacy for risk reduction and because futility analysis demonstrated no possibility of benefit to the planned degree with additional follow-up."
Translation: it didn't work as well as they had hoped, and analysis showed that there was no reason to think that additional years of study would reveal the large benefit they had sought.
More importantly: "the numbers of prostate cancers detected were ... (many numbers omitted) these results were not statistically significant" (bold emphasis added)
You don't see that in newspapers and blogs very often - usually you see scare quotes about higher cancer risk.
But when the same authors looked again at data available as of July 2011, they found
"The rate of prostate cancer detection was greater in all treatment groups when compared with placebo but was statistically significant only in the vitamin E alone group ... After adjustment for the marginal effects of vitamin E and selenium, the interaction between vitamin E and selenium was statistically significant (P = .02), indicating no increased risk of prostate cancer when vitamin E and selenium were taken together. The risk of Gleason 7 or greater disease was higher for all 3 interventions but did not reach statistical significance for any group." (bold emphasis added)
Statistics are a two-edged sword. Very large trials like SELECT are used to provide enough statistical power to detect small effects. When they don't detect them, using the criteria that was set when the study was planned, an honest person has to admit that there was no statistically significant result.
All too often that critical detail is ignored, and research scientists are among the worst offenders. This leads to cherry picking - taking the data that supports your beliefs, ignoring the data that contradicts them. This is the antithesis of good science.
The original SELECT results showed that Vitamin E alone approached but did not reach statistical significance for increased cancer. The additional data in the follow-up paper provided enough evidence to confirm statistical significance for synthetic Vitamin E alone.
But even then the change absolute risk compared to placebo group was tiny: about 1.6 extra cancers per 1000 man-years. It is a demonstration of the statistical power of these large studies that such a small effect can be detected and confirmed. What it is NOT is an alarm bell for a major source of cancer risk. As the follow-up study also shows, combining selenium with the Vitamin E erases the risk.
There are many additional criticisms of SELECT: the study used only a single type of selenium, while ample research shows that three types of selenium compound act in different, important ways. Remember, the trial was started because selenium looked promising.
The SELECT study also used only synthetic Vitamin E, synthetic alpha tocopherol, which displaced gamma tocopherol in the trial subject's cells. Gamma tocopherol, like selenium, has plenty of research demonstrating strong affects against cancer.
Again, I agree with the advice to use caution. But that applies to scientific papers, and it applies even more so to sensational articles claiming to summarize scientific studies. WebMD is among the worst offenders in that regard. They make great copy and terrible science, and scare a lot of doctors and patients alike.
Any decent study or paper is like an onion, the more you peel, the more you find. There is a lot more to learn from the SELECT trial, and the follow-up paper provides evidence that Malecare was NOT wrong to recommend Vitamin E plus selenium.
Additionally, I take Boswellia Serrata Extract, 30% AKBA.
Thank you for posting this
Think you can also add product/brand for each of those? I find whenever I am resea ching supplements there are many products out there and it’s difficult to choose an appropriate, effective product.
I will be updating these with links to research and brands I use. Hope this can you and your physician. My approach is that each of these helps a little and I am hoping that their COMBINED effect will make a difference. I was diagnosed with prostate cancer that had spread after I had my prostate removed and since taking this regimen my psa has stayed < .01
For those who have not encountered Max before, proceed with caution. Call me overly cynical if you will, but I can’t get serious about any information posted by a guy who believes Hitler escaped at end of WW2 and whose personal hobby is working on anti gravity machines. Look up old some of Max’s old threads
Hey, the anti gravity thing works...... for short periods. Drop an object off a building and there is no gravity until the object stops. The taller the building, the longer the anti gravity machine works. It specifies to only use inert objects, no watermelons or alligators.
Your comments show your ignorance since the majority of people of this site have a brain unlike yourself and they can lookup each of the supplements for themselves and decide for themselves... I guess you have trouble thinking for yourself?
Max, I am honored; even though my comment was pretty low key and restrained, I got the full measure of your vitriole and name calling. Truth is that many of us could have compiled most of your list from researching this site. The exception is 4-MU, the “cure” from the concentration camp research. And you wonder why some here call you Mengele?
Regardless, if you really have PCa, you are one of us, and I wish you only the best
Chocolate Chip Ice cream?
Good Luck and Good Health.
j-o-h-n Friday 05/04/2018 6:12 PM EDT
can you post your list of supplements