Calcium, magnesium, and whole-milk intakes and high-aggressive PCa.

[pjoshea13]

New study from the "North Carolina-Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP)"

The association of calcium/milk with aggressive PCa goes back 20 years (Giovannucci [2]), and the authors linked calcium [Ca] from any source to suppression of active hormonal vitamin D:

"dairy products are the

major source of calcium, their overall effect is to suppress

1,25(OH)2D levels"

It's an important paper for me because it associated fructose with less advanced PCa:

"Dietary fructose can reduce plasma phos

phate levels by 30 to 50% for more than 3 h due to the rapid shift of

phosphate from the extracellular to intracellular compartment"

"reductions in circulating phosphate increase 1,25(OH)2D levels ap

preciably"

I use fructose in my coffee.

Much less appreciated is the importance of magnesium [Mg]. See my post of 2 years ago:

"Foods/Supplements-Vitamins: Magnesium".

From a 2011 paper [3]:

"Serum Mg levels were significantly lower, while the Ca/Mg ratio was significantly higher, among high-grade cases vs. controls .., respectively). Elevated Mg was significantly associated with a lower risk of high-grade prostate cancer (OR = 0.26 ...). An elevated Ca/Mg ratio was also associated with an increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer (OR = 2.81 ... adjusted for serum Ca and Mg). In contrast, blood Ca levels were not significantly associated with prostate cancer or PIN. Mg, Ca, or Ca/Mg levels were not associated with low-grade cancer, PIN, PSA levels, prostate volume, or BPH treatment."

From the new study:

"Calcium and dairy product intakes have been positively associated with prostate cancer risk. An imbalance in concentrations of calcium and magnesium has been associated with multiple chronic diseases, although few studies have examined the relation with prostate cancer aggressiveness."

"There was a positive association across tertiles of dietary Ca:Mg intake, with odds of high-aggressive prostate cancer in the upper tertiles":

1 = 1.00 (reference)

2 = 1.38

3 = 1.46

"more pronounced in African American men"

"Men who reported the highest daily consumption of whole-fat milk had a 74% increased odds of high-aggressive prostate cancer compared with non-whole-fat milk drinkers, which was attenuated after adjustment for potential mediating factors, such as saturated fat and Ca:Mg intake."

The 74% increased risk with whole-fat milk was attenuated after adjustment for Ca:Mg. However, I don't believe that the fat carries calcium. Other studies have found higher risk with skim milk.

Strange to compare whole-fat with non-whole-fat drinkers? Perhaps "non" includes those who drink no milk as well as those who drink 0% & 2%?

-Patrick

[1] ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/297...

[2] cancerres.aacrjournals.org/...

[3] journals.plos.org/plosone/a...

[cesanon]

Patrick

So does that mean taking a magnesium supplement is good?

[pjoshea13 in reply to cesanon]

Most of us lack a good a good Mg:Ca ratio in our water supply. Mineral water is invariably very high in calcium & low in magnesium. Our individual ratios vary with our circumstances.

In my case, I have greater exposure to calcium, so I take 400 mg Mg each morning.

I have been wondering for some months if that is enough.

Words of wisdom from my integrative medicine doctor a decade ago:

"Calcium will make you old; magnesium will make you young."

Below is an interesting Swedish study.

-Patrick

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/861...

Am J Epidemiol. 1996 Mar 1;143(5):456-62.

Magnesium in drinking water and death from acute myocardial infarction.

Rubenowitz E1, Axelsson G, Rylander R.

Author information

Abstract

The relation between death from acute myocardial infarction and the level of magnesium in drinking water was examined using mortality registers and a case-control design. The study area comprised 17 municipalities in the southern part of Sweden that have different magnesium levels in the drinking water. Cases were men in the area who had died of acute myocardial infarction between ages 50 and 69 years during the period 1982-1989 (n = 854). The controls were men of the same age in the same area who had died from cancer during the same time period (n = 989). In both groups, only men who consumed water supplied from municipal waterworks were included in the study. The subjects were divided into quartiles according to the drinking water levels of magnesium and calcium and the quotient between magnesium and calcium. The odds ratios for death from acute myocardial infarction in the groups were inversely related to the amount of magnesium in drinking water. For the group with the highest levels of magnesium in drinking water, the odds ratio adjusted for age and calcium level was 0.65 (95 percent confidence interval 0.50-0.84). There was no such relation for calcium. For the magnesium/calcium quotient, the odds ratio was lower only for the group with the highest quotient. These data suggest that magnesium in drinking water is a important protective factor for death from acute myocardial infarction among males.

PMID: 8610660

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

[Hidden in reply to pjoshea13]

I've been taking Mg supplements as a potion to help with my atrial fibrillation issues (also take L-arginine, L-taurine, L-carnitine and CoQ10 ). Glad to see that Mg intake isn't bad for prostate cancer. I have a little 2% fat milk with my breakfast cereal. I was doing 1% but wanted to live it up with 2%.

[cesanon in reply to pjoshea13]

By the way, Dr. Myers made a point of saying that Magnesium Glycinate was the best form of magnesium supplement to take. It is hard to find, but it is carried by my local Whole Foods Market.

[billyboy3]

interesting, I drink skim milk, have since birth, some quart or so a day, yet am still here, but this goes to show that our focus is all over the map, and too much time in spent on side issues that lead to nowhere in terms of either finding a cure or making our disease chronic. I continue to raise the flag of common sense, we have incurable prostate cancer, most of us will die of it, or something related to it, NO matter what we do, so live large, make out your bucket list and rocket on with life. So much energy spent in attempting to keep the boogyman away is a waste of what time we have left-my opinion. PC is not some magical disease, it is a common one that has a pretty set path to our ultimate destruction. Live with that fact, LIVE being the key word.

[billyboy3]

You are one of the bright lights on this site, thank god. After three drugs in IHT start to be ineffective, what combo did you, do you suggest in going forward? You can email me also at [e-mail]

tks.

[pjoshea13]

Nala,

I'm not surprised by your Ca-Mg blood numbers, but I worry that you might be suppressing the conversion of 25-D to 1,25-D when you take 2,000 mg Ca/day (see studies below). We all know to test for 25-D, rather than 1,25-D, but it would be nice to track the latter through the course of the day.

The fructose in my coffee is purported to give a 1,25-D boost lasting several hours.

Best, -Patrick

[1] ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/180...

"a statistically nonsignificant positive association with total calcium was observed for advanced (> or = 2,000 vs. 500-<750 mg/day: relative risk (RR) = 1.25"

"and fatal (> or = 1,000 vs. 500-<750 mg/day: RR = 1.39"

[2] ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/172...

"The multivariate relative risk (RR) of prostate cancer for > or =2,000 mg/day compared to <1,000 mg/day of calcium intake was 1.63"

[3] ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/164...

"Over 16 years of follow-up, we identified 3,544 total cases of prostate cancer, 523 advanced (extraprostatic) cases, and 312 fatal cases. Higher calcium intake was not appreciably associated with total or nonadvanced prostate cancer but was associated with a higher risk of advanced and fatal prostate cancer [for fatal prostate cancer, compared with men whose long-term calcium intake was 500-749 mg/d (excluding supplement use of <5 years); those with intakes of 1,500-1,999 mg/d had a RR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.17-3.01; and those with > or = 2,000 mg/d had a RR, 2.43 ..."

[AlexanderColeman]

Hmm, that sounds like good nutrition for your baby. Your child should only receive a balanced diet. It is very important while the child is small to feed it with the best mixtures and natural food. When my child was small, I fed him a mixture of HIPP. Then I started giving him porridge and soups. He especially liked broccoli. My child is healthy and five years old. Therefore, I advise you to carefully monitor the baby's nutrition. I found all the nutrition answers here anyorganics.com/dutch-hipp/...