The MEAL Trial.

[pjoshea13]

For those interested in the study details, this 22.51 min video has them:

urotoday.com/video-lectures...

-Patrick

[cesanon]

For those who prefer text to video

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1...

[snoraste]

Thanks for the post Patrick. Specially after that heated exchange on TA’s post, it clarifies a lot to hear it from horse’s mouth.

Besides the very limited scope of the trial, I found it particularly interesting that he is beginning to see signs of divergence between the two arms already.

[cesanon in reply to snoraste]

Snoraste, I think you overlooked the conclusion?

CONCLUSIONS: Telephone-based dietary counseling increases vegetable intake, decreases fat intake, and significantly increases plasma levels of potentially anticarcinogenic carotenoids in men with prostate cancer. These data support the feasibility of implementing clinical trials of dietary intervention in men with prostate cancer.

[snoraste in reply to cesanon]

I saw that. In the interview he also mentions it. I’m in the same camp as you. I do think there are benefits above and beyond PCa for a balanced diet. Based on my own personal experience, I think there are benefits for PCa as well, but that’s not really scientific.

[Dan59]

One of the best reasons to eat healthy is so that you do not die of a heart attack or diabetes before the cancer gets us. I think it also makes us feel better. thanks for posting this Patrick.

[cesanon in reply to Dan59]

Agreed

[Hidden in reply to Dan59]

Exactly. I made this same observation in that recent, popular discussion.

[rococo]

2Yrs should have been sufficient to see some results. Going to start eating free range grass fed beef and poultry to build red blood count important in some of our treatments. High fruit and vegetables leads to more carbs processed by the liver to the worst kind of fat. Rocco

[pjoshea13 in reply to rococo]

I was surprised that Parsons was so delighted that the intervention arm reduced fat intake. The 2-year result had to be a disappointment to him. He presumably expected an increase in vegetable intake to affect the rate of progression. And now, he is expecting lower fat intake will eventually show benefit. He should have learned not to count his chickens before the results are in.

Of course, the type of fat matters, so a reduction in a particular fat might make a difference.

But a reduction in fat is presumably matched by an increase in carbs.

-Patrick

[rococo in reply to pjoshea13]

Yes and I don't think it was a double blind trial so It looks like a clinician bias here. Fat intake is complicated with individuals biology producing their own cholesterol. Keepin a good omega 3:6 ration, avoiding arachnid acid from most vegetable oils. Saw free range grass fed beef burgers 97% lean and I think the 3% mostly omega 3. Bona patit vegans. Rocco

[rocket09]

This interview just points out that eating a better diet is going to be beneficial in the long run. Why would it not help with health concerns including cancers. Healthy is healthy. Maybe it did not cure but he says there could be longer term benefits. Also they did not quit eating red meat as far as I could tell. It has been dammed in some circles as a cancer culprit. I am not in any camp yet just walking on a path to?....healing I hope.