nutritionfacts.org/2021/02/...
Might be old news to many of you but in my reading here on healthunlocked.com I notice many people continue to eat Chicken, eggs, dairy, sugar, and other meat products.
Whole food plant based diet may help - Advanced Prostate...
Whole food plant based diet may help
Written by
Afterglow
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
91 Replies
•
The real fact is that increasing the amount of vegetables in the diet had no impact on PC progression:
jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...
The other real fact is that increasing the amount of vegetables in the diet does not necessitate a sufficient DECREASE in potentially harmful levels of other things consumed (should those things in fact actually be harmful, which is an entirely different discussion).
I speak from experience. I have a long history of eating "healthy" things (nuts, seeds, fruits, and even vegetables!) as an addition to, rather than a substitute for, everything else in my diet. Somewhere in my mind I figured the good stuff would help counteract all the bad stuff. Perhaps that was true to some degree, but I suspect mostly I was just increasing my already-excessive overall energy intake!
I've noticed something about vegetables: I enjoy most of them even more when I add butter, maple syrup, dressings, etc. Without a concerted effort to decrease the intake of such add-ons, my normal scenario of increased vegetable consumption would be accompanied by an increased (not decreased) consumption of fats and sugars, too.
In the MEAL study, the quantity of food did not increase, only the amount of vegetables in the diet. They did look at all food intake. Your experience is not what was found across the 478 men in the study.
What was the reduction in other foods, by type and amount? The point is not in that an increased consumption of vegetables occurred, but in that the elimination (not mere reduction) of certain non-vegetable foods did NOT occur. I don't see any indication that this was a study of a "whole food plant based diet" -- which is the topic being addressed by the OP and his link.
I gave you the link. All your questions are answered if you read it. If increasing the proportion of vegetables had no effect, why would anyone think that eating vegetables only would have an effect? (We call this a "dose effect" and it is one the things we look for in assigning causation) There are no data to suggest that the benefits (if any) of vegetables has to be an all-or-nothing approach.
Why would anyone think that eating vegetables only would have an effect? Because they might think it is the absence of something else, rather than the presence of added vegetables, that is the primary driver of the benefit.
Specifically, it is not an increase in vegetables but rather the total or near-total elimination of meats, fish, eggs and diary that has been more commonly proposed as leading to possible metabolic changes that might slow cancer progression. Why not post a link to a study that addresses that?
An increase in the proportion of vegetables is not indicative of a move towards a plant-based diet. I reckon many men, if forced to eat vegetables for breakfast, would put them with eggs and cheese. If this replaced an equal number of calories of oatmeal, fruit and soy milk, the increase in vegetable consumption would be a move AWAY from a plant-based diet.
But why total? That is contrary to everything we know about dose effects.
I've read both publication (including MEAL) and in MEAL there was no reference to weight or obesity. It was like if they were treating vegetables like a medication without holistically understand where the person was coming from.
Especially given that in the US is slowly reaching 1 person out of 2 being obese:
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/318...
And there you go with COVID, a direct relationship between obesity and mortality:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...
The epidemiology of prostate cancer is troubling. With 190 fold difference between some country and others.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...
And they conclude:
"Although there are no studies that can sufficiently demonstrate the direct correlation between diet and nutrition with risk or prevention of prostate cancer development, many preclinical studies that look at links between certain eating behaviors and cancer suggest there may be a connection."
Any new investigation in the direction of an holistic approach of the person, its diet and its environment could bring interesting new ideas.
“Preclinical studies” means non human science, labs and cell cultures and animals and such. To infer invisible behavioral causes is BS. “many preclinical studies that look at links between certain eating behaviors and cancer suggest there may be a connection”.
You are the one postulating that the argument is for a greater "dose" of vegetables to have benefit. But that is YOUR formulation of the thesis, not Gregor's.
His thesis is better seen as: a vegan diet has benefits. You have countered that with a study comparing two NON-vegan diets. Your post is a non sequitur.
Suppose the thesis is: not smoking has benefits. Wouldn't you want to compare non-smokers with smokers, rather than comparing two groups of smokers and not even bothering to look at any groups of non-smokers at all?
The dose-effect is one of the well-established and accepted criteria for causation. It's why trials start with Phase 1 dose-finding studies. In general, more of a substance has more of an effect up to a certain point (an S-shaped curve), but side effects are worse at higher doses. When you present a hypothesis that any amount of animal protein in the diet undoes the benefit of an all-plant diet, you are making an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. There is no such evidence.
"In general, more of a substance..."
Why do you keep on with your non sequitur? This is not about MORE of the substance being added, but about LESS of substances being subtracted. Nothing in the study suggests there was a significant subtraction of all these substances.
How would increasing the dose of inhaling substance xyz tell us, when comparing those who smoke five cig-packs a day to those who smoke four cig-packs plus one pack of xyz, what the effect of smoking zero cig-packs a day might be? It tells us nothing about that. If both groups had similar rates of cancer progression, would you presume that an increased inhalation of substance xyz somehow suggests that quitting cigarettes has no effect on cancer progression?
Cancer reduction here would not be about adding more xyz, but about inhaling less tobacco smoke.
Likewise, the study you cited, comparing groups of men who eat meat, tells us nothing about the potential benefits of not eating meat. It is about two groups of meat-eaters, both of which had slight reductions in meat consumption, with the difference in those reductions not impacting PC progression. So what? If you told me cutting cigs from six packs to five proved no worse than cutting to four, I would say that tells me nothing about the potential benefit of NOT smoking.
I am not making any case for or against eating meat. I am making a case against your case that this study somehow shows there is no benefit to being vegan. It does no such thing. It is entirely irrelevant to the thesis that "not eating meat has benefit."
You can keep pretending that I am making a case for that thesis. I am not. I am saying that your linked study does not make a case AGAINST it.
Did you actually look at the study? You may want to hold off on having an opinion until after you do. The men who ate more veggies, did actually cut back on fats and animal proteins. There is no evidence of a dose effect.
I did look at it. That is why I am commenting. I was referred in the article body to both "table 2" and "supplement 3" but did not find the info that you suggested would be there. I saw only "red meat." (Saturated fat may or may not be animal in source, and I did not see a breakdown).
You are going to have to provide, or point to where it can be found, the information on the "doses" of these substances: pork, poultry, fish, eggs, milk, cheese, yogurt, etc. I see no mention of any of them in either the body of the article, or anywhere else. Assistance would be appreciated.
I guess you didn't understand Table 2. No worries, I'll explain it. It shows the change in grams per day of ingestion of various foods for the treatment group and the control. Both the treatment and control groups consumed the same amounts of each food group. It shows, that by two years, the treatment group reduced their consumption of red meat by 7.3 g/day, while the control group consumed a small amount less (-3..0 g/day). So reducing red meat consumption by more, had no differential effect - ergo, there is no dose effect. Get it?
Nope. I don't get how a small differential in decreased red meat consumption in any way indicates a "dose" reduction (or increase) of pork, poultry, fish, eggs, milk, cheese, yogurt, etc. So please explain. The simple fact is, "red meat" is only one of the many substance that need to be accounted for. Why is it the only one listed?
Are you suggesting "red meat" serves as a proxy for ALL animal-based foods? Because that is obviously false. Or are you suggesting that because none of these other animal-based foods were listed, not a single person in the study consumed ANY of these foods, and the only animal product consumed was "red meat?" Or is the implication that BOTH groups had identical amounts consumed, both before and after the study, so there was no reason to record them? Because that surely wouldn't help your case, either.
Please explain why there is no mention of ANY of these foods, or their relevance, in the body of the article or in the table documenting "change in grams per day of ingestion of various foods." Or, please list grams consumed, before study and at end of study, of all animal-based products that I mentioned. I still don't understand why I don't understand, but there must be a reason for "red meat" as the only listed animal-based food.
If anybody thought reducing ONLY red meat consumption, by ONLY about 15%, as opposed to reducing it by only about 6%, would somehow result in a statistically significant reduction in measurable PC or PSA progression, well... well, NOBODY ever thought that. It was never a thesis that any human ever put forward.
The point of the study was to see if increasing vegetable intake at the expense of meats reduced progression - it didn't. As I said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you claim that some weird diet would have been beneficial and not harmful, you have to show where it is proven. So far, the evidence is that eating more veggies and cutting down on meat protein has no effect.
I know what the point of the study was. My point is, "a few more veggies, a little less RED meat" is NOT the only, or even primary, point of doing a plant-based diet (which was the point of the original post, and link).
And apparently, absent additional info, the point of the study was to see if increasing vegetable intake at the expense of RED meat, and ONLY red meat, reduced progression. That is, frankly, garbage in and garbage out, as regards potential benefits of significant reductions of ALL animal-based foods.
Let me quote you: "The men who ate more veggies did actually cut back on... animal proteins."
I am simply asking you to support that claim, because I cannot find any suggestion of that anywhere in the body of the study, or in the tables or supplements. So far as I can tell, they cut ONLY "red meat" proteins. Did they increase egg or dairy proteins?
Again, I do NOT claim that some weird diet would have been beneficial and not harmful. I claim only that the study you cited in no way disproves POTENTIAL benefits of significant reductions in the full range of animal-based foods (i.e., a low animal-protein diet), because... well, because that does not seem to be what the study even studied!
Let me add, the standard notion of a dose effect is by no means universal. In addition to biphasic dose-responses, consider how a low-carb ketogenic diet works: that transition to ketosis occurs ONLY at a very low carb intake. It is essentially an all-or-nothing deal, where a gradual decrease in carb intake does not get you where you want to go until you reach the "phase-change" transition point.
It seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that some metabolic changes that occur with "low animal protein" do not occur in a standard dose-effect manner. Merely "lowering" the protein levels may have little or no effect until sufficiently "LOW ENOUGH" levels are reached, whatever those levels might be. Emphasis on "might." Right?
If you look at the actual food diaries, they gave a complete list of foods they consumed. The tables represent a summary of themany hundreds of food diaries.
As I said, it is you who are making the contrary claim. Prove it. I can claim, that only food harvested during full moons cause cancer, but that is as unscientific as your claim. "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof" as Carl Sagan said.
"If you look at the actual food diaries, they gave a complete list of foods they consumed. "
I would like to look at them. You referred me to table 2. I do not see any actual food diaries there, and I do not see information on how to view them. Isn't this what I asked you for, several comments ago?
"it is you who are making the contrary claim"
Which claim, exactly? That there is no mention of animal products other than red meat in the body of the article, or the referenced tables? I only make that claim because I can find no mention of animal products other than red meat in the body of the article, or the referenced tables.
I doubt that they are allowed to let you see the actual food diaries. HIPPA has rules about that sort of thing.
The claim that no animal proteins would have had an effect whereas cutting back on animal proteins didn't.
Then, without including the breakdown reports of ANY of the many other animal-based products most men eat in addition to red meat, I don't see how it is possible to conclude "cutting back on animal proteins" actually occurred to a significant degree.
My actual claim is that zero or near-zero animal proteins MIGHT have an effect EVEN IF slightly cutting back on animal proteins appeared to have no effect. So he claim is simply: the cited study has very limited bearing on claims of possible benefits of vegan eating, because it explores a vary narrow range of dietary change (lots more vegetables, a little less red meat, with no accounting for dairy, eggs, fish, poultry, etc.)
This would be akin to supposing that zero or near-zero tobacco smoke inhalation MIGHT have an effect on certain disease progressions even if cutting back from 5 packs to 4 packs, with the addition of certain possibly beneficial substances, appeared to have no effect.
In essence the claim would be, if a study showing cutting back from 5 packs to 4 packs appeared to have no effect, then such a study would NOT impact the thesis that zero or near-zero tobacco smoke inhalation might have an effect on certain disease progressions. The thesis would still need to be more fully explored (as it has been for smoking, but has not been for animal-based foods).
small study not all vegetables no gmo, and juicing for maximum obsorbtion.
This is the largest study there is. Perhaps you can point out the vegetables they missed? Why on earth would GMO matter? all foods we eat have been genetically modified. Juicing would have changed results dramatically? As I said (quoting Carl Sagan) - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - what is your evidence?
oh my friend do you know GMO means but why is it modified...for that I refer you to Thetruthaboutcancer.com 2...9 part pbs documentries explaining why cancer is everywhere. a company by the name of monsanto discovered a way to increase corn and soybean production and reduce costs of production by modifing it genetically so they could spray ROUNDUP A DEADLY POISON directly on them, to kill the weeds without killing them. so anything Genetically Modified in this way has been PROVEN to cause cancer, and they are labeled as such.
That includes soy beans, sugar, wheat, beets, and corn and salmon that are farmed and fed non gmo corn are toxic and cause cancer. beef, pork, bread, anything that is not organic including anything processed that is not organic. they all have sugar, corn and or dirivitives in them, and are feeding the cancer epidemic.
go watch those 18/2hr video's. and you will know why cancer is everywhere and they are doing and paying off everybody to do it Proven and unequivically true thats what Gmo's do. thanks for asking.
enjoy.
Genetically mondified food has not been proven to cause cancer. You have been duped by internet conspiracy theories on those so-called "documentaries" that are sweeping the country right now. It is bad for your health.
An important aspect may be what one doesn't eat as much as what one does. If the men in this study continued to knock back a few every night, wolf down fried taters and bizkits n gravy, eggs n bacon, and coca-colers, that could have mitigated the few tiny veggie "servings" they added Plus effects of dietary changes take years to fully take effect.
But let's not fight. Let's have a glass of wine. Or two or three. I think the last time Morley Safer had a wine industry promoting segment on 60 Minutes, he was up to five glasses a day having beneficial effect.
They didn't do that, as you can see if you read the study. It's better to accept what actually happened than to make up fictional excuses.
Hey T_A,
The "Blue Zones"?
Currumpaw
I never argued that more plants in the diet aren't good for your general health. I'm just saying that the evidence so far is that it does nothing for men with prostate cancer.
Hey T_A!
I believe in "do what ya gotta do" but once someone has done that, be it your favorite-the glow in the dark treatments, surgery or something else, after all is said and done, lifestyle changes and diet changes may very well slow or prevent recurrence. Every cancer survivors' program worth it's "Himalayan salt" is based on those changes--and programs for heart attack patients too.
There are some who have done well with diet changes--Dr. Ruth Heidrich as an example.
Currumpaw
"after all is said and done, lifestyle changes and diet changes may very well slow or prevent recurrence. " There is no actual evidence for that. In fact, what evidence there is says it has no effect. It's better to rely on actual evidence when we have it than just to make it up like that. I don't think those changes are harmful and there may be many other very good reasons to make those changes, just not to "slow or prevent recurrences."
Hey T_A!
The American Cancer Society has diet at the top of their list and of course --again--The Blue Zones!
____________________________________________________________________________________________
"Can I Do Anything to Prevent Cancer Recurrence?
cancer.org/treatment/surviv...
cancer.org/treatment/surviv...
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Once "bitten"--having cancer--McDonald's might be a good place to avoid--or Wendy's --or BK or KFC --no matter how good it smells or tempting it is. If one is going to eat beef, free range, grass fed--bring your teeth--they have muscle and also conjugated linoleic acid which inhibits cancer.
After being a vegan for over three years I find that there is a sort "spirituality" that has accompanied being a vegan.
Currumpaw
As I said, good health is certainly a good idea. But there is no evidence that diet prevents recurrence of PC. If so, what is it?
nothing...nothing will only slows it and keeps you as healthy as you can be to enjoy the ride. there is no cure only healthy dying. I want to die healthy not tortured by toxic chemicals like docataxel that was created in 1956 or so.
Cancer, sadly, does not respect your wish to die healthy. Don't blame the drugs that improve your quality of life.
Sad statment buddy You don't understand and enjoy. 6 years told I had 90 days 3 years ago and thriving. with no chemo no radiation. vegetables, natural treatments .
Did you watch the 18 videos.
I will not talk to you anymore you don't want to learn. Your Stuck I'm not interested
Stick to real science - it's better for your health than watching videos made by unscrupulous people to dupe desperate cancer patients. If there were any real valuable info, it would get published in a peer-reviewed journal instead of flakey videos.
T_A,
I do expect that you will denigrate this--but --give it a read!
A Plant-Based Diet Prevents and Treats Prostate Cancer ...
pbdmedicine.org › prostate-cancer-prevention...
Aug 19, 2015 · Both patients and physicians are increasingly interested in the use of a healthy vegetarian diet composed fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts and whole grains for the prevention …
Click on "home". Scroll down to specialties and click on "urology" to access the article.
Currumpaw
Thanks for alerting me to that. I looked for the article and the publication on pubmed and couldn't find it. It appears to be bogus internet disinformation cleverly disguised to look like a legitimate research article in a peer-reviewed journal. As far as I can tell, its only purpose is to dupe unsuspecting patients.
oh yea go check out thetruth aboutcancer.com and chrisbeatcancer.com you need toget inform and stop discouraging people from doing the right thing sorry. Read
The China Study watch those documentries. You will benefit emmencialy
There is so much misinformation on the internet, and cancer patients are easy prey. Do not be duped by them. There is some real scientific info. What China study? Please provide a link- I am willing to look at any real science - are you?
Perhaps but why does the diet info provided for prostate cancer patients by both Mayo Clinic and the Prostate Cancer Foundation lean very heavily toward the whole food plant based diet, and although they haven't yet gone to no dairy, no red meat, they seem to be saying all but that as well. If you are in fact correct, it's a very strange phenomenon.
There are many reasons to focus more on plant-based diets, slowing prostate cancer progression isn't one of them. General good health and nutrition is certainly a good idea. Rememver that cardiovascular disease is 20 x the killer of older men than prostate cancer is.
I hear ya, but that's not the reasons Mayo and PCF give to PCa patients as the reason for making those changes. Of course, beneficial heart-related changes may have an indirect positive effect.
If you think that Mayo or PCF has evidence - what is it?
over all health is better and progression slower. I'm proof be carefull.
If I'm lucky I might have 24-30 months to live. I'm sure as hell not going to deprive myself of a half burnt, greasy cheeseburger once a week or so. Add 2,3 bottles of red wine a week and I'm good to go. Now if I thought I might have 5,6 years to live I would pay better attention to my diet. At 70 years old, 5'10" and 150 I can't seem to eat enough no matter what i find.
LearnAll in reply to
The biggest REAL fact is wholesome, plant based diet rich in Sulforaphane, Resveratrol , Quercetin, Polyphenols, Flavonoids etc. DOES help slow growth of prostate cancer growth.There are vested interests and their paid agents who want to confuse you by fake and distorted studies which show plant based diet does not have any effects. I wonder these entities care about who? You or their revenues and profits. Are we so foolish to believe that a healthy, plant based diet does not help ?
I have read hundreds of research papers about how plant based substances kill prostate cancer cells...sadly..all these studies are coming out of other countries and not from USA or Europe. I guess our system is fully enslaved and controlled by profiteers.
On a side note: There is a website WORLDOMETER which gives raw data about deaths by Covid19..The death rate is about 1300 to 1400 per million people in USA and UK whereas the death rate ranges from 40 to 120 per million in most Asian countries. And no body is asking WHY ? The fake news media like CNN, BBC and their cronies keep saying we are doing better and death rate is declining. Total lie, Only yesterday (Feb03,2021, 4000 people died in USA. Don't believe me..Go check WORLDOMETER, Country by country raw data.
in reply to LearnAll
With all due respect please show me a link from a reputable source that backs your claims. I believe in eating healthy but not putting supplements in my body because some crack pot web site tells me it's what I should do. Final note, your link to the Covid19 statistics site has nothing to do with Afterglows posting. Same as your fake news rant. A lot of good posts in this forum are highjacked by members who decide to arbitrarily change the topic.
LearnAll in reply to
Sir, Go to Pubmed and search "sulforaphanes and prostate cancer" "Resvesterol prostate cancer" "Green tea prostate cancer" "Ginger prostate cancer" "Turmeric prostate cancer" " Black seed oil prostate cancer" and you can find a ton of research articles. I do not do my learning from mainstream, junk websites. For your information, PUBMED is a United States Govt. web site where millions of research papers are available for free or for a nominal price. Searching Pubmed and reading relevant studies a monumental task...which our fellow member, Patrick (Joshea) will agree as he spends lot of energy and time on PubMed studies.
Just to remind you. .friend.. .I always prefer dietary sources and use supplements only if dietary source is not available.
in reply to LearnAll
"I always prefer dietary sources and use supplements only if dietary source is not available". I agree 101% and follow those guidelines. Thanks for reminding some of us.
Karmaji in reply to
An age old wisdom.....I am what I eat....
No need for studies on 400 persons.....
Best is no study ....
Eat what suits me
Who knows me more than myself.....;
Just live fully....and eat what suits me
not trapped by these studies with no relevance
Who knows me more than myself.....; ---Kraft Foods Inc. and Philip Morris USA who have pooled expertise in search of making more-alluring foods and cigarettes since the dawn of their corporate pairing two decades ago (a Jan. 2006 article): chicagotribune.com/chi-0601...
Great article! I made a similar point here a few months ago about scientists serving corporate interests, including Coca-Cola, Altria, the sugar industry, etc. I forgot the coffee industry. I still drink coffee, but not more than 2-3 days per week. But clearly many coffee products are highly engineered.
Finally! Another Worldometer fan. And yes, that has jumped out at me, although I attributed it to Asians being more familiar with pandemics, mask wearing, etc.
in reply to LearnAll
US population is in horrible shape health wise. It is probably the real reason there are so many deaths. Let's face it, many people do not routinely see a doctor for annual physicals. Therefore, many chronic illnesses go untreated until a major medical event occurs. By that time the damage is done. It also drives up medical expenditures. The only reason I was diagnosed at 53 was I pursued a visit to my urologist after a discussion with my PCP for another issue unrelated to PCA
LearnAll in reply to
Yes. Prevention is batter than cure.
in reply to LearnAll
On a different topic. For the first time since my pca diagnosis I ate a cheese steak ( I'm in the Philly area) and and a double whopper with cheese recently. Both completely sucked. After eating a whole food diet since May, 3. 2019 my taste buds have changed for the better.
I still enjoy a filet mignon on the rare occasion.
LearnAll in reply to
This is a great observation by you. Many people have told me that once they stopped eating, processed and preserved animal body parts and switched to plant based diet ..there overall feeling of wellbeing and mood got better and when they tried eating again their past foods.. they did not like them . I do not know. May be its all psychological or it may be due to very low systemic inflammation caused by plant based foods.
Predominantly meat based foods stagnate in intestines and specially Colon ...as they move slowly thru the 14 ' long intestines...causing putrefaction and rot...which leads to formation of Colon Polyps...some of these polyps end up becoming cancerous. The rate of colon cancer is very low in vegetarians compared to people who mostly eat meat.. particularly chemically preserved , rotten meat. Fresh meat might be better.
rscic in reply to
Much of the USA population health problem is related to overweight & obesity. Much of this is due to the food companies getting very good at hijacking the brain reward centers. IMO until the government foots the health care bill they will be reluctant and late in doing anything about it. We live in a world where we are learning things we thought were neutral or good for us are in fact bad for us (moderate alcohol, packaged foods & football are 3 examples). IMO, not going for an annual physical should incur some sort of a yearly penalty. Many of the COVID deaths are related to obesity ..... just ask a Funeral Director.
in reply to rscic
I'm not someone who blames others for my decisions. When people do that, it causes them to lose their dignity and then depression sets in which reinforces the poor decision making. And the cycle continues.
The ultimate penalty for not taking care of one's self is a visit to the funeral home in a box. The government doesn't need to be involved unless you want a worse outcome.
rscic in reply to
"The (USA) government doesn't need to be involved unless you want a worse outcome." ----Or you want to live longer like in some European Nations, Canada, Japan, S. Korea & Australia OR you want to spend less as a nation on health care.
IMO, speaking from a population & nation perspective, a nation should try to make maintaining health much easier as this is good for the nation from a health, happiness & productivity perspective as well as being less expensive in the long run.
Eventually, we will all visit a funeral home in a box .... the question is, how long will it take to get there & how long will ones good health last before declining.
The USA health care system is complicated by the food industry who have actively worked to & succeeded in hijacking the reward system in the brain. The result is our overweight & obesity epidemic.
in reply to rscic
Well, you seem to be in the victim group. I'm not and that is why we have a difference of opinion. I'm responsible for my eating decisions not some food industry. Having the government punish people for not seeing a Dr annually is a little to draconian for me. I like Liberty too much.
rscic in reply to
The penalty was a thought ... the point being the system is not set up to find problems early & eliminate habits (on a population level) which result in poor health. I would prefer a short term incentive to a penalty. IMO, incentives work better.
IMO, we may have different views here because you are looking at the individual level & I am looking at the population/national level.
There are many examples of government involvement for the good of the population. These include: Lead paint, mercury products (switches come to mind), seat belts, prescription drugs (an example is heroin which used to be unregulated), radiation (one used to be able to get foot x-rays in a shoe store to fit shoes properly) and, probably the most prominent in the baby boomer generation, smoking.
Obesity is approaching smoking from a detriment to the health of the population standpoint. IF obesity continues to advance, at some point it is likely there will be an effort to correct this ..... and typical for the US, will likely come far too late (if one goes back and looks at the research, the problems with smoking were seen for many years before the US government got involved).
This is the 10,000 ft. population view. At this time, as you point out, all an individual can do is be responsible for themselves ..... however, with respect to obesity, individual responsibility is not working in the USA on a population level & obesity is affecting public health.
So, not a victim here, just taking a more expansive, Public Health view. I appreciate your individual responsibility view and it is the only solution an individual has at this time but, with respect to obesity at the national population level, individual responsibility is not working & this affects national well-being & productivity ..... at some point, as long as the obesity problem continues to expand, it is likely government will get involved for the good of the nation ...... some might say this would be a consequence of the lack of individual responsibility on a population level and there might be some truth to that.
In some ways, the obesity problem is similar to what the smoking problem used to be, at least on a population level. Just like smoking, food products are engineered to promote consumption and research (including brain MRI's) has been done by both the smoking industry & the food industry for the purpose of making their products more desirable (addictive from a brain chemistry standpoint) resulting in more of their products being sold and more money/profits made.
There are Public Health examples to back-up the need to "assist" those in the population who do not take individual responsibility seriously enough.
Again, I appreciate your individual responsibility view .... with respect to obesity, it is all the population has at this time so is the best solution available.
in reply to rscic
Why don't we treat health insurance like all other insurance...link it to behavior...ie safe drivers pay less, healthy people pay less for life insurance. Should be the same for health insurance. Tax credits can help those with genetic conditions that are not the fault of lifestyle. HSA with catastrophic coverage will help minimize costs of expensive treatments.
rscic in reply to
Incentive based ..... I like that!!! Also, this idea works with the system as is so it may be a nearer term solution.
Eventually, some form of National Health Care (with or without supplemental insurance .... I think Australia uses a National Insurance with private supplemental insurance -- roughly similar to Medicare) will likely happen in the USA .... there is some evidence (even USA evidence) suggesting costs are kept lower with a largely centralized system. From a costs standpoint, something else needs to be done with the USA Health Care System.
Brianbcollins in reply to
XPO1, disregard the psychological power of the ad agencies at your own risk. We are all influenced daily by some of the biggest brains on the planet trying their hardest to find all the hooks in our psyches. The videos, commercials, billboards, magazines, newspapers, radio spots, all placed where we are sure to see them...Super Bowl comes to mind.
in reply to Brianbcollins
Ok Dad.
So, broccoli will not cure my cancer unless I give up sardines? No way!
in reply to ck722
No ! sardines are good.
The well respected Dr. Mark Scholz from PCRI has stated that while there may be no definitive study(s) that support vegan diets for PCa, in his practice he has seen rising PSA level off for some of his patients adamant about choosing a vegan diet and that based on what he has observed he believes something is happening there. I'm migrating toward a vegetarian diet and find after a while you start to prefer it and it seems to reduce my aches and pains, although I will definitely monitor blood tests anyway if on ADT. At this point is a personal preference, and another topic of discussion on this wonderful board. Good luck.
Loma Linda Adventist Health has had the longest study in the world that still continues of the effects of a plant based diet, mostly plant based, and a westernized diet spanning decades and following thousands of people. The results are compelling. Cancer of all kinds, heart disease, stroke, and other common western world diseases were reduced, and overall life span increased. There is little doubt, in spite of the small meal study of only 478 men, that diet can affect cancer, and that certain foods or nutrients can inhibit cancer growth, as well as help prevent other common causes of death in the westernized world.
If one wishes to research this further, the data is available through the Adventist Health or Loma Linda University Health.
And I'm not an Adventist, so I'm not biased in that direction.
The 7th day Adventists through Medical Evangelism have had enormous influence on institutional nutrition. Due to their prophetess Ellen G. White , and her Garden of Eden diet , and her view that eating flesh was sinful, veganism and vegetarianism has been the institutional bias . Among others Belinda Fettke , has blogged extensively on this issue .
The diet-discussion can get entrenched and it is everybody's choice what they eat or not. Anecdotally, my husband was eating a lot of organic grass fed butter, organic eggs and poultry for a year (with the occasional cake or a treat) before his PSA started to rise and eventually led to his Gleason 8 diagnosis. His aches and hip pain started to go away on starting a sugar-free, vegan whole foods diet, before his ADT treatment was prescribed. We are not looking to prove anything to anybody, but just helping ourselves. Our food is enjoyable as there is a huge diversity in what we are putting on the table. Prostate cancer or anything else, we believe, is helped by everything we do, our food, exercise, state of mind, not just doctor's orders but there are others whose minds will be totally behind what they think is right. To each their own.
in reply to spw1
Bravo!
One possible reason that plant-based diets MIGHT be of benefit regarding PC is that they can, in some cases, amount to low-protein (or at least, low-methionine) diets.
Another possibility is that they can, in some cases, result in a B12 insufficiency. This is related to the methionine issue, and Patrick (pjoshea) has posted extensively on this.
It has been observed that low-protein diets can, in some cases, approach therapeutic low-carb (ketogenic) diets in the ways they change metabolic pathways, changing insulin sensitivity, IGF-1 and mTOR activity, etc.
Reliable or predictable ramifications for PC progression remain unknown.
With all of the poisons that most of us take to curb APC , a whole food plant based diet is a positive edge for health . I’ve been on this six years my self . Five with no signs of cancer .. iM not saying I’m cured. Bu, I think my status is greatly improved by the nature path. Thanks 😎✌️
Watching a podcast with Tucker Goodrich and he mentioned that Omega 6 fats from seed oils are associated with prostate cancer. Google search showed a variety of papers supporting this.
I have been avoiding these oils for years and eat fatty fish and now canned Cod Liver, which is high in Vitamin A.
Am in biochemical remission on ADT with lupron and Zuniga for 18 months after Robotic RP and spot radiation for Oligometastic Prostate Cancer.
My blood sugar on these meds is normal after continuing Keto and tine restricted eating. Took 9 months to normalize. Before the cancer I had reversed diabetes using the same technique with normal blood sugar on no medication after 25 years of diabetes.
I went back to metformin when I knew I would be on ADT and monitor with a continuous glucose monitor. Last A1C was 5.3
Omega 3 and 6 is an interesting issue. For example, there is a lot more Omega 6 in farmed salmon than wild caught salmon. healthline.com/nutrition/wi....
Right. And grass finished vs corn finished beef. Basically all ultra-processed foods have seed oils, which are deceptively marketed as vegetable oil.
The ophthalmologist Criss Knobbe traces the amazing increase In Macular Degeneration to these oils. Changing diet will help stop progression.
Eating “well” and supplementing for deficiencies should be a no brainer and studies on diet and supplements have their limitations. If you feel good on your diet and your disease is controlled then continue. It’s simple. But...it won’t always work. Those of you that know me understand that I have lived a healthy life to the best of my ability. I was always in good shape with a 21-22 BMI and a work out schedule of at least 5 times a week for the last 25 years. During my first 3 years of APC I experimented with all the recommendations of both lay people and professional nutritionists. I was healthy vegan (not coca-cola and potato chip vegan) for nearly 2 years and still here I am months away from entering hospice at age 47. Sometimes it really depends on what mutation you ended up with that caused your cancer. I am sure there are some mutations that are not responsive to diet and supplements. But eat well and stay in shape...this really helps to deal with the toxic treatments and the times when the disease is still manageable. Now I eat whatever I want because it really doesn’t matter. I’m not that hungry anymore and currently weigh 136 lbs. Whatever I eat...good or bad, healthy or unhealthy the cancer utilizes first anyway. Cachexia always wins. You fellows argue too much but with good hearts. If your fellow brothers think what you do is rubbish because there is not a brilliant meta analysis out there to prove what you are doing is valid...well who cares? You tried to share your kindness not out of spite but out of concerns for your fellow man with the same diagnosis . And that to me is awesome even if I think the science behind it is crap.
Cleodman..you made a very important point. If a man has aggressive variant and bad type of mutations...the positive effect of right kind of diet will be limited. For simple, lower grade Pca ,importance of right diet remains significantly positive.
in reply to LearnAll
And I think that is what many of the studies point out. Gleason 6 can be manage in some but not all
Well said..... Bravo!!!
Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.
j-o-h-n Friday 02/05/2021 9:55 PM EST
I am so glad that I'm not a "you are what you eat" person, otherwise I would be a vertical smile today..........
Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.
j-o-h-n Friday 02/05/2021 10:00 PM EST
Not what you're looking for?
You may also like...
Plant based protein powder question
using a caseine/whey based product and wanted to totally eliminate dairy, but the stuff I bought...
What is reco diet to take abi with food?
1000, and if so, how many grams of fat constitute the low fat breakfast to eat with the abi? 🙂
Help, diagnosed in May!
husband has been diagnosed with locally advanced prostate cancer. Pet scan showed its spread in to...
Whole pelvic salvage radiation may be better than precisely targeted lymph node salvage radiation
salvage.
https://www.prostatecancer.news/2020/12/whole-pelvic-salvage-radiation-may-be.html
Here's...
Related Posts
Food supplements I hope will help- Why Lutetium-177-PSMA treatment sometimes may not help, and may even harm
Cancer in Lymph Nodes May Help Tumors Spread by Enlisting Immune Cells
Discovery at a Japanese University Hospital may help Advanced Prostate Cancer Patients
The \"Carnivore Diet\"--Will it \"Eat Cancer\" or Will it Help \"Cancer Eat You?\"
