New observational study on whole food plant based diet. I know, it’s not a double-blinded randomized control study, but anyhow, here we go: youtu.be/iqyaF7TbqIk
Diet and PC: New observational study on... - Advanced Prostate...
Diet and PC
Hey Nusch! Good job trying to show these dinosaurs how important diet is in everything . So many old men are non believers . “ I’m not changing”! Is the mantra . Take care buddy! Save yourself ! 😂✌️
Yes Nusch, I agree. The plant-based diet is good. Diet alone cannot guarantee a life free of cancer but eating a healthy plant-based diet can improve the quality of your health. Not only do plants contain enzymes and other nutrients they also contain Tyrosine Kinase Inhibiters that may help destroy tumors from growing, it's a choice for everyone to decide what to eat.
it is a good way to eat. lluh.org
and tasty too.........🦊
What kind of cancer did you have?
You say you cured it without surgery or other SOC and just by diet and juicing…
Give us some perspective on what you did for yourself.
Nusch, thanks for posting. Sometimes common sense beats “correlation is not causation”.
The freedom to decide is still alive. We consume an adjusted Mediterranean diet, serves us well.
The arguments against eating a healthy diet baffle me. Some people on this site seem to believe that they know more than our doctors, scientists, the government, and the AHA.
Thank you for posting. Plants taste good. Despite progressing PCa my husband is happy to eat this way. Cancer needs a multi pronged approach and this is one tool, in our own control and there is a lot of choice. I cooked Samo seeds instead of rice recently; delicious. On pancake day this week we had buckwheat pancakes made with wholegrain flour and water for breakfast and they could be filled with spinach and garlic, or berries etc. Given the cost of living in the UK at the moment, this diet saves money and is delicious.
I am firm believer of Plant based diet. I know someone who brought down PSA from 165 to 12 in 6 months just by having 25 Apricot kernels in a day. My only point is there us no harm maintaining good diet with regular treatment. Extra tomatoes, Brocolli not going to harm your body more than Chemo!
That is an excellent point. What harm does it do by maintaining a healthy diet?
None. It can't hurt, and most likely will be beneficial in overall health.
I don't think one needs a double-blind randomized trial come to that conclusion.
Harm? " I know someone who brought down PSA from 165 to 12 in 6 months just by having 25 Apricot kernels in a day" Apricot kernels contain the plant toxin amygdalin, which converts to cyanide after eating. Cyanide poisoning can cause nausea, fever, headaches, insomnia, thirst, lethargy, nervousness, joint and muscle aches and pains, and falling blood pressure. In extreme cases, it is fatal.
I was referring to a healthy diet Allen
You are kidding by pointing out the toxicity of apricot kernels, right? This is a cancer forum. Anyone here who lives with or has been treated for cancer knows how toxic SOC is. Treatments can cure, and they can kill. Just like apricots.
I'm not kidding. That is, in fact, what TC007 said his acquaintance was doing. Pretty unbelievable, huh? As if PCa wasn't rough enough on the body.
Apricot kernels can heal cancer? Evidence please.
Have you been feeding your husband apricot kernels to cure his PCa?
Practice what you preach, right?
Sounds like you’re saying I could skip the rest of my chemo and just eat 25 apricot kernels per day for the next six months to reduce my PSA 93%! Wow!
6 months of ADT accomplished the same for me. Are you sure this person wasn’t on some REAL treatment concurrent with the ingestion of all those apricot kernels?
Sounds like some tall tales to me, at least until I see some lab tests proving the drop and something that shows what other treatments this person was on.
Too many claims of miraculous cures in this forum by people pushing some sort of “healthy” diet or “magical” food they’ve decided to promote for whatever their agenda is. Gotta hand it to you or whoever your talking about for being the first to throw apricot kernels into the magic potion of sprouts, carob beans, smoothies, etc.
Points for originality on that one.
I’m sure you mean well, and I agree eating better can’t hurt, but there’s no single food or diet that’s going to cure aPCa…
Prove me wrong with something other than second hand anecdotes.
I firmly believe that diet can absolutely make a difference to progression, and definitely prevention. It's all about working with the immune system ultimately, and what we put in enhances or hinders that; we can 'feed or fights' disease with what we consume. And it will almost certainly make difference to tolerating side effects with chemo and other treatments. I urge anyone to check out Chris Wark who covers this in depth in his Square One programme. Incidently, he is currently running it for free (he does this once a year), covers a module a day, 9 modules or something like that. Get in there quick! Best of luck to you all.
OK - good diet has positive health benefits especially over a lifetime. How much impact a frantic shift once you have cancer is probably impossible to ‘prove’. However as TalAllen says the problem with these studies is that there are too many uncontrollable variables and too many confounding variables. For even a large double blind study - it’s not really possible with diet as we are not lab rats and so it’s done by self reporting apart from all the other issues. For a multi variant analysis to be useful again you have to identify all the variables or as many as are likely to be important to present prove the null hypothesis. This all does not mean changing diet isn’t a valuable thing to do for good healthy and life. As we know pre existing morbidity has a big impact on non PCa deaths - especially if on long term ADT etc. Extreme diets are just that extreme and for a very very few it may be possible as their QoL isn’t impacted but for most it isn’t possible. Also those who can are unusual in many others health and lifestyle ways so that is a major uncomfortable variable. The other huge problem I have is that it blames the person not the disease. This is part of a blame culture around health and disability that has a huge not so pleasant history going back to religious and moral texts and claims that relate illness, disability and disfigurement with evil and being the persons life style or beliefs that means they must change ir be punished. That is why we rely on proper trials and even then have to see they are only giving a level of significance that they are not just chance. Indeed also we recognise that such studies are also biased. All this is evidence not certainty or very very rarely certain. I could go on and on but it reminds me of one of my first lectures on statistics, research methods and ethics - which was if you think you’ve proved something is causal - look again as you are almost certainly over interpreting the data or have missed something in your design or selection.Eat well and live well and enjoy life is the best rule but - at least for me THAT is hard living day right day with a chronic, sometimes fatal disease like PCa.
I agree somehow but want to add: it doesn’t blame the person, but the (wrong) food. And „eat well“ a great headline but comes back to what is eating well? If this is interpreted as „eat what you like“, I strongly disagree. Everything we like we got used to and food industry supports getting addicted by adding fat & sugar to processed meals. So we think we like it, but in reality we are addicted. And addiction can be changed. So if you want to be the pilot of your life, it’s good to sit behind the steering wheel and lot in the last row. Anyhow, everybody decides, what to do and that’s totally ok.
I agree, that rather than blaming the person, the perspective is more, taking back our power and some control outside of purely what the oncol knows or says. There have been too many case studies with success following a drastic lifestyle change for there to be nothing in it. Also, it's worth a shot, better to try and know, than not try and never know 🤷♂️
Try or not try, I don’t think we as individual self-studies will ever really know.
Did I live an extra year because I ate plants? I wouldn’t know because I have no way to test the scenario of I didn’t eat plants.
But I agree overall.
Indeed. But there's one thing that is certain and that is that it would not have done you any harm. It can only have done good. 😊
One of the many case studies. And this is *not saying no to conventional FYI. But merely highlighting it can, and has happened using a different approach.
Chris beat cancer with conventional surgery, not with diet and other "alternatives" The adjuvant chemotherapy he chose not to do would have improved his odds, but his odds were good enough without it. Read here for more information:
I’m confused. How is that short article and interview a “case study”? Did I miss the science review in it?
Comes across as a motivational speech and a couple of book authors trying to sell you a few books. (Both Chris and Annie have books listed for sale in your link.)
I think TA has it right: there are so many assertions and claims about nutrition that we need to rely on science to properly understand the role of nutrition in the treatment of PCa.
I get all of my carbs from organic fruits and vegetables and maintain a low protein intake. I am an extremely fit athlete at 70 years old and even if the plant-based diet does not affect prostate cancer it’s certainly helpful in delaying many of the other diseases that come with old age.
Fully agree. I’m soon 68 and also follow WFPBD and not more than 60-70g protein / day. I’m fitter than many 50 years old, even on lupron since 1/2022 again.
What info made you to decide on low protein? Exactly how low?
I'll just guess as to what bothers some "doubters" here....especially when men claim that they did this or that.....and bingo they improved, etc. There is the fear that someone will then decide to skip the possible side effects of SOC treatment and just try diet, supplements, etc etc....NONE proven by trial as effective as SOC treatments. As long as the alternate "treatment" has no serious adverse consequences itself....sure give it a go. I think Steve Jobs may have initially skipped SOC treatment.....he did not have a good outcome, but the same may have happened had he done SOC.....who knows, all I know is that randomized trials give me a much higher level of confidence, understanding no single study of a few hundred men is absolute proof of anything, IMHO. When trial after trial seems to have very similar results, I like that !!
Cheers to a healthy diet.....if it makes you feel better about life, that is a good thing for sure!!!
I see little reason to battle /argue over the validity of these studies....if you are a believer, you will continue to be a believer...your life. no SOC? that is each man's choice, thank goodness!!!
I’ve never been a believer in alternative medicine. But I believe in a complementary approach. I’ve had it all: RP, RT, ADT and chemo. I’m sure I wouldn’t a alive any more without these treatments. You’ll find all details in the bio of my profile. But: I started with a holistic approach immediately from DX: WFPBT, no sugar, no oil, no alcohol, low protein (as stated 60/70 g / day to keep IGF1 low), running, weight lifting, meditation and total stress reduction. I enjoy working on the garden, being on the sea in our little boat and reading/laughing/socializing with friends&family. This brought me to where I’m now. I don’t know what will happen tomorrow and in future. But the last 5 1/2 years were the best years of my life.
At 6 foot two and 200 pounds as a very active athlete, lifting weights, I thought I would need a higher protein diet and did so for many years. But I went lower protein to 50 g per day in an effort to lighten the load on a failing left kidney due to a previous ureter blockage that we did not know about for six months. Last test showed 85% function on the right and 15% on the left. I might be grasping at straws, but I do want to save that left kidney mainly because of whatever meds I’ll be taking in the future will likely affect kidneys.
wow....kidney!! What were your symptoms prior to kidney diagnosis? This worries me and others i'm sure.....those with weak urinary streams? I understand kidney damage can occur when bladder isn't emptying properly.....is there testing you wish they had done earlier to catch the problem before kidney damage occurred? Fill you with liquids and then check bladder emptying ability????
my left ureter was clogged with kidney stone fragments from laser surgery. Since I’ve had two of those within a few months when we had the indication of a clogged urinary tract, we did not believe it was kidney stones. By the time we did further testing, it has been six months, and now the left kidney has atrophied.
How bad were your urinary sysmptoms before they found the clogging problem,,,,had they just assumed it was BPH if your symptom was weak urinary stream?
" Obstruction of one ureter does not reduce how much people urinate. Obstruction can stop or reduce urination if blockage affects the ureters from both kidneys or if it affects the urethra. Obstruction of the urethra or bladder outlet may cause pain, pressure, and distention of the bladder. "
So, what was the sysmptom, if there was one, of your blocked ureter?
it was kidney stone fragments that did not pass from two previous surgeries. I was feeling the incredible urge to pee frequently, and when I did, at the end of urination, it really hurt. These are signs of kidney stones that none of us figured the pain could be could be a kidney stones issue because I just had two surgeries back to back a few months before. So we let it go until my urologist said we better do a scan. Turns out that my left ureter had scarred up so bad it actually tapered and would not allow anything to pass. We had to repeat that surgery again two more times. And I’ve had a stent in there for the last five months being changed twice. They want to leave it in there for another month or two hoping that when they pull it out the ureter does not close up again.
Fascinating. I'm glad you're addressing your kidneys. And I'm heartened that you're making gains on 50 grams of protein.
no gains but I am maintaining my physical strength since it dropped about 20% 14 months ago. I also wrestle twice a week a room full of young alpha males. I can keep most of them off me, but that’s about it.
You and I are in the same pissboat...... here is an old post that I've posted many times.
Greetings: Radiation - I've posted this before so to those people who have already seen this please forgive me.
I had 8 weeks of salvage radiation to "the bed". 5 days a week (not weekends) for 8 weeks minus 1 day for a total of 39 sessions at MSKcc. The actual radiation was like getting an x-ray by my dentist. I never had any side effects during the whole 39 sessions.
However, 2 years later my left urinary tract was "fried" as per my urologist (or from passing prior kidney stones he was not sure). So, I had to have a urinary stent placed up my urinary tract (through my willy which is really nothing - sounds terrible but it's nothing) to aid in passing my urine (which was never a problem anyway). So I had stents in and out every three months for many years and now I'm stent free,
However today 15% of urine from left kidney and 85% from right kidney, but not a problem. So make sure you get a good radiologist.
Also, I don't know if this would apply to you but guys here recommend SPACEOAR HYDROGEL to be inserted for protection of parts of your body. Make sure you ask your R.O. about the spaceoar and make sure you ask here on this forum before getting fried.
Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.
j-o-h-n Friday 02/24/2023 11:48 PM EST
You said "There is the fear that someone will then decide to skip the possible side effects of SOC treatment and just try diet, supplements, etc etc...." This has been studied and found that those who even use alternatives as so-called "complimentary" treatments live shorter lives.
The idea of "complimentary" treatments is just a ruse. The real goal of promoters of alternatives (like some on this forum who don't have cancer) is to get people to drop all SOC treatments and be completely on alternatives because that's where they can make money. No money for them in proven treatments regulated by the FDA and other government organizations and administered by actual doctors.
Proven treatments work fine without "complimenting" them with distractions that add nothing to their effectiveness. I've lived over 7 years on conventional, proven treatments with stage 4 prostate cancer with no special diet, supplements or other nonsense.
I'm not arguing with most of what you said, but who here is a bogus contributor....some people simply believe differently than you do....or are so terrified that they are grasping for anything to keep hope alive. Is diet an alternative/complimentary "treatment"...lots of talk about that here.
I fully agree with you in regard of alternative treatments. But I slightly disagree that SoC treatment shouldn’t be supported by complementary options such as diet, exercise, stress reduction, meditation, time restricted eating etc. You can support your body on fighting PC or weaken it. It’s everybody’s choice, of course.
Doing all these things for overall health is a great idea. I just don't like how people loosely throw around statements like this or that food or supplements suppresses tumor growth without any solid science. People do that a lot here.
And by the way, those of who don't do all these things do just as well on proven treatments.
One more thing. People here need to stop trying to pass off as fact the idea that proven SOC somehow need complimentaries as if it's some sort of holy grail. Saying it enough times doen't make it a fact.
It’s not either or, but as well as. We should be aware that SoC treatments increase e.g. the cardiovascular risk. It’s not my goal to survive PC and die of a heart attack.
That would be my goal re cancer of any sort..heart attack far better way to go...like most folks, I've seen both in my family..
BTW, I absolutely share the concern, but ADT link to heart attack has only been mildly shown, if at all. Conflicting studies, as I'm sure all here know. The link, if it exists, is probability-wise for those who have pre-existing diagnosed CV problems.
If the link is a certainty for all men on ADT, then I guess all should decline Lupron, Eligard, et and ask for firmagon, orgovyxx, estradiol patches, etc.
”There is the fear that someone will then decide to skip the possible side effects of SOC treatment and just try diet, supplements, etc etc”
There’s a particular “nutritionist” here that claims to have refused SOC and cured his/her cancer through diet and stress-reduction alone. Seriously.
Pushes a lot of diet advice, but at least now sometimes qualifies it with “discuss with your doctor” or similar.
And then there’s the almost FRAUDULENT claims of Guy Tenenbaum and Eric Berg about Guy curing himself by taking a bucketful of supplements per day.
I say it’s fraudulent because they always forget to mention that Guy had an orchiectomy early on.
He castrated himself and his castration-sensitive cancer went into remission. Surprise surprise.
Also he’s only been “cancer free” (his and Berg’s words) for 3-4 years. You can’t claim that you’re cured with PCa until at least five years, and pretty much never with metastatic.
A lot of dangerous stuff gets pushed around here in the name of healthy food or lifestyle advice. (Dangerous like a recent claim someone ate 25 poisonous apricot kernels per day for 6 to reduce their PSA.)
People who push the so-called alternative non-treatments for cancer are predators who prey on the desperate hopes of those who are struggling to stay alive. They are well aware of how what they are advocating does not work, but makes money all the same. It's a money making business.
It's usually healthy people pushing this nonsense that does nothing more than "sound good". Some are in remission from cancer after doing SOC treatments which they hide or are deceptive about. For example, a guy could get an orchiectomy and then say "I stopped taking all ADT drugs and only do this special diet and supplements. Someone who doesn't know better will be fooled. That's we need to call these people out and expose them.
It's amazing how many people worship this "chrisbeatcancer" guy when his surgery is what saved him, not his diet or other alternatives.
Here's an article:
Yet he makes lots of money on the gullible public that wants to believe he's some sort of underdog who beat the evil medical dark star. What a hero! He's laughing all the way to the bank.
”For example, a guy could get an orchiectomy and then say "I stopped taking all ADT drugs and only do this special diet and supplements. ”
LOL. That’s exactly what the Guy (Tenebaum) has gone.
He even had the gall to make an account here, spew his fake cure, and touted 10 million views on French YouTube as PROOF that his claims are legitimate. At least the moderators were quick to shut him down when I reported his post!
All 10 million views proves is there are 10 million desperate people willing to swallow his malarkey.
Additionally, with 10 million views I’m sure he’s making ad-sharing money per view from YouTube, so despite his claims of doing this for free, he’s likely still making bank $$$ telling his bad information. He also has a book he’s selling, not just the free pdf that lists his supplements.
And for all the Berg fans, same story is likely true, big views and followers lead to big money on social media. Plus Berg encourages you to buy his supplements.
As Ed says, most of these hucksters with miraculous claims are likely trying to make money (or troll-laughs) off of us.
Be smart, not desperate.
Thank you for posting, Nusch. A plant-based diet benefits us all in many ways. Tall_Allen, have you read The China Study? I think you'd find it interesting.
TA does not argue about the vallue of a heart-healthy diet for many aspects of health..... he is saying such studies have many confounders. If you want to eat a traditional Chinese diet, more power to you I say!!!
were you plant based prior to your diagnosis? If youre going to change one thing eat what you want but EXERCISE daily rigorously would help you more
Doing both. I exercise since my youth, almost daily. I switched to a WFPBD after being DXed in 2017.
Like my top Onconlogist in Marina del Rey Dr Richard Lam told me as he closed his laptop. "If only it was that easy."
It does not matter how scientific or unscientific this study is. Every small thing you can do for yourself is one more thing to improve your odds.
Couldn’t agree more Magnus! If cancer could be healed with a single measure, we would already have a pill. Our body & soul are far too complex and we don’t understand half, how all this works together.
Very well said!!! Throw everything at it, attack from all angles, a multi faceted approach can never be wrong
squareone.chrisbeatcancer.c... available to watch until tomorrow.
Big juicy plums. 😁👍
Good debate here. Thanks for the post. I'll share that about 6 months after my diagnosis, I ran into one of my kid's soccer coaches from a few years ago. We always thought very highly of him. After hearing about my situation, he put his arm around my shoulders, looked me square in the eye and said "Give it hell. That cancer is trying to kill you. Fight with all you've got". Hell for cancer is a high quality diet and meaningful exercise combined with the best of modern medicine. That's my plan.
It's like exercise. You do it or you don't. Your decision. Either choice is fine but just be honest and don't try to justify your unhealthy actions (if I had a nickle for every time I've heard "I don't have time to exercise" I'd have enough for a lb of organic strawberries). One guy even tries to implicate science in his justifications. That's a new one to me.
Some here say that they are too old to change or set in their ways. I respect that. That implies accountability for their actions with specific reasons.
But the "science" guy? Wow!
Foodies got to love them for the entertainment factor. I agree we need to discuss all available options. Including Ivermectin and other dewormer options to lather on our taints. Where is j-o-h-n when you need him?
Sorry I was entertaining myself with a slice of New York pepperoni pizza......
Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.
j-o-h-n Friday 02/24/2023 11:58 PM EST
Atta boy. They told me when I was on chemo to eat as much of anything I want to give energy to get through. They told me the chemo was killing all the Cancer cells in my entire body so the antioxidants bullsh**t went out the window. They said any other stuff I tried and drastic diet changes are like a "Drop of water in an Ocean". This comes straight from the top prostate Onco at SK New York.
Chocolate chip ice cream (two scoops).
(Or Breyers Chocolate Truffle Ice Cream (one scoop))
Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.
j-o-h-n Thursday 02/23/2023 8:00 PM EST
Last thoughts to this from my side. First here’s a full text document: clinicaltrials.gov/Provided...
I think, you can do everything right or you can do the right thing. In regard of the MEAL study they have done it right, but did they compare the right things? Inmate than doubt.
- They compared two groups with very limited focus (only AS, no prior treatment to name just two).
- Both groups were motivated to eat more vegetables and fruits (one by phone, one by sending res.cloudinary.com/pcf/imag...
- Daily intake of meat, dairy, sugar and alcohol wasn’t monitored at all
So I’m not surprised by the outcome.
Great discussion. I've never made the claim that switching to a plant based diet can stop raging PCa in its tracks.
However, my weight has dropped 45 pounds even on Lupron. All cholesterol and triglyceride numbers improved within the normal range. Blood pressure dropped from 150/90 to 110/60 (yesterday), first time in my life it was ever in that normal range, and I dropped BP meds.
However, those changes did not occurr overnight. BP did not begin to drop until the second year on the diet. Weight has continued to slowly drop, although the biggest drop came slowly in the first year.
I don't know about medical researchers behind the scenes, but many practicing docs (even at "centers of excellence") clearly don't pay much attention to diet.
AHA and the government already did that.
Yes they do.Google AHA diet and food pyramid. Or talk to your doctor.
I do not know what your diet is. And even if I did, I don't know what comorbidities and allergies you have. Your primary doctor and your MO are your best bet.
Hahaha, was going to post a reply but it appears all avenues are covered
Good discussion, with validity from all points!
I'll just add... That what is most important, is doing those things that make us SMILE! Whether it's our face, our mind, our stomachs or our hearts that get to smile...! Smile and experience joy as it occurs to you, whatever form that may bring joy and smiles to you and your day! If it's eating Bunches of Broccoli Sprouts or a 20oz Cowboy Steak! Whatever it is that floats your boat is ok
All the Best
It's not even an attempt at a clinical trial - it's just an observational (non-interventional) study. Here it is:
You will notice:
"Although the [“healthy plant-based” dietary indices] hPDI was not associated with PC progression or recurrence overall ..."
So, even in this observational study, eating a healthy plant based diet had no benefit.
"...men in the higher quintiles had statistically significant reductions in risk of recurrence"
So, only the most extreme dieters of an already unusual diet did better. But reflect for a moment about this. What kind of person would eat like this? (remember, no one encouraged them to in this observational study) Answer: someone obsessed with diet. Such people also go to doctors frequently and take care of their bodies in other ways. There is probably a very strong association with physical activity too.
So, this is clearly a case of selection bias. I know how desperate you must be to look for youtube videos as evidence, and that understanding why the observation happened probably won't convince you that you, being human, believe this applies to you because of confirmation bias. There are many good reasons to increase plants in our diets, but this ain't it.
Your opinion on whole food plant-based diet is known to me. I also understand your reasoning, but when it comes to this dietary approach, I do not share the same viewpoint. It's okay for me, and hopefully for you as well.
It is not about "viewpoint." It is about how to separate fact from opinion. You can have any opinion you want, but when you trot out such observational studies as "proof," you are practicing pseudoscience. You may want to read this and see if it describes your "viewpoint."
Not all viewpoints are founded on science. I think it is best for patients to at least start with science.
You know that diet can’t be handled in a double blind randomized trial (like a drug). But indications and suspicion are evident. So as each one of us is the pilot of his life, we will individually decide, if and how to support our therapies complementary.
In fact, that is exactly what was done in the MEAL randomized clinical trial:
It proved that increasing vegetable intake had no effect on progression.
Come on TA, that’s neither double blinded randomized nor is adding vegetables nearly comparable to a whole food plant based diet.
Come on , Nusch. It is certainly randomized. Blinding is never possible in a diet study - how could that possibly work? One knows what one eats. Eligible patients were randomized (1:1) to either the telephone-based counseling intervention (MEAL intervention) or a control condition. Instead of the counseling intervention, control patients received a publication on diet for prostate cancer.
I agree that it was not a completely plant-based diet. But in medicine, there is something called the "dose effect." That means therapies (any therapy that can be continuously increased - drugs, radiation, plants in diet), if they are successful, almost always follow an s-shaped curve, like the one below.
What it means is that at a very low level of the therapy, there is no response. But then, as it increases, there is an increasingly greater response. Then, the response levels off so that more of it has almost no extra effect.
The MEAL trial proved that there is no dose-response from eating more vegetables. The observational study you posted said the same thing - response did NOT increase with increasing plant-based diet. It was only with the most extreme dieters that there was an association. This indicates that the association is probably not causal - it was due to selection bias because the extreme dieters also did a lot of other things (like exercise or seeing doctors frequently) that actually caused those outcomes.
Ask yourself if there is any data that can convince you that your beliefs are untrue. I can be convinced by an experiment, can you?
The MEAL study can’t convince me at all. The participants could have eaten tons of burgers, steaks, fat, dairy and sugar-loaded junk food accompanied by alkohol. It comes at no surprise, that adding a few vegetables didn’t make a lot of change. To use such a study to try to prove that WFPBD has no effect is at least interesting.
Completely agree. It's definetly worth a try to go plant based. You cant always wait for the perfect study. Time is precious and not infinite. You can use your common sense and see where the research is pointing to. Science is a tool to make decisions ,thats all it is. Science changes over time as we find out more about things. People treat it as a religion. Ironically thats very unscientific.
Agree and we shouldn’t forget that many studies are financed or co-financed by meat and dairy industry.
Ah- a conspiracy theorist! That explains your attitude. In fact, it was a blue-ribbon NCI trial, financed by our tax dollars, and worked on by some of the finest minds in the business.
There is actually a chart of what they did eat, if you weren't blinded by confirmation bias. The group that ate more veggies was well-matched to the control group. The veggie-eaters also ate less meats and saturated fats.
Did see the chart by now but while searching I found this: pcf.org/patient-resources/l...
The control group (!) got this information. So do I get it right, that this study compared 7 cups of fruit/vegetables (intervention group) against a control group which was informed about a full nutrition/exercise & co program with the main difference that the one in the intervention group were regularly called where the ones in the control group made their own decision? Did I get anything wrong?
Here's the full description:
As stated, the most important info comes with the STUDY DESIGN, which is ridiculous:
Intervention group shall eat 6 portions of fruits/vegetables, guided by telephone support.
Control group receives PCF document with plant based diet and exercise and more .
No wonder that they didn’t find statistical relevant differences. See here:
The MEAL Study is a randomized, phase III clinical trial. The intervention is a validated, telephone-based counseling program.24,25We are randomizing 464 patients on active surveillance to either the telephone-based counseling intervention or the control condition in which patients receive printed materials from the Prostate Cancer Foundation that recommend consumption of a healthy diet
I guess you didn't look at the link I just sent, which says:
"Men randomized to the intervention diet are encouraged to consume daily at least 7 servings of vegetables (including at least 2 servings of cruciferous vegetables and 2 servings of tomatoes)..."
This was based on more than doubling their vegetable intake from baseline, so that the increase would be significant.
I've been on the whole food plant based diet with no dairy, meat, alcohol, soft drinks, artificial sweeteners, processed/packaged products for almost four years now. Doubt I'll ever change back. Running my own damn clinical trial of one-no control, non-randomized.
I do exercise, but I've always done that.
We do it the same way.
I heard from smurtaw that the number of servings was less than the government recommendations. Less than 6 total in the intervention group. He said that MEAL proved that eating 3 vs. 5 servings a day didn't do anything. Why would we expect anything different?
You don't have to rely on second-hand info -- You can read it for yourself - I gave the link. Both groups of 64 yo men on active surveillance consumed 3.4 servings/day of vegetables on their 2100 cal/day diet, which is already on the high end of USDA guidelines for that age group (2.5-3.5 servings) before the study started. The intervention group increased intake to 5.8 servings/day while the control group increased intake to 3.9 servings/day.
The researchers expected that almost doubling vegetable intake (with a concomitant reduction in meat and saturated fat) would reduce progression. It didn't. We can conclude there is no dose effect from vegetables.
Thank you for confirming that Smurtaw was right. At the start of the S shaped curve, no change, as expected.
If doubling veggie intake is only the start of the S-shaped curve, how many vegetables does a man have to eat to show a benefit? Most of us don't have the time to sit on the toilet all day.
Smurtaw says he eats over 15 a day. I eat at least a dozen (and no, I'm not typing this as I sit on the toilet).
Another nice justification.
Eating fiber will make me too regular. Good one. Tell me some more please.
Regarding bowel movement it never in my life worked as well as know since I’m on WFPBD. And I eat vegetables, fruits, legumes, fiber and whole wheat from 12 to 6.
I've seen the same thing. I'm so regular that my wife even comments on it. I also feel better. When I eat a few crappy meals I'm sluggish and fatigued.
Science guy's justification doesn't hold water (or should I say weird science guy - good movie, advice not so good).
All joking aside, a study isn't going to make me throw out government. AHA, medical advice, and my own experience to begin eating poorly.
Well, if you aren't spending your day on the white throne, you are spending many hours eating veggies. I'm glad you believe it helps you with your PCa. Belief has power - it's just not science.
Are you watching me? This is a little too Fatal Attraction.
But as you say, belief has power. I believe that the government, my doctors, and the AHA are guiding me correctly.
How long was this trial monitored?
2 years in men on AS
Without stating my opinion on the subject, I should say the MEAL study was quite flawed. I have talked to 2-3 folks in the study.
Do you care to mention what those supposed flaws were?
There was a group that was supposed to talk with a nutritionist every week and got a list of things to eat. That was the extent of the "control" As opposed to the study by Ornish many years back where all the patients were brought to the same place and monitored very carefully. My friend said that several folks in the control group were really not strictly following the plan. The control group was not monitored very carefully. But I realize that this would be very hard without having a diet police at every home
Yes- the control group didn't get the frequent coaching that the intervention group got. This was similar to the Ornish study. What is wrong with that? That is the purpose of a control group - to show what would have happened without the intervention, with only usual care.
The Ornish study was much smaller (n=93 vs 478 for MEAL), briefer (1 year vs 2 years for MEAL), and included lifestyle intervention (MEAL only looked at diet). Ornish only looked for PSA change , while the MEAL RCT used progression as the endpoint. Progression was defined as PSA level of 10 ng/mL or greater, PSA doubling time of less than 3 years, or upgrading (defined as increase in tumor volume or grade) on follow-up prostate biopsy
"Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to either the telephone-based counseling intervention or a control condition in which they received printed materials from the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF)"
Do you understand what a control group means? It is used as a comparison in a randomized clinical trial as a comparison to show what would have happened with usual care.
Your point? I posted the intervention and control. I've conducted hundreds of studies. So, yes, I know what a control group is.
FYI: Your definition is sorely lacking.
You posted what was done for the control group. It appeared that you did not understand what a control group is. Else, why post that?
I posted it simply to show what the intervention and control protocols were (strictly speaking, the control wasn't really a control).
I didn't have any motives.
You seem to make conclusions based on limited data. Toilet, eating hours, motives. Rather matches your study analysis.
Most people who post have, you know, a reason for posting what they post. Few post random observations.
Of course, the randomized clinical trial (RCT) had a control group - you can't have an RCT without a control group.
Please carefully read what I said.
I posted it simply to show what the intervention and control protocols were (strictly speaking, the control wasn't really a control).
If you need more reasons, think about what control means vs. what was done.
So you did in fact have a purpose in posting it? I guess you forgot. I certainly know what a control is. But it seems that you do not. I'll help you out, since it is worth knowing if you look at research for your advanced prostate cancer.
"In a clinical trial, the group that does not receive the new treatment being studied. This group is compared to the group that receives the new treatment, to see if the new treatment works."
You do not compare group A to group B when both groups receive interventions and state that one group is a "control". Read your own definition. Seriously you disappoint me.
Do us all a favor and stick to your field. Leave the medical research alone.
The control group did not receive an active intervention -- they only received a flier initially. Obviously, receiving the flier had no effect as there was no significant change in veggie consumption in the control group. Just as in the Ornish study, where the control group only got some initial advice from their physician. Controls, by law, have to be at least what patients would otherwise get. If you are interested in why, look up the Helsinki Protocols. I'm glad you are now a little better educated now.
Obviously they couldn't read? Nice try. Gotta try harder.
PCF is the law of SOC now? Really. News to me. News to them also.
You should call them and let them know.
Seriously, are you trying to make legitimate arguments or are you just pulling my leg?
Currently PC and diabetes 2 diets combined ! PC Adenocarcinoma grade 7 biopsy diagnosed June 2022 radiotherapy 20 sessions versus diabetes 2 diagnosed March 2020 taking Metformin 1500mg. My urinary journeys regular, have found they conflict, especially fruit, although 2 successes are Greek yoghurt and bananas which agree with me. Recently diabetes blood test found that 90+ was a BIT high [should be about 40] so metformin increased too 1500 was 1000? I was advised in Dec 2022 when radiotherapy sessions started no fruit and veg! I'm a stubborn ol bugger and after many toilet challenges, a lot of hit and miss, I live alone, I believe am coming out the other side, final results 13th March🤞
I am not a Vegan or vegetarian, pure omnivore, age 66 too old too change, as Lulu700 says✊ “ I’m not changing”! ✌️
Thank you Tall Allen for standing up FOR facts and AGAINST delusion.
Your bias stands out. I’ll grant you that cancer is more problematic, but there are studies that show the benefits of a WFPB diet. It has to be WFPB (not partial plant based) without cheating. I’ve been on it since 2006. It’s easy, and I eat a larger variety foods and more interesting meals than before I switched. There are numerous studies that show its benefit, especially in reversing atherosclerosis and type2 diabetes. At 68 I don’t take any meds, and my labs are well within the normal range. I’ve seen numerous angiograms of before and after, with clogged arteries totally resolved in as little as 6 months. Check out PCRM.org (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) and NutritionFacts.org , two sources from non-profit organizations. Read the China Study by T. Collin Campbell. There are thousands of micronutrients, phyto chemicals, and anti-oxidants that your immune system needs to be healthy, in order to fight off cancer cells through apoptosis, and to promote a robust immune response to combat other pathogens. You only get those in the right proportions from eating natural plant based foods. You don’t have to be on statins, BP meds, and Metformin. If you are otherwise healthy overall (most Americans are not), your body has a much better chance to deal with the onslaught of treating cancer.
I am biased toward science - I admit it. The "studies" you refer to are all observational or promoted by people and organizations who are known to promote pseudoscience (you can tell by the silly, important-sounding names they attach to their organizations and websites) - we can do better. I am not against eating plants-- I never said I was -- in fact, I eat a lot of plants. I am just saying the scientific evidence so far is that there is no benefit for prostate cancer.
I'm all about science also, and I disagree with you about the science behind the benefits of a whole foods plant based diet. Double blind studies are not the where all end all with scientific evidence, although there are studies that show there are benefits. Some of the extensive studies you and I would like to see are not feasible for lack of funding, because there is no way for the drug industry sell the results. BTW, a lot of these drug studies results don't pan out, and they don't provide any evidence of significant benefit to treatment of disease.