jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...
I would still stay away from any supplement that gives me more than 100% of any substance....even if high doses have been used in most of the studies mentioned in that paper
jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...
I would still stay away from any supplement that gives me more than 100% of any substance....even if high doses have been used in most of the studies mentioned in that paper
Great article thanks for sharing.
Humm- well it didn’t exactly work for hubby. He was taking salmon oil and calcium supplements with D3 prior to his cancer diagnosis. Not saying it won’t work for others. And yeah too much isn’t cool either.
Definitely D3 works. And it works on PCa specifically. I posted these two some time ago.
healthunlocked.com/active-s...
healthunlocked.com/active-s...
Sulforaphane also has lots of studies that show benefits for PCa patients. I have posted a lot on this as well. Here is one of my articles. I have a lot more at my site on this forum
healthunlocked.com/active-s...
Sometimes, just sometimes, supplements can work. They can prevent but once u r sick they rarely can cure. At that point u need traditional medical intervention. Rick
That's the fact! I have read extremely encouraging papers about the use of creatine while you are not metastatic, but when you are metastatic then it's not recommended. The same goes for many nutrients and supplements...and it's driving me crazy, especially because most studies are not even observational but in vitro.
...the only other 'Unknown - Unknown,' is what impact supplements had even when sick, even under treatment...meaning, how much worse would it be without supplements...no one has done this work that I can find. For me its logical that, if it helps in prevention, helps in reduction of severe cases before onset of disease it should have a similar, but reduced, impact after disease onset. So, the "it cant hurt" philosophy could apply.
There are the supplements though, as you pointed out, that are 'good' before disease onset but negative after its outbreak...cant put my finger on any and I dont think either D3 or Sulforaphane are in that group.
Lastly, you are spot on...I dont waste any time on invitro or animal study results...the results must be random, blinded human studies or retrospective studies of same, for me to pay attention...AND in those studies I discard the results if the "p" values (the statistical chance that the outcome is wrong) is too high, i.e. above p=0.05 or better...Rick
The OP said "..more than 100% ...". This probably refers to RDA's (recommended daily allowances.) These are not written in stone and are intended to help the average healthy person (presumably not elderly with a chronic illness/condition, not on ADT, etc.)
RDA's also build in adjustments for dietary sources, and if you are vegetarian or no-red-meat/eggs/dairy, the math is quite different.
We are all understandably focused on only one thing: APC. But that is not the only cancer out there, and I for one am trying bend the odds as much as I can in my favor for all health maladies related to lifestyle/diet/pre-existing-conditions.
Yes, 100% of RDA. The problem is that what is good for metastatic may not be good for non metastatic (you find many papers from reputable sources that are in disagreement), but it may be good for people with heart problems, may be not good for healthy people and so on...there are things that we may need in doses exceeding 100% (e.g. my wife had bariatric surgery many years ago and she took supplements pills that gave her for example 20,000 % of RDA calcium, but that's a special need for those patients).
I am just extremely cautious. In this case, being metastatic and all, if I were sure that the only thing that could happen was binary like "it works" "it does not work but also does not harm" I would try everything. Twice.
Oh geez my sex RDA is Zero, that's why?
Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.
j-o-h-n Friday 11/03/2023 7:27 PM DST Billy's gone