Personal Experience with Diet and Exercise

Some may find this of interest.

The variation of prostate cancer incidence for
different regions of the world is large. The rate in
the USA is about 20 times that of some Asian countries.
Some of this is due to poor detection, but not all.
Asians living in the US, have rates in between. It is
generally believed that traditional regional diets play
a role.

Also, within the countries having low rates of PC,
there is a considerable variation from one region
to another. For example, Maharashtra, and Gujarat
in Western India; as well as Nakhon Phanom,and Khon Kaen in
Northeastern Thailand, have particularly low rates of PC incidence.

These folks use a lot of turmeric/black pepper and hot peppers
(capsaicin). So, do I. The last diet, that actually DECREASED PSA,
contained the above every day, and usually twice a day.

Cashless

Cashless, can you share what some of your easy go-to meals are?

I think I'm a good cook, and I've cooked some yummy vegetarian meals, but very time I serve my husband he looks so sad as he picks up his fork.

His favorite foods are: pork shoulder, pulled pork, sausage, bacon, steak, hamburgers, bread, french fries. Foods he dislikes are vegetables, beans, lentils, salads. see my challenge? LOL

To stop insulin spike my RO put me on metformin which is also recommended by Dr Snuffy Myers. Congrats on staying with such a restrictive diet; I could not do it .
Bob

Sophie, Dreamer's list looks good to me as well.

My meals have a large Asian influence since the
lady of the house is Asian. Cold dishes are made
with rice vinegar, sesame oil and soy sauce. Hot
dishes have two or more from: garlic, ginger,
red peppers, thai basil, spring onions. The main
components are usually something like eggplant
and king mushrooms, bok choy and shiitake
mushrooms, or tofu and mushrooms. Anything
that is green and not moving goes into the cold
dish.

I might try good Indian, Thai and Chinese buffets
and select from the healthier dishes to see if anything
appeals to him. That could provide a starting point.
If nothing does, than you cook for your health. I
believe these diets are not PC specific, but can be
helpful with other cancers, weight loss, diabetes,
heart disease and dementia. Take care of yourself.

Cashless

SophieW said...
Cashless, can you share what some of your easy go-to meals are?

I think I'm a good cook, and I've cooked some yummy vegetarian meals, but very time I serve my husband he looks so sad as he picks up his fork.

His favorite foods are: pork shoulder, pulled pork, sausage, bacon, steak, hamburgers, bread, french fries. Foods he dislikes are vegetables, beans, lentils, salads. see my challenge? LOL

Sophie, if he ate mostly just the meat products, but left off the bread and french fries, and hopefully at least ate a few veggies with the meat if he could stand it, probably every known measurable health parameter would improve, some improve a whole lot: any type 2 diabetes tendency, blood sugar, blood insulin, triglycerides, HDL( so called good cholesterol), blood pressure, and weight. May have forgot some.( LDL might not improve or even worsen a bit, but there is also somehing or another about the size and fluffiness of the LDL which does improve) Several of these(like blood pressure or diabetes for ex) are widely considered downright huuuuuuge (LOL) when it comes to cardiovascular disease, the number one killer, killing vastly more men than PC. In fact, killing a lot more men even if they have PC.

It is not , based on current studies, really even up for debate(IMO) when it comes to the effect of a low carb diet on any of those major factors. And for instance, you don't just try to cover up a symptom like high BP or pre-diabetes or frank type 2 diabetes or high triglycerides with a pill, you eradicate the cause. Which very often is insulin resistance/chronically high blood insulin levels/high blood sugar all in response to lots of carbs. Especially those high glycemic carbs like cereal, bread, pasta, fries, desserts etc., all yummy to be sure. (many veggies, most salad type veggies, not a problem though)

But notice cancer is not on that list. However, blood insulin and sugar both are considered by many to be big players when it comes to cancer, so there may even be an advantage when it comes to that, or at least enough to overcome any suspected harms. Because a diet of the foods he loves, if you leave out the non-veggie and/or high glycemic carbs, lowers both insulin and blood sugar. In particular, there is virtually no insulin production in response to fat. Unlike bread or fries.

While some smart folks feel that meat causes cancer, keep in mind that you almost never find a meat eater who does not also eat plenty of carbs with his meat. There are not a lot of the meat plus salad/broccoli types around. But when you do find them, I bet they are usually lean with the BP and triglycerides of an 18 year old. That is pretty consistently observed, though I could not speak to their cancer status.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 4/10/2016 1:34:07 PM (GMT-6)

What I noticed is when I started eating very healthy after pca diagnosis , and this took awhile, I really started to enjoy the new diet and the thought of the junk I was eating before actually turned me off. Now after close to 7 years post op… I do eat the occasional fries , pizza a good burger etc. But I eat a lot of greens sweet potatoes tuna sardines and tons of straw and blueberries walnuts…lots of antioxidants to combat the free radicles that are produced by 90 minutes of cardio…pretty much daily.Oh and Mush for breakfast religiously. Anyway you may try to negotiate a deal with hubby to go on a clean and healthy diet for a month. Hopefully he will see the difference in how he feels and be hooked… If not you tried and release him to the the great american clog diet.. If this happens a solution for you is cook many of the dishes you like ahead of time and feed him and junior boy{affectionate term in hawaii for adolescence }what they want and just heat up yours…….Let em eat Cake..

Thank you for an interesting thread. Lots to learn here!

Bo, regarding my recent PSA test results.

10/09/15***0.211
12/09/15***0.252
02/10/16***0.307
03/30/16***0.258

Now, before you try to draw conclusions you
need to understand the difference between an
"experimental" diet and a "set" diet.

As an experimental diet, I am trying new things
(usually 2 to 4) during each test period. They
may work or they may not, and I re-adjust from
there. This diet will not be set until I tested all
the combinations of interest to me, or until I reach
a PSA of somewhere between 0.5 and 1.0, where I
will go with a diet that gives good results, yet allows
me a few things that I enjoy. This will then become
the set diet. We will then see how well it performs
over time.

Cashless

Is there anything in the literature on extremely lean red meat (as in game)? I've looked and, not surprisingly, haven't found any. Over 95% of my meat is elk, deer, and game birds. Couldn't be leaner or more organic...but wow, do I eat a lot of it.

I do cook it with lots of garlic, fresh ginger, and Indian spices.

From the For-What-It's-Worth Department, Glycemic Index has been shown in nutritional studies (not the junk science stuff) to be of less effect than previously thought. Not to worry. It will, like the incredible edible egg, be back. Give it a few years and more studies.

Tim G said...
From the For-What-It's-Worth Department, Glycemic Index has been shown in nutritional studies (not the junk science stuff) to be of less effect than previously thought. Not to worry. It will, like the incredible edible egg, be back. Give it a few years and more studies.

Do you have some specific studies in mind? But I can see where just going by the glycemic index alone might not get the job done. But I have not seen any studies where getting rid of bread,pasta, desserts etc and replacing with a low carb diet, higher fat, moderate protein diet did not have impressive results in several important ways, for however long folks keep eating that way.

There are a lot of studies out there that don't seem like junk science to me. For example, here is a randomized trial from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia ; University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis ; and Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, in the 2003 New England Journal of Medicine.

This one is extra interesting to me because it compares the plain vanilla Atkins diet - with no attempts to improve it by eating healthier fats or reducing calories etc, just plain old high fat, probably high saturated fat, maybe high protein--- whatever and as much as the folks wanted to eat except carbs, AKA Atkins. Compared to the normally physician/dietician recommended a low fat, low calorie diet, which at least some folks might call(after greatly reducing both fat and calories) a starvation diet. Probably a slam dunk for low fat/low cal was expected.

Despite the great difference in these 2 diets, and despite the fact that one group was eating however much food they wanted, weight loss was double at 6 months and 1.6 times greater at 1 year for the low carb/high fat group.

But what about systolic blood pressure? At 6 months, the high fat/low carb group was down 2.3% vs +1 for the low fat/low calorie group. At 1 year, low carb still minus 1% vs +1.7 for the usual recommended diet.

How about triglycerides? Atkins minus 17% at 1 year vs +1%! After a year of low fat and low carb, their TGLs actually went up, vs a very significant drop for the fat eaters who ate as much as they wanted!

In the LDL, finally low fat wins one, dropping 3% at 12 months vs a 0.3% increase for the high fat group.

Low fat also wins at total C, with a drop at 1 year of 2.9% vs a rise for Atkins of 0.1%. But here is where the tables turn: even though the total went up slightly, the good was all of that and then some, with HDL going up a whopping 11% vs 1.6% for low fat. Which I'd say MORE than compensates for the 3% win at the LDL #s for low fat.

Summary: low fat/low cal wins total LDL by being 3.3% better. Low carb/high fat/ eat until full wins Triglycerides by 18%, HDL by 9.4%, blood pressure by 2.7% improved, and double the weight loss at 6 months and still 1.6 times more loss at 1 year, despite no calorie restriction.

Or, if you would rather have it in their own words regarding heart health risk factors and these two diets:

Somebody said...
An important health concern of consuming unrestricted amounts of saturated fat is the potential to increase the LDL cholesterol concentration, which is an established risk factor for coronary heart disease. In fact, at three months, the LDL cholesterol concentration tended to increase in the subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet but decreased in the subjects on the conventional diet, so the difference between groups was significant. Over the long term, however, the LDL cholesterol concentration among subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet was similar to base-line values, and the changes in LDL cholesterol concentrations did not differ significantly between the groups. These data suggest that the increased weight loss associated with the low-carbohydrate diet may offset the adverse effect of saturated fat intake on serum LDL cholesterol concentrations. Nonetheless, weight loss with the low-carbohydrate diet was not associated with the decreases in LDL cholesterol usually observed with moderate weight loss.4,30

In contrast, the low-carbohydrate diet was associated with greater decreases in serum triglycerides and greater increases in HDL cholesterol than was the conventional diet, and the levels of both are also important risk factors for coronary heart disease.31-33 The magnitude of these changes approximates that obtained with pharmacologic treatments, such as derivatives of fibric acid and niacin.31 Although part of this benefit may be due to the greater weight loss with the low-carbohydrate diet, the changes are greater than those expected from a moderate weight loss alone.30 Therefore, it is likely that the macronutrient composition of the diet contributed to the improvement in the HDL cholesterol–triglyceride axis. High-carbohydrate, low-fat diets decrease HDL cholesterol concentrations and increase serum triglyceride concentrations,34-37 whereas low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets decrease triglyceride concentrations16,27,37 and increase HDL cholesterol concentrations.15 Moreover, replacing dietary polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fat with carbohydrate is associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease, as predicted by changes in triglyceride and HDL cholesterol concentrations.38

www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022207#t=article

No doubt there are some conflicting studies, there always are. But considering several folks here have had similar results when they take a lower carb approach, and considering there are quite a few other studies that confirm this going back a lot of years, I personally don't feel it is junk science. But it definitely does not agree with every thing they(most authorities) have been telling us for 30+ years, aka conventional wisdom.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148063

Somebody said...
CONCLUSIONS:

Compared with a low-fat diet, a low-carbohydrate diet program had better participant retention and greater weight loss. During active weight loss, serum triglyceride levels decreased more and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level increased more with the low-carbohydrate diet than with the low-fat diet.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 4/15/2016 11:05:32 AM (GMT-6)

This is old news, but somehow I stumbled onto it while at another web site, and thought it was worth quoting. But I am also thinking: maybe lots of folks get cancer and then go vegan hoping to help their situation?
www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2025584-vegetarians-are-less-healthy-and-have-lower-quality-of-life-compared-to-those-who-eat-meat/?iid=ob_article_footer_expansion

Somebody said...
Vegetarians are less healthy than meat-eaters, says a study, even though vegetarians don’t consume as much alcohol and smoke less.

A study done by the Medical University Graz in Austria surveyed 1,320 individuals and matched them according to their age, sex, and socioeconomic status.

Although vegetarians have a higher socioeconomic status, drink less alcohol, smoke less, and are more likely to be physically active, their dietary habit might not be as healthy.....................

The study determined that adults who follow a vegetarian diet are less healthy, in terms of cancer, allergies and mental health disorders, compared to other dietary habit groups.

Researchers also determined that vegetarians have a lower quality of life, and also require more medical treatment.

“When analyzing the frequency of chronic diseases, we found significantly higher cancer incidence rates in vegetarians than in subjects with other dietary habits,” said the study.

Well, there are studies to support about any hypothesis I guess.

Tim G said...

BillyBob@388 said...

Tim G said...
From the For-What-It's-Worth Department, Glycemic Index has been shown in nutritional studies (not the junk science stuff) to be of less effect than previously thought. Not to worry. It will, like the incredible edible egg, be back. Give it a few years and more studies.

Do you have some specific studies in mind? But I can see where just going by the glycemic index alone might not get the job done. But I have not seen any studies where getting rid of bread,pasta, desserts etc and replacing with a low carb diet, higher fat, moderate protein diet did not have impressive results in several important ways, for however long folks keep eating that way.

Billy Bob--There have been several articles in the past year in the Tufts University Health and Nutrition newsletter about the GI index: Here is a section from one:

Led by Frank M. Sacks, MD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, the OmniCarb study rotated participants through two of four different diets for five weeks at a time. All food was provided, and the diets were generally healthy with similar calorie totals. Two diets were slightly higher in carbohydrates than the typical US diet, with the other two somewhat lower. The lower carbohydrate intake was associated with improvements in cardiovascular risk factors including cholesterol, triglyceride and blood-pressure levels.

But few similar gains were specifically linked to a low-GI diet, in which participants were fed foods such as whole-grain bread and cereal, steel-cut oats, apples and non-starchy vegetables. Triglycerides were lower in the low-GI/low-carb diet compared to a high-GI/high-carb regimen, but there was no significant improvement in insulin sensitivity, blood pressure or cholesterol.

Critics of the new study, however, pointed out that the differences between the high- and low-GI diets were quite small. The brief, two-week “wash-out” period between each regimen may also have been too brief—a problem obscured by the statistical complexity of the study’s design. Dr. Jenkins suggested that because the study did not include people with type 2 diabetes, it may have failed to detect some of the cardiovascular benefits of low-GI diets.

Publishing their findings in JAMA, the researchers conceded that their trial did not attempt to “address the effect of glycemic index in a typical US diet.” But Dr. Sacks said, “The takeaway is a good message for people. They can pick foods that are part of a healthy dietary pattern without wondering if they’re high or low glycemic. They don’t have to learn that system.” People should choose whole grains, fruits and vegetables and high-fiber foods, he added, but because of the nutrients they contain, not their glycemic index .

Thx Tim. As that quote itself points out, there may be problems with one or both of these studies. Or not.

I should have been more specific about the concept of GI food, because the bottom line is low carb. I think I said previously, GI index alone may not be enough to go buy, and also that a problem IMO with many studies on low carb vs low cal/low fat or even vs typical US diet is that often the studies are not true low carb, not low enough to get the ball rolling and even get into benign ketosis where things(supposedly good) really start happening.

Notice the term "as whole-grain bread and cereal" in the 2nd study that got marginal results. Whole grain bread/cereal may well be relatively lower glycemic than than Wonder white bread and corn flakes, for sure. But still of you are eating very much of either, it's not going to be very low carb(all depending on amount consumed of course).

For me, low glycemic just helps me to identify foods which I can eat relatively more of compared to hi GI without leaving the low carb realm(a realm I may enter again one day LOL). Still, there are somewhat low GI foods and very low GI foods. Any sort of bread or cereal, if qualifying as low glycemic at all, is probably going to be towards the high end of the glycemic range. And eat a little more of it, and you are right back where you started. If they had much bread or cereal on that 2nd diet, it might have still been technically low GI, but it is unlikely it was also low carb enough to be much good.

Broccoli or spinach and most(not all) salad veggies(and even some fruit) and nuts OTOH are quite the different story, most extremely low GI. Once you subtract the fiber from the carb for a net carb rating, you have to eat a whole bunch of them to get enough carb for other than a low blood sugar or insulin response. Especially if eaten with meat(fat) which slows their absorption and attendant blood sugar and insulin spike.

So one or both of these studies MIGHT be questionable regarding what I have been speaking of.

But still, both diets were beneficial, even if the 2nd one only in one way: triglycerides. I think it must be close to 100% as far as studies go. Lower the total net carb load and you lower the TGLs. Lower the carbs a lot, and you slash the TGLs more than any drug can, or more than any drug can lower cholesterol. You may also raise the good HDL, though I think increasing fat has more to do with that. And even though the 1st study was a minimal Two diets were slightly higher in carbohydrates than the typical US diet, with the other two somewhat lower . (Somewhat lower? No big changes there for sure), still, regardless, by cutting the carbs just slightly "The lower carbohydrate intake was associated with improvements in cardiovascular risk factors including cholesterol, triglyceride and blood-pressure levels.".

Wow! I wonder what the results would have been if they had done an actual true low carb intervention? It seems to me that people are very often hesitant to do a true low carb/plenty of fat test (compared to whatever) because they believe the conventional wisdom that they are going to kill folks by raising their cholesterol. Plus, they may know in their gut that doing such a fair test will completely contradict the advice they have been giving people for 30+ years. (And let me add: 30 years of steady diabetes and obesity increase for the population in general, despite the exercise boom that many people have participated in)

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 4/18/2016 1:13:40 PM (GMT-6)