A Diet For Prostate Cancer

I have made my email address available in my profile.

I will email the diet and supplement info to all who request it.

They are the Dattoli-Myers diet recommendations.

Yes, please, domino.
Also, my anecdote on supersize portions of cashless's protocol carried "<" through a 6 mos PSA this week.
So many hard stories here recently.
Best to all.

Wilderness

Reachout,
I have a few questions for you please since I know your results are good
With your diets. I bough the MCP and pomi t and started taking them. I am just
Frustrated that my vegan diet is not working for me. My questions are please:
1) do you eat rice?
2) do you eat fruit and what amounts?
3) do you take the MCP on an empty stomach, does it have to be on empty stomach?
4) what your breakfast usually like?
5) do you walk?i don’t walk but do resistance training, is it enough or I must walk?
Thanks very much for taking the time to answer them. I am trying to tweak
My diet to control the psa but failing miserably

cashlessclay said...
Another PSA reading - - - 0.459

Last 6 readings: 0.461, 0.486, 0.514, 0.518, 0.505 and 0.459

The first three readings were oatmeal with "zero" fruit, while the
last three had 3, 4, and 5 raspberries. All were steelcut oatmeal
cooked with little water, so the cereal was "chewy", and had very
little (2 oz) of almond milk. Last three were with no milk. All had
about 2 walnuts added.

You need to get breakfast right for any cancer diet to work.

Cashless

Sweeeeet! I don't mean sugar/insulin type of sweet, more symbolic or metaphorically type of sweet.

My last PSA reading was 0.459 down from 0.505, five weeks earlier.

I'm growing more confident that a diet can have a PSA "roll back"
capability. It appears to me that if you can create a "cancer-neutral"
diet, one that neither allows cancer to grow nor shrink, that you
can then "control" the cancer growth rate by varying a single input.

In my case, the diet described at the start of this thread, is a cancer-
neutral diet, with about 2-3 raspberries on the oatmeal. Increasing the
raspberries to 5, has allowed me to "roll-back" PSA. Too many (mixed)
berries has killed a diet for me in the past. I don't know how many
raspberries (alone) is "too many" at this point. The trade-off appears
to be the anticancer effect of "ellagic acid" found in raspberries versus
the pro-cancer "insulin response" to the increased sugar content of the
higher berry count.

Adding raspberries to a typical diet will have no effect whatsoever.

Cashless

Normal, you bring up some good points.

First, let me say that my will power is very strong,
strong enough to eat identical meals, day-to-day,
if I had to. But I don't have to.

I have found that, concerning my cancer, food falls
into three baskets. The first basket is "off limits",
consisting of foods that support cancer growth. Foods
that have a high glycemic index, that are high in iron,
high in arachidonic acid, and high in linoleic acid are
included.

The second basket are foods that are "neutral", and they
make up the bulk of the diet. These foods are neither
very helpful nor harmful. They will not harm a working
diet, nor save a nonworking diet. They are found largely
in the produce section.

The third basket are foods that make a measurable,
positive difference in reducing cancer growth rates. They may or
may not be dose dependent. I found "soy" and "raspberries"
to make a measurable difference. I removed soy from a working
diet and it no longer worked. Added it back in, and the diet, once
again, worked. Added additional soy, and there was no further
improvement. As for raspberries, again, a working diet no longer
worked upon removal, and worked once again when put back in.
Only here, raspberries appear to have some dose dependency - -
4 or 5 worked better than 2 or 3.

So, back to your question. No I don't use the same identical meals,
but they have all been used before, and come from the "neutral"
basket. Also, I don't have just one or two data points using
raspberries, but more like 10 to 12. In all, I have 35 ultra-sensitive
PSA readings over a five and one half year period.


Normal, you say . . . "Before I say too much, let me say that I AM
a believer that lifestyle and nutritional changes (e.g. exercise and
diet) CAN have SOME minor effect on PSA for SOME people."

Five years ago, my urologist made it clear to me that I was wasting
my time. Now my GP is quite interested in what I'm doing, since my
PSA readings go through him. It's becoming increasingly clear to me
that our medical community has little knowledge on the impact of diet
and exercise on cancer progression.

. . . and you also say . . . " the “leap” from 2-3 raspberries all the way
up to 5 raspberries is going to be what we scientifically refer to as
“mice nuts.” In other words, it’s going to have a very small impact.
Not otherwise controlling the much larger part of your diet is going to
introduce operational confounding."

Can you offer some support for this statement? Aren't you assuming
that the "potency" of raspberries is similar to that of other foods?


Cashless

Domino95 when I click on your name no email still? Denis

Denis,

Concerning exercise activity, I have been very consistent for the
last 2-3 years, walking 3 miles/day in about 54 minutes. So, it
hasn't been a variable that had to be accounted for. I walk within
minutes of finishing breakfast, to reduce the insulin spike.

Logo, Sorry, but I know nothing about electrolyte replacement.

Cashless

cashlessclay, your little pseudo-science experiment is cute...makes me chuckle.

I would applaud and encourage you to continue eating more "cancer fighting foods" and fewer "cancer feeding foods." The human diet is extremely complex. And completely within that context, the notion that increasing the daily intake of raspberries from 2-3 up to 5 has makes a significant difference in PSA is preposterous...but at some point this starts falling into the category of "if he believes it's helping him, and he doesn't seem to be doing harm to anyone else, then more power to him and maybe there's some real benefit to the feeling of control and empowerment."

Rock on...and I'll continue to rock on elsewhere than in this thread...

Bubbatc said...
pseudo-science experiment

He has shown that it works for him and there is some research to back it up. He didn't make this stuff up.
With people suffering why do some consider it a victory for these things not to work? I don't get that.

I think you misread my response. Let me try again. There IS some sound scientific theories in support of the notion that there are foods that "fight" cancer and others that "feed" cancers. With the very complex nature of the human diet, it's impractical to actually isolate and control these, which would be necessary for any shred of scientific evidence/validity. Personally I have very little doubt that many of these theories are at least somewhat correct, so "some research" is ok by me (or at least, "some sound scientific theories"). The notion that in any way what he has described is anything close to a "controlled experiment" is absolutely preposterous, however...even though it seems like he thinks it is. But again, more power to him getting a feeling of being in-control! No harm, no foul. Cute, nonetheless.


BTW, "pseudo science" definition: a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. 2-3 raspberries holding PSA steady, but 5 "rolling back" PSA? Pseudo science is exactly what's going on here.

Post Edited (Normal59) : 9/24/2018 1:27:14 PM (GMT-6)

Bubbatc said...
absolutely preposterous?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312721/

Yes.



This part IS NOT PREPOSTEROUS:

Normal59 said...
There IS some sound scientific theories in support of the notion that there are foods that "fight" cancer and others that "feed" cancers. With the very complex nature of the human diet, it's impractical to actually isolate and control these, which would be necessary for any shred of scientific evidence/validity. Personally I have very little doubt that many of these theories are at least somewhat correct, so "some research" is ok by me (or at least, "some sound scientific theories").

The correlations discussed in the paper you linked to support this comment and say pretty much exactly what I just said...although, of course, "correlation is NOT causation."



This part IS PREPOSTEROUS:

Normal59 said...
The notion that in any way what he has described is anything close to a "controlled experiment" is absolutely preposterous, however...even though it seems like he thinks it is. ...


BTW, "pseudo science" definition: a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. 2-3 raspberries holding PSA steady, but 5 "rolling back" PSA? Pseudo science is exactly what's going on here.

Mice nuts.

Post Edited (Normal59) : 9/24/2018 2:03:51 PM (GMT-6)

Someone said . . . "cashlessclay, your little pseudo-science experiment is cute...
makes me chuckle."

It may not make me chuckle, but it certainly makes me smile.
The diet began 5 1/2 years ago, after both surgery and SRT failed.
Today, without diet & exercise, my PSA would be about 46; or "100 times"
my last reading of 0.459 (using the Labcorp ultra-sensitive test).

MY PSA's over the last 13 months have been:

August 16, 2017 PSA = 0.461,
Jan. 17, 2018 PSA = 0.458,
March 27, 2018 PSA = 0.461,
Sept. 17, 2018 PSA = 0.459.

There were variations, up and down, between these dates, due to varying numbers
of (dare I say the word) "raspberries", but over a 13 month period, I was still able to
totally contain PSA.

You can call it a "pseudo-science experiment", but I'll call it a "working hypothesis,
with prognostic value".

Do you grasp the fact that my PSA is "0.459", rather than "46", as projected using
my demonstrated doubling time prior to D&E?

Do you grasp the fact that my PSA is "unchanged" after 13 months; even with two
"failed" experiments, using too many, and too few, berries?

I'm providing "results", actual "numbers" . . . what are you contributing to this thread?

Cashless