inhibits growth, induces cell death in prostate cancer cells but no effect on normal prostate cells

Never having looked into this topic before, this thread motivated me to survey the large body of reading material available online.

I learned the following.

Vitamin E is not one thing. There are (at least) eight variants of Vitamin E, each of which may have different effects from the others on various forms of cancers, and on other health issues.

Clarity for the non-technical reader on the subject of Vitamin E will not come until the variants are renamed E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E8, and all discussions use this notation to make clear which variant of Vitamin E is being referred to.

The variant present in most Vitamin E supplement products is called alpha tocopherol, which I will call Vitamin E1.

The two randomized clinical trials, commonly referred to as FINNISH and SELECT, both studied the effect of Vitamin E1.

The FINNISH trial is not suspect for its methodology. But its purpose was to study effects of supplements on lung cancer. For that reason, all the participants were smokers. This fact, and the fact that all participants were FINNISH mean that the studied population was not representative of the population of members of HEALINGWELL. It may also explain why the results of the two trials were inconsistent.

The words in the title of this thread, alluding to possible desirable effects on prostate cancer, were not said about alpha tocopherol (Vitamin E1). They were said about gamma tocopherol, which I will call Vitamin E3. The author added words to make it clear that it was not about Vitamin E1.

Therefore, it is of no use whatever to discuss/debate the merits of the two trials when pondering the future of Vitamin E3 as an inhibitor of prostate cancer, or as a treatment for it.

So there is an investigation, in its infancy, of Vitamin E3, as to its desirable effects on prostate cancer. Can you buy Vitamin E3 supplements today? I think not. Can you reliably describe any dietary strategy that will deliver Vitamin E3 that is equivalent to what the scientists used in their experiments? I think not.

For the very small number of people who may have the interest, aptitude, discipline, and time to inquire into a very complicated and speculative topic, it may be of interest.

Is this a vitally important topic to be discussed at length on this forum? I think not.

Thats good work Bob

==So there is an investigation, in its infancy, of Vitamin E3, as to its desirable effects on prostate cancer.
But its NOT in its infancy at all, it was first found helpful in 2004 by the PHD I listed from Purdue on the Sigma Xi Scientific Research Society. Since then many others have joined in but no big studies. Thats the frustrating part of this. The Select study messed things up for all of us. Had that study not happened I think we would be talking about this differently today.

==Can you buy Vitamin E3 supplements today? I think not.
I can and do but I don't think I'm supposed to talk about it. It has an added benefit for lower cholesterol and infalmation. Food is better anyway.

==Can you reliably describe any dietary strategy that will deliver Vitamin E3 that is equivalent to what the scientists used in their experiments? I think not.
Yes black walnuts are at the top of the list. Peter doesn't like this site but there is some more info here -
If you read this article remember that it is sixteen years old.
https://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2002/10/report_gamma/Page-01
Just ignore where they sell stuff, they are too expensive anyway. I buy nothing from there.

There was also a Johns Hopkins study, I dont think has been mentioned yet -
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/92/24/2018/2633585
Compared with men in thttps://www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?r=e&f=35&m=4064060he lowest fifth, men in the highest fifth of the distribution of γ-tocopherol had a fivefold reduction in the risk of developing prostate cancer.

On importance, someone list the other things that -> inhibits growth and induces cell death in prostate and lung cancer cells but has no effect on normal prostate epithelial cells.

Hey look we are discussing like adults for 2 pages, no insults, no flames, no locked threads.

Post Edited By Moderator (PeterDisAbelard.) : 9/13/2018 10:56:36 PM (GMT-6)

But I sincerely doubt we are going to find a major breakthrough with a vitamin.

Entirely possible, but researchers at places like Rutgers School of Pharmacy, PHDs in Biochemistry at Purdue, Ohio State's Comprehensive Cancer Center, and others, are working to prove you wrong.

Post Edited (Bubbatc) : 9/13/2018 7:59:01 AM (GMT-6)

Buddy
My apologies, I put this list together quickly, I have much better links but I have to dig. I wasn't aware of that about Huntington post. By all means lets delete that if we can, mods?

I disagree about Life Extension, they do sell things but they have done some really good work also. However if that breaks a rule there was nothing on the links that was really needed for this discussion. Mods?

I would describe Life Extension as a site that sells snake oil. What's next? Mike Adams the Health Ranger?

Here is the update to the SELECT study, which found "dietary supplementation with Vitamin E significantly increases the risk of prostate cancer among healthy men":

"Extended follow-up of SELECT participants shows that healthy men with average risk of prostate cancer subjected to contemporary community standards of screening and biopsy who took a common dose and formulation of vitamin E (400 IU per day) have a significantly increased risk of prostate cancer. The observed 17% increase in prostate cancer incidence demonstrates the potential for seemingly innocuous yet biologically active substances such as vitamins to cause harm. The lack of benefit from dietary supplementation with vitamin E or other agents with respect to preventing common health conditions and cancers or improving overall survival, and their potential harm, underscore the need for consumers to be skeptical of health claims for unregulated over-the-counter products in the absence of strong evidence of benefit from clinical trials."

/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4169010/

PeterDisAbelard. said...
BillyBob,

I poked around a bit and, while I don't think I can answer your questions I can, at least, add some interesting further confusion.

That Finnish study was one of many studies released that all got their data from a big lung cancer study released in 1996. That's why all the participants were smokers. Here's that abstract:

Alpha-Tocopherol and beta-carotene supplements and lung cancer incidence in the alpha-tocopherol, beta-carotene cancer prevention study: effects of base-line characteristics and study compliance.

Here's a link that (I hope) will bring up a list of the studies in which the first listed author of the Finnish prostate cancer study (Heinonen OP) was listed as an author:

/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Heinonen%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=9521168

Apparently they mined that study for data about everything from pancreatic cancer to macular degeneration.

In the lung cancer study abstract they talk about the efforts they made to confirm that lung cancer was correctly reported on death certificates -- "Each lung cancer diagnosis was independently confirmed, and histology or cytology was available for 94% of the cases." I didn't see anything like that in the prostate cancer abstract.

That Finnish study is often cited as one of the motivations for the SELECT study. People were excited by the apparent prostate cancer benefits found in the data for the big lung cancer study and decided to confirm it in a similar study designed to target prostate cancer. And the rest in history.

I warned you that I was going to just add to your confusion...

Thank you, PDA. Yes, confusion remains. It would be nice to see an RCT of something other than synthetic Alpha, but that is not likely to happen.

The rules allow links to sites that are of informational support and assistance. They do prohibit links to sites that try to fund-raise or sell something, even if they are of value otherwise.

That leaves the Mods a bit of leeway. I am a bit strict on this one, as allowing some but not others gets back to the questions of favoritism. It also follows that even reputable sites for PCa can't be linked when the subject is fund raising.

I would say that your Life Extension site link is not allowed. You can go back and edit that out of your posts using the edit function.

Bubba,

Your article on LifeExtension.com is sixteen years old (Oct 2002) and your Hopkins study is two years older than that. When the LifeExtension study says "recent studies have shown" the studies she is talking about are now old enough to drink, and drive, and vote, but are not yet old enough to run for president.

This set me to wondering, what has been going on in the last 20 years? There was the SELECT trial, but aside from that, what is there? I found a couple of studies that seemed interesting. I read through them briefly but it would take me a lot more study to get everything out of them. Here are some links:

Serum α-Tocopherol and γ-Tocopherol Concentrations and Prostate Cancer Risk in the PLCO Screening Trial: A Nested Case-Control Study July 2012

Lessons Learned from Cancer Prevention Studies with Nutrients and Non-Nutritive Dietary Constituents June 2016.

One thing that surprised me is that plain old grocery store vitamin E supplements -- alpha Tocopherol -- do seem to help prevent prostate cancer if you are a smoker or have recently quit. If you have never smoked it seems to be bad for you.

As for gamma Tocopherol, there may be something there, but it's a bit vague and wobbly. Maybe they'll get it pinned down with more research, maybe not. We should circle back in a couple of years to see what is going on. In the meanwhile we should manfully resist the temptation to read research studies like we are watching sporting events, cheering for our team and booing the other guy.

Oh, and one more thing. Peanuts? Yum. I'm there. There's gonna be gamma Tocopherol in my diet after all.

142
I deleted the links

Pda thanks for the remark about its fun...we all take our selves too seriously... y oh y cant we let the butter fly...life is short...knowledge the first to die...

For Life Extension, a site you've promoted over and over Bubba, to suggest the FDA has "caused millions of humans to needlessly suffer and die" qualifies them as kooks, or worse, selling false hope to the infirm.

buyer beware...buddy...takes 2 to tango...sharks...snarks and slithy toves...