Dr Greger on pc and foods

this is just one of the many subjects on foods and cancer. Flax seeds actually can reverse PC. Better yet, read his book...How not to Die

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/flaxseed-vs-prostate-cancer/

This is the book that was discussed by BillyBob in the Ornish thread. So it seems Geger claims that saturated fat is good, but now there is another source that says flax seed is bad.

Great. I've read nothing but good things about flax seed and Omega 3. So i started putting it in my steel cut oats every morning. And now i find out it contains cyanide. What next.

Sometimes i think what the hell am i torturing myself for? Eat whatever you want, have a good steak on the weekends, enjoy a pastrami sandwich whenever you want one, and hope for the best.

Post Edited (Pratoman) : 1/17/2016 2:09:03 PM (GMT-7)

www.alsearsmd.com/2010/11/more-fake-food-do-not-fall-for-the-flaxseed-lie/

Please watch your sources. Flax seeds are like wheat, or oats, they grow as any grains and they are very healthy for you.

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=81

Never saw anything about Dr Greger saying saturated fats are good for you, in fact he says the exact opposite. Fats equals diabeties, artery clogging etc. He backs it all with proven science.

Thanks Pratoman, there certainly a lot of confusion, but again you have to believe the science. I know too many vegetarians who have lost weight and kept it off, getting off their meds and living a longer healthier life. I feel better now than ever, as I go through my radiation, I will continue to eat what he recommends. Given the price of meat today...what an incentive...lol....this is all related toPC and other cancers as I believe most comes from the foods we eat and air we breath. God bless

I took a nutrition class a few years ago and the recommendations regarding flax were:

1). Toast it or use it in recipes where it will be cooked or baked as raw flax seed can have toxins. Heating it destroys the toxins. (I don't recall any specific references to cyanide but that would certainly be considered a toxin!)
2). Grind it rather than using the seed whole. If seeds pass thru the digestive tract whole, you don't really gain much benefit.
3). Store flax seed in the refrig to extend shelf life.

Again, I only believe what I can see as proof in the science.....we can go all week with statements...here is one
http://www.psa-rising.com/foodnews/2007/06/flaxseed-slows-prostate-cancer-more-evidence/

more importantly here is Dr Greger:
http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/flax-seeds/

I thought this was interesting:
nutritionfacts.org/2016/01/12/evidence-based-nutrition/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=evidence-based-nutrition&utm_source=NutritionFacts.org&utm_campaign=c19070d952-RSS_BLOG_WEEKLY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_40f9e497d1-c19070d952-23982641

Somebody said...
Dr. Esselstyn’s landmark study, demonstrating that even advanced triple vessel coronary artery disease could be reversed with a plant-based diet, has been criticized for being such a small study. But the reason we’re used to seeing large studies is that they typically show such small effects. Drug manufacturers may need to study 7,000 people in order to show a barely statistically significant 15% drop in ischemic events in a subsample of patients. Esselstyn achieved a 100% drop in those who stuck to his diet, all the more compelling considering that those 18 participants had experienced 49 coronary events (like heart attacks) in the eight years before they went on the diet. These patients were the sickest of the sick, most of whom having already failed surgical intervention. When the effects are so dramatic, how many people do you need?

Before 1885, a symptomatic rabies infection was a death sentence, until little Joseph Meister became the first to receive Pasteur’s experimental rabies vaccine. The results of this and one other case were so dramatic compared with previous experience that the new treatment was accepted with a sample size of two. That is, the results were so compelling that no randomized controlled trial was necessary. Having been infected by a rabid dog, would you be willing to participate in a randomized controlled trial, when being in the control group had a certainty of a ‘‘most awful death’’? Sadly, such a question is not entirely rhetorical.

In the 1970’s, a revolutionary treatment for babies with immature lungs......................

Getting off topic. But much of the current thinking is against these points of Dr. Greger.
That the epidemic of what used to be called "adult onset diabetes" (though now found in as young as teens) is primarily due to a current diet heavy in refined carbs and sugar, a diet we did not evolve to be eating. And some think that carbs generally - whether refined or whole - are problematic in quantity.

And that high levels of dietary fat are only weakly, if at all, linked to clogged arteries.

sixpacks said...
Please watch your sources. Flax seeds are like wheat, or oats, they grow as any grains and they are very healthy for you.

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=81

Never saw anything about Dr Greger saying saturated fats are good for you, in fact he says the exact opposite. Fats equals diabeties, artery clogging etc. He backs it all with proven science.

dmlvt said...
Some say grains are very good for you. I go out of my way to avoid grains and grain-based products, although life without occasional pizza might not be worth living.

The "science" of nutrition is in its infancy and we don't really know a whole lot to be true.

Truly valid studies in nutrition are very expensive to conduct, as they require the subjects to live in wards where all input can be tightly controlled.

(WARNING: LONG! Sorry for the length just skip if you can't stand lengthy posts)

So true. And, the trouble with "just going by the science" is: whose science are we using? As Prato says, it is all quite contradictory. It's really quite hard to know what is best based on available Scientific studies not to mention what our doctors recommend.

I have just finished reading Dr. Greger's book"How not to die" that I had mentioned here a few times in another thread. He makes a very strong case, and almost has me convinced to go to a strictly plant-based diet. But as Prato has also pointed out, if you're going to talk about science, I have provided over in the"Ornish" thread quite a few studies that – at least regarding cardiovascular disease indicators(blood lipids) totally contradict any supposed fact that saturated fat and protein should be greatly decreased while carbohydrates are increased. Frankly, I have yet to see a study that shows cutting saturated fat helps with anything other than the one factor, LDL, And even then only a very specific type of LDL. At least when compared to the benefits of cutting carbohydrates. The studies that I have posted showed that there really is not much comparison. Cutting carbohydrates, whether or not you cut or even raise saturated fat, generally improves every single indicator(Except that one: LDL) that the doctors all tell us need to be improved:HDL, triglycerides, weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, blood sugar, blood insulin, IGF-1, etc.

So I have to look at the conflicting advice and even studies and come up with a conclusion. Not easy today. Now regarding all of these so-called heart disease indicators, I also have to add my own results and the results of a close friend. Our personal results totally confirm the studies mentioned above(see the "Ornish" thread for a sampling of those studies).

However, very few if any of those studies have anything to do with cancer, a much bigger concern for me at the moment. Not to mention, just because we improve all those indicators does not mean we even improve our cardiovascular risk, although all of the doctor seems to think it is extremely important to improve those indicators. And I can't say I've seen studies that indicate that leaving saturated fat and total fat alone(or even increasing) while drastically cutting most carbohydrates other than certain vegetables actually improves heart disease risk even if it does improve all those indicators. But as far as cancer goes, the only thing I've got to go by is the idea of that a whole bunch of big brains in the cancer research area seem to think that insulin and IGF1 and blood sugar levels have a big influence on the growth of cancer, and all of the above studies seem to indicate that(regardless of fat) cutting the carbohydrates slashes both of those, far more than anything else.

Now what I have to figure out is if going to either extreme has similar effects and possibly even a better effect regarding cancer with the no meat approach. Because most of those studies I have seen do not compare a very low carbohydrate diet against a totally plant-based diet, but rather simply against the traditional low fat diet that all of our doctors seem to love so much. Because if you are eating as many vegetables is Dr. Greger wants you to eat, not to mention leaving out meat/saturated fat, you are almost by definition cutting your carbohydrate load significantly as well as cutting the total calories. And most likely both of those will have a significant effect on all of the cardiovascular indicators, and maybe not having the meat we'll also have a superior effect on cancer growth, maybe. I have at least seen a couple of small studies by the "all plant" guys indicating an improvement in measurable cancer or cancer risk, plus there exist small studies that showed improvement in the arterial blockage (and also I think on PC). Unlike the indeicators which if we improve everybody says SHOULD help our heart risk, I don't see how an artery with decreased blockage can't help but be a good thing. So while I believe that drastically cutting carbohydrates will improve almost every indicator of heart disease and might possibly lower risk of cancer by cutting blood sugar, insulin and IGF1 levels, I cannot supply studies showing it actually improves heart disease occurrence(as opposed to indicators) or cancer occurrence/recurrence.

And another thing that impresses me regarding the" plant-based" approach–in addition to the small studies by Ornish et all- already mentioned-are the Seventh-day Adventist's studies of their members over many years. It turns out that not all Seventh-day Adventists(correct me if I'm wrong) are vegetarians and a fair number eat plenty of meat, even though apparently that is frowned upon. And in pretty much all of the health areas– whether cardiovascular or cancer related–there is a fairly dramatic decrease in all those diseases as you go from those who eat plants+ meat regularly to those who eat meat rarely, to those who eat only only plants+eggs/dairy, to only plants + fish, to finally NO animal products at all. Though it is possible that those doing those studies do have a bias, the results definitely get my attention. As it stands now, all I have done is significantly reducing animal products(I've already cut back on eggs/ chicken for quite a while) and trying to vastly increase every type of vegetable.

We will see how that goes. But, my weight is up significantly through the holiday period(as usual) and I may have to get back totally on a extremely low carb diet for a while just to get the weight back down. That's probably going to mean plenty of meat, at least for a few weeks or months. Plus I have not yet decided if I can mentally go zero animal products for other than relatively short periods of time. But so far cutting back a bit(some days a lot) on animal products has not lost me a single ounce, and my blood pressure is up just a bit from it's normally quite low number. Which was expected and normal considering all of the carbohydrates I have consumed since Thanksgiving, including the last piece of my birthday cake was just calling my name at this very moment. YUM!

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 1/22/2016 11:02:28 AM (GMT-7)

Thanks for your input. I agree with most of what you say, however your statement on carbs needs closer attention. This is just a small quote from Dr Greger (my idol). " studies that measure the impact of low carb diets on arteries directly, and a review of all the best studies to date found that low-carb diets impair arterial function, as evidenced by a decrease in flow-mediated dilation, meaning low-carb diets effectively stiffen people’s arteries." As he says, you can go on a cocaine diet and you will lose weight BUT....what it does to your body.

Note: I increased my flax to 1\2 cup a day to.....good luck and have a great day.

sixpacks said...
Thanks for your input. I agree with most of what you say, however your statement on carbs needs closer attention. This is just a small quote from Dr Greger (my idol). " studies that measure the impact of low carb diets on arteries directly, and a review of all the best studies to date found that low-carb diets impair arterial function, as evidenced by a decrease in flow-mediated dilation, meaning low-carb diets effectively stiffen people’s arteries." As he says, you can go on a cocaine diet and you will lose weight BUT....what it does to your body.

Note: I increased my flax to 1\2 cup a day to.....good luck and have a great day.

Watched the Dr. Greger video. Loved it! Yay flax. Flax was first brought to the attention of cancer patients by a Dr. Budwig(RIP). She was a German biochemist who treated stage IV cancer patients. Part of her approach (The Budwig Protocol) was feeding her patients ground flax mixed with quark (similar to cottage cheese, but not the same). Since I hate cottage cheese, I do 2 oz. of flax, mixed with 6 oz of goat yogurt, mixed using a mixer (she said that is critical, as the proteins from the flax and the quark only bond correctly, if mixed with an electric mixer). I top off this dish with cinnamon and/or berries, usually both, but one at a time, if that makes any sense. lol

As far as the potential for hardening of the arteries being caused by a low carb diet, thanks for that info. I appreciate it. But, frankly, I'm not going to worry much about that. I was a vegetarian, mostly vegan, for over 20 yrs of my life. Additionally, I was a long distance runner for some of those years. Never had high blood pressure, although low blood pressure was a big problem for me as a teenager. You should ahve seen the nurses eyes when they tried to measure my blood pressur, as it was too low for them to get a reading. Their eyes would get big, as they proclaimed, "You don't have any blood pressure!" The blood banks refused to take any blood from me, as it would be too dangerous to take blood from someone with such low pressure.

So, the choice between a low-carb, anti-cancer diet, and heart/arterial issues is a no-brainer. However, having said that, I do eat some carbs. In particular, the modified Budwig breakfast is about 11 carbs; my main carb meal of the day. Since milk has sugar in it, there's a few carbs in my double cappucino, and then there are carbs in the veggies and berries I eat. So I am probably eating well over 20 carbs per day; more on days when I cheat a little. lol

BTW, your idol is Dr. Greger. Mine is Dr. Seyfried. lol

Again thanks for all your input. Was almost at the point of saying we are getting off the PC issue, but that relates to flax. So, I will be starting my radiation this week and I am told to not eat any gassy foods. That eliminates one hell of a lot of foods, as I follow close to the vegan diet. Whats left after no beans, dark legumes, nuts, cucumbers ,most fruits with peal....and more. So back to eating some meats, no chicken, as I have to maintain at least a minimum of 100 gms of protein...should be able to do it.