Vegan shmegan

pescatarian??

Am I the only one that had to look that up?

For those of us in Rio Linda, that's a diet that is basically vegetarian except they eat seafood and possibly dairy. But no flesh of land animals.

That would be pretty cool if I liked fish,.. well I love fried catfish. But that's not exactly healthy is it.

Tall Allen said...
... the study does definitely prove that increasing veggie intake and decreasing meat intake had no effect on PC progression.

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about! Anyway, I've seen a lot of diets come and go over the years. Anyone remember macrobiotics? I've never followed any one. I suppose how I eat now is something like Atkins, but only because I require meat to stay alive. If anyone who believes that pasta or cheese provides enough protein to sustain oxidative metabolism has never had the kind of headaches I get if I don't have some meat every day.

The other stuff? I have a salad or munch on a few carrots and maybe some rice or potato (not fried) to go along with the meat. As I tell my wife, the stuff she wants me to live on is just stuff that goes along with the meal, as a side dish, and is not the meal itself. In other words, it's a snack.

Avoid fried foods, don't go overboard with carbs (starch or sugar) and stick to natural dairy... milk, butter and cheese. No artificial substitutes. Did I end up with prostate cancer? Definitely, but so do two out of three men my age. So I'm definitely in the majority. Obviously it was Laurel.

All open for refute, but no one is going to change how I eat.

Good to see you posting again Cashless.

I think minimally any diet that doesn't zero out sweeteners has little promise of significantly slowing progression. Next up would be zeroing out processed foods, meat, dairy.

There will NEVER be level one evidence. But then there isn't for the efficacy of the parachute either or safety helmets or seatbelts or turn signals - or most of what we know about health and safety. Those who would require level one evidence would do better to move on from this.

Wilderness says . . . "I think minimally any diet that doesn't zero out
sweeteners has little promise of significantly slowing progression. Next
up would be zeroing out processed foods, meat, dairy."

I agree.

So far, a simple model for cancer progression appears to be holding up.

Enjoy some soy and control the following:

- Arachidonic acid (found in meat, dairy, farmed seafood)

- Insulin response (avoid high glycemic foods, like sugar, bread, potatoes and desserts)

- dietary iron (found in meat, clams, oysters)

- chondroitin sulfate (found in supplements for joint pain)

The resulting diet will be anti-inflammatory and anti-angiogenesis.

In my experience, weight loss and lipid panel results are a clear indication
if someone is staying on a viable diet. If the BMI hasn't changed, the diet
is not serious. So, the MEAL study has shown that diets that are not
serious don't work.

Cashless

BMI doesn't change unless one makes a concerted effort to change it. Weight Watchers calls it the "set point" - more scientifically it's "homeostasis" Our bodies want us to stay the way it is - if we consume fewer calories, metabolism will slow and vice versa. The brain will send hard-to-ignore hunger signals if the calorie intake doesn't maintain homeostasis. So one key finding of this study is that eating more veggies and less meat is not in itself enough to lose weight - one has to cognitively override homeostasis by consuming fewer calories (over-riding hunger) and exercising more (over-riding metabolic slowing). To change BMI, one has to change more than eating more veggies and consuming less meat.

My onco tells me to do the best I can to enjoy my life.

A good steak, onion rings, and fried okra will make my week. Piles of vegetables will not.

@142, my Cardiologist agrees with your oncologist.

@TA, mtnwife, i agree with Allen, these were extremely small cohorts. With that said though, its beyond my understanding why those studies (cited by mtnwife) did not prompt SOMEONE to follow up with a larger scale trial. except for the fact that those who could fund such a trial (big pharma) have no financial interest.

Allen, are those two studies cited by mtnwife worth completely ignoring? Serious question, not being sarcastic

142 said...
onion rings

so what do you do when you see an onion ring?

answer it.

Pratoman-

PDA nailed it. They were not at all ignored. In fact, the MEAL RCT was the larger scale follow up. It was funded by your tax dollars.

I think I've begun to channel my friend Tony Crispino in his advocacy of Level 1 evidence. When Level 1 evidence conflicts with lower level evidence, we have to throw them out. They served their purpose - hypothesis generation - and then we have to let them go. That's how learning and progress occur in medicine.

I guess it really is ok to eat whatever. My life just became so much easier lol.

But then there’s Cashless, Wilderness, et al. And again I pause to think 🤔 too much

Pratoman, diet and exercise can work, your life is not easier.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the general statement that a diet modification program,
that would be acceptable to most patients, will not help with cancer progression. I've had
this conversation with my doctor - - - not much self discipline out there. I grew up in a post
WW-II "no excuses" environment, so self-discipline was the norm.

Cashless

Cashless, I was being sarcastic.

Reality is while your situation is very impressive to say the least, it is anecdotal, there is just too much conflicting information out there .

And yup, I’m one of the guys with a whole,lot less self discipline than you have. I am envious. But to me there is a joy in a good steak, or dessert. I’m not saying overindulge. I just can’t do what you do, so I, like many others, try for balance.

I wish it were that easy. And straightforward.

I do appreciate your comments, as well as your ongoing posts, which I always look forward to.