HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

Common myths regarding cancer

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 7/8/2018 3:15 PM (GMT 0)
This link to common myths regarding cancer.

Not sure how to set up as direct link. Maybe cut and paste?

https://www.rd.com/health/conditions/causes-of-cancer-myths/?trkid=NL-RANDOM-070818&_cmp=readuprdus&_ebid=readuprdus782018&_mid=229858&ehid=50EEC4EE1DC9F4C8134F075B3F7CFD8993149976
Posted 7/8/2018 3:25 PM (GMT 0)
Try this:

/www.rd.com/health/conditions/causes-of-cancer-myths/?trkid=NL-RANDOM-070818&_cmp=readuprdus&_ebid=readuprdus782018&_mid=229858&ehid=50EEC4EE1DC9F4C8134F075B3F7CFD8993149976

and good article.

Andrew
Posted 7/8/2018 5:00 PM (GMT 0)
Thank for posting direct link. I know some kind soul showed me how to do it some time ago. But that was BHT (before Hormone Therapy).
Posted 7/8/2018 8:53 PM (GMT 0)
Mr. Bill
Oh Noooo Mr Bill....
Great article..they forgot this one: when your Urologist tells you you only have 3 years to live...You bust that myth 6 years later, with remission and undetectable PSA for the past 44 months!!!
Wings of Eagles, Wings of Life
Posted 7/8/2018 9:08 PM (GMT 0)
I also liked the article and have already been following much of the advice. Thanks for posting.
Posted 7/8/2018 11:02 PM (GMT 0)
An okay article, but it is a bit Reader’s Digest-ish. Some of the myths are bit comical, such as the exploding tumor.
Posted 7/9/2018 12:00 AM (GMT 0)
Myth: “Young” men don’t get prostate cancer.

Yep....
Posted 7/9/2018 12:06 AM (GMT 0)
Wings,
Way to go!
Mr. Bill
Posted 7/9/2018 12:18 AM (GMT 0)

mattamx said...
An okay article, but it is a bit Reader’s Digest-ish. Some of the myths are bit comical, such as the exploding tumor.

No surprise, since it was actually published by Reader's Digest :D
Posted 7/9/2018 4:32 AM (GMT 0)
They missed the one about RT giving you x-ray vision.

wait, if it's not listed as a myth, maybe it's true ...
Posted 7/9/2018 11:26 AM (GMT 0)
This classic - my favorite:

Myth: Sugar Causes Cancer
“Sugar doesn’t cause cancer, nor does it worsen it. Sugar is needed to support the immune system, which helps fight cancer. Sugar (glucose) in moderation is just fine and important in a balanced diet.” —Anton Bilchik, MD, chief of medicine and chief of gastrointestinal research at John Wayne Cancer Institute at Providence Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, California
Posted 7/9/2018 5:53 PM (GMT 0)
This is actually a pretty good list. I think that most of the ones which are NOT about a specific cancer which is not PC have been asked/discussed here...that’s probably a good criteria for it being a good list! I would think that THIS group could probably come up with some more hard-hitting Prostate Cancer-specific myths.
Posted 7/9/2018 7:26 PM (GMT 0)
Really good list!

I would say about Clinical Trials, they seem to be very narrow(as they should be for scientific purposes) in their requirements for being a part of them. My point is, you won't necessarily qualify for any trial. They have standards to adhere to.
Posted 7/10/2018 1:56 PM (GMT 0)
I guess the only one I take exception to is the myth regarding sugar. Back in the 1920's a researcher found a relationship between sugar and cancer. It is call the Warberg effect. The medical oncologist I see says no relationship between PCa and sugar. However, other cancers they advise patient to limit sugar intake. I know this subject has been beat to death on this forum, but thought I would toss it in the ring for what is worth.


From Wikpedia:

However, most cancer cells predominantly produce their energy through a high rate of glycolysis followed by lactic acid fermentation even in the presence of abundant oxygen. This is called aerobic glycolysis, also termed the Warburg effect.
Posted 7/10/2018 2:08 PM (GMT 0)
Actually, current research on ketogenic diets (very low carb) so that switching your body from burning primarily glucose to primarily using ketones, may have the effect of reducing cancer tumors. Certain brain cancers are starting to be treated with this with some positive results.

basically, sugar is evil, don't eat it.

Andrew
Posted 7/11/2018 8:30 PM (GMT 0)
The list of cancer myths is pretty good. Three were prostate cancer specific:

PC Myth #1: “Young” men don’t get PC

PC Myth #2: PC treatment always causes impotence

PC Myth #3: You must have symptoms to have PC



Not a bad start, but these are the tip of the iceberg. I can think of a few more. For starters:

PC Myth #4: A high PSA level in an untreated man means that you have PC, and a low PSA means that you don’t have PC.

Post Edited (Normal59) : 7/11/2018 2:34:04 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 7/15/2018 7:11 PM (GMT 0)

mr bill said...
I guess the only one I take exception to is the myth regarding sugar. Back in the 1920's a researcher found a relationship between sugar and cancer. It is call the Warberg effect. The medical oncologist I see says no relationship between PCa and sugar. However, other cancers they advise patient to limit sugar intake. I know this subject has been beat to death on this forum, but thought I would toss it in the ring for what is worth.


From Wikpedia:

However, most cancer cells predominantly produce their energy through a high rate of glycolysis followed by lactic acid fermentation even in the presence of abundant oxygen. This is called aerobic glycolysis, also termed the Warburg effect.


InTheShop said...
Actually, current research on ketogenic diets (very low carb) so that switching your body from burning primarily glucose to primarily using ketones, may have the effect of reducing cancer tumors. Certain brain cancers are starting to be treated with this with some positive results.

basically, sugar is evil, don't eat it.

Andrew

Yes, I just rolled my eyes when I read that one. And we have beat it to death here, with little agreement.

And indeed maybe they have no proof that sugar causes cancer, and certainly not with PC. In fact (sugar) type 2 diabetes(T2D) may even be protective against PC occurrence(though I feel it is more likely the treatment for for T2D - diet and metformin- that is protective).

But what is clear is that ALL TYPES of cancer death rates are much higher with T2D(probably mainly due to the high blood insulin that goes with T2D) than for non-diabetics. Probably also a higher cancer occurrence with T2D or higher blood insulin. One study I have linked to in the past showed that those with the highest blood insulin and largest waist to hip ratios had 8 times higher death rates from PC than the lowest. Of course, I realize someone will say that was just 1 study or it is a bad study. But certainly more than 1 study links diabetes with worse cancer outcomes, as well as a bunch of worse outcomes with other diseases. all kinds of nasties.

But, if you think all of that is bogus, that sugar is good for you and you would like some more insulin in your blood(if not T1D), then just eat some sugar. That will do it. Just increase carbs if you want to ramp up your bodies insulin production for some reason.

Here is an interesting one from 2015:
/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4491542/

Somebody said...
Obesity and type 2 diabetes are becoming increasingly prevalent worldwide, and both are associated with an increased incidence and mortality from many cancers. The metabolic abnormalities associated with type 2 diabetes develop many years before the onset of diabetes and, therefore, may be contributing to cancer risk before individuals are aware that they are at risk. Multiple factors potentially contribute to the progression of cancer in obesity and type 2 diabetes, including hyperinsulinemia and insulin-like growth factor I, hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, adipokines and cytokines, and the gut microbiome. These metabolic changes may contribute directly or indirectly to cancer progression. Intentional weight loss may protect against cancer development, and therapies for diabetes may prove to be effective adjuvant agents in reducing cancer progression. In this review we discuss the current epidemiology, basic science, and clinical data that link obesity, diabetes, and cancer and how treating obesity and type 2 diabetes could also reduce cancer risk and improve outcomes.............
While obesity is consistently associated with a greater risk of prostate cancer mortality (30), some studies have reported a decreased incidence of prostate cancer in obese men (66). Overall, it appears that obesity may decrease the risk of localized prostate cancer and increase the risk of more aggressive disease (43). Why this difference in prostate cancer incidence and mortality exists is not entirely understood. It is possible that lower testosterone levels in obese individuals reduce the risk of developing cancer, but when cancer develops, other factors such as endogenous insulin and lipids may contribute to the growth of the tumor. These factors are discussed in detail in section III..................

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 7/15/2018 1:16:05 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 7/17/2018 8:19 PM (GMT 0)
I’ve continued to add to the original poster’s list of PC myths, and added valuable commentary on each one:


PC Myth #1: “Young” men don’t get PC.
On the other hand, it is true that prostate cancer is primarily a disease of older men. More than 90% of men diagnosed with PC today are over age 55. Over the last 30 years, there has been a trend toward a larger number of younger men being diagnosed—not because incidence is changing, but because more and more younger men have been screened/tested. Prior to the PSA screening era, the median age at diagnosis was 70; today the median age is 66. Prostate cancer IS a natural part of aging…so strictly speaking the myth is false, but the premise is largely correct.


PC Myth #2: PC treatment always causes impotence.
This doesn’t happen for everyone, and it may be temporary and improve over time or it could get worse over time (depending on treatment mode) so the myth is largely around the word “always.” A more correct statement would likely be: PC treatments always cause some degree of diminished sexual performance; sexual performance is never better after treatment, it may be close to the same or it may be worse. In a limited number of cases, PC treatment does cause complete impotence, and many of those instances seem to occur rather randomly and unexpectedly. Strictly speaking the statement is only a myth, but the premise is reflective of the experiences of many treatment patients.


PC Myth #3: You must have symptoms to have PC.
It is, in fact, very rare in the PSA screening era for men to be diagnosed with symptoms. The era of PSA screening has created a high level of over-diagnosis, and (of course) over-diagnosed men have no symptoms whatsoever. The statement is a myth, but reflects the most frequently occurring experiences of newly diagnosed men.


PC Myth #4: A high PSA level in an untreated man means that you have PC, and a low PSA means that you don’t have PC.
The PSA test is actually a very poor predictor of prostate cancer. On the high-end, there are many common non-cancerous conditions may elevate one’s PSA (although from a practical standpoint, these benign conditions only produce relatively small, limited amount of PSA). On the low-end, some of the most aggressive variants PC are known to produce only small amounts of PSA. This statement is a myth and reinforces the “rule of thumb” that no man should ever seek treatment based on only one PSA test result. (The extension of that “rule of thumb” is that no man should seek aggressive treatment after only a single low-risk biopsy result. Re-biopsy within 12-18 months to confirm results.)


New:
PC Myth #5: Sexual activity increases the risk of developing prostate cancer.
High levels of sexual activity or frequent ejaculation were once rumored to increase prostate cancer risk. In fact, some studies show that men who reported more frequent ejaculations had a LOWER risk of developing prostate cancer. Ejaculation itself has not been linked to prostate cancer. {also there is a myth that infrequent sex turns the prostate cancerous; frequency makes no difference}

Post Edited (Normal59) : 7/18/2018 9:41:36 AM (GMT-6)

✚ New Topic ✚ Reply