HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

Diet and Prostate Cancer

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
12 3
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 1/16/2019 9:14 PM (GMT 0)
Taken today from another board:

TA says . . . "There's no credible evidence yet that changes in diet can
even slow it down. Those charlatans rely on mice to make their claims.
Perhaps diet changes can cure human xenografts in mice, but so far,
the evidence is that it does nothing useful for prostate cancer in humans."

I can't find the words to express my reaction, so I will use numbers (PSAs
from the summer of 2017 to Jan 2019).

0.461 - - 0.448 - - 0.455 - - 0.447 - - 0.483 - - 0.458 - - 0.439 - - 0.461 - -

0.486 - - 0.514 - - 0.518 - - 0.505 - - 0.459 - - 0.520 - - 0.525 - - 0.442 - -

the last one from 7 Jan 2019.

https://www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=35&m=4039413

Cashless
Posted 1/17/2019 2:39 PM (GMT 0)
All I can say is - keep it going ! You only have to prove it to yourself that it works. You are doing us all a favor
by sharing.

As the old Quality guru Deming said -

I only believe in the word of God, rest everyone bring me Data!!!
Posted 1/17/2019 3:52 PM (GMT 0)

ddyss said...
All I can say is - keep it going ! You only have to prove it to yourself that it works. You are doing us all a favor by sharing.

Second ddyss on this. Thank you cashless.

I appreciate how you ignore the occasional snark.

It's now almost two years since my peak PSA of .06 (which was two years post ORP). I continue undetectable on diet inspired by you and the advice of major cancer center nutritionists.

I am also supplementing D @ 5000 units (but liquid capsule) Last lab 37.8. Blood work uniformly excellent (CRP 0.2).

I think it likely that effective diet will vary a bit by person, that we're a bit different in metabolism, and all the remarkably complex biochemistry of life. If we're to do just one thing dietary, it might be to eliminate sugar and all added sweeteners.

We know lifestyle response is not effective in every case and may be a holding action of bounded duration when it does work.

Best to you, and thank you ddyss.

Wilderness
Posted 1/17/2019 6:03 PM (GMT 0)

cashlessclay said...
Taken today from another board:

TA says . . . "There's no credible evidence yet that changes in diet can
even slow it down. Those charlatans rely on mice to make their claims.
Perhaps diet changes can cure human xenografts in mice, but so far,
the evidence is that it does nothing useful for prostate cancer in humans."

I can't find the words to express my reaction, so I will use numbers (PSAs
from the summer of 2017 to Jan 2019).

0.461 - - 0.448 - - 0.455 - - 0.447 - - 0.483 - - 0.458 - - 0.439 - - 0.461 - -

0.486 - - 0.514 - - 0.518 - - 0.505 - - 0.459 - - 0.520 - - 0.525 - - 0.442 - -

the last one from 7 Jan 2019.

https://www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=35&m=4039413

Cashless


...............................................................................................................................................
Cashless, do you have a signature with your entire history summarized? I apologize, I think you have told me in the past, but I often can't remember the details. I'm interested in the history of your PSA rise after treatment. Did you have RP only? RP followed by RT and had some additional PSA rise even after that? I see that from the summer of 17 until now you have been very stable, even down a bit, especially with that last one. But you often mention your previous doubling times. I'd be interested to see how that was working before diet changes, and what was happening with PSA after treatment(s). Oh, and risk category.

But either way, keep on with what has been working!
Posted 1/17/2019 8:16 PM (GMT 0)
BillyBob,

Surgery 1/31/2007, biopsy 4+3, pathology 3+3, Post surgery PSADT 7 mo.
SRT Jan/Feb/ 2011, PSA = 2/28/2012 (0.1); 3/23/2012 (0.11); 6/14/2012 (0.08);
9/20/2012 (0.05); 3/21/2013 (0.067) Diet and Exercise started.

I have thirty eight PSA's since 3/21/2013. I don't list them because each was an
"experiment", and the numbers without the description of the experiment have little
meaning. This is quite different than having a fixed diet and testing it 38 times.

The last result of 0.442, down from 0.525, represents my very best diet ideas at the time.
I could now try increasing my vitamin D to 60 ng/mL, and perhaps get a greater decrease
in PSA. But, this is not my objective. I'm looking for PSA "stability", and not "undetectable".
I believe that going to "undetectable" could result in "treatment-resistant" mutations of the
cancer, while PSA stability would provide a competitive environment for nutrition for these
mutations. There has been work done in this area.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc4122506/

Cashless
Posted 1/17/2019 9:04 PM (GMT 0)

cashlessclay said...
BillyBob,

Surgery 1/31/2007, biopsy 4+3, pathology 3+3, Post surgery PSADT 7 mo.
SRT Jan/Feb/ 2011, PSA = 2/28/2012 (0.1); 3/23/2012 (0.11); 6/14/2012 (0.08);
9/20/2012 (0.05); 3/21/2013 (0.067) Diet and Exercise started.

I have thirty eight PSA's since 3/21/2013. I don't list them because each was an
"experiment", and the numbers without the description of the experiment have little
meaning. This is quite different than having a fixed diet and testing it 38 times.

The last result of 0.442, down from 0.525, represents my very best diet ideas at the time.
I could now try increasing my vitamin D to 60 ng/mL, and perhaps get a greater decrease
in PSA. But, this is not my objective. I'm looking for PSA "stability", and not "undetectable".
I believe that going to "undetectable" could result in "treatment-resistant" mutations of the
cancer, while PSA stability would provide a competitive environment for nutrition for these
mutations. There has been work done in this area.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc4122506/

Cashless

Thanks, Cashless! I am going to copy that to a file so that a few months from now, if I am wondering about all that, I will have it. EDIT: and, you were a G6 with a doubling time of 7 mos? Wow! Unusual!
Posted 1/17/2019 9:31 PM (GMT 0)
TA wasn't very nice with the use of the word "charlatan" for someone who, I presume, is a scientist who published a (probably peer-reviewed) paper.
Posted 1/17/2019 9:41 PM (GMT 0)
I believe diet can work on PSA. glad you found what work for you! so your pathology was G6?
Posted 1/18/2019 1:05 AM (GMT 0)

F8 said...
I believe diet can work on PSA. glad you found what work for you! so your pathology was G6?

I was surprised. Since he ended up with a doubling time of 7 months, as well as RT. Maybe the biopsy 4+3 was the correct score?
Posted 1/18/2019 1:59 AM (GMT 0)

BillyBob@388 said...

F8 said...
I believe diet can work on PSA. glad you found what work for you! so your pathology was G6?

I was surprised. Since he ended up with a doubling time of 7 months, as well as RT. Maybe the biopsy 4+3 was the correct score?

the way I read it he was G7 by biopsy and G6 by pathology.
Posted 1/18/2019 2:40 AM (GMT 0)
BillyBob and F8,

Cancer cell patterns are continuous over the grade scale, as I understand it.
So, for a particular group of cells, someone calls it a "3", another a "4", but
both may have agreed on "3.5", if there was such a choice. So, based on the
doubling time, the 4,3 biopsy and 3,3 pathology, I think of it as "3.5". But, I'm not
concerned with what it is "called", but rather how it responds to dietary changes.

I think diets may work on Gleason 8, based on we have already seen, plus we
haven't even used vitamin D at 60 ng/mL; nor my well kept secret of the optimum
raspberry dosage measured in picograms.

Cashless
Posted 1/18/2019 2:47 AM (GMT 0)

cashlessclay said...
BillyBob and F8,

Cancer cell patterns are continuous over the grade scale, as I understand it.
So, for a particular group of cells, someone calls it a "3", another a "4", but
both may have agreed on "3.5", if there was such a choice. So, based on the
doubling time, the 4,3 biopsy and 3,3 pathology, I think of it as "3.5". But, I'm not
concerned with what it is "called", but rather how it responds to dietary changes.

I think diets may work on Gleason 8, based on we have already seen, plus we
haven't even used vitamin D at 60 ng/mL; nor my well kept secret of the optimum
raspberry dosage measured in picograms.

Cashless

I hear you on the diet. I would do the same thing. in fact I referenced Michael Milken in another post http://www.mikemilken.com/articles.taf?page=14.

that said, if pathology says G6 it's G6. it's the "rest of the story" here.
Posted 1/18/2019 3:15 AM (GMT 0)

F8 said...

BillyBob@388 said...

F8 said...
I believe diet can work on PSA. glad you found what work for you! so your pathology was G6?

I was surprised. Since he ended up with a doubling time of 7 months, as well as RT. Maybe the biopsy 4+3 was the correct score?

the way I read it he was G7 by biopsy and G6 by pathology.


.............................................................................................................................................................................
Yes, that is how I read it also. But I'm sure a mistake can be made at any point, which is why I was saying maybe the original 4+3(Biopsy) was the correct score? Maybe the pathologist reading the post op path was mistaken? Just guessing, no idea, but surprised at the advance for a G6. But probably not unheard of. My URO told me of a patient with a post op path of G6 and all contained. PSAs were great for a while, but then they lost track of him for a few years, I don't know how many. But when he finally showed back up, wide spread mets. So, it happens. Though I imagine he was not really a G6 on his post op path, a mistake was made. But, just guessing.
Posted 1/18/2019 3:29 AM (GMT 0)

F8 said...

cashlessclay said...
BillyBob and F8,

Cancer cell patterns are continuous over the grade scale, as I understand it.
So, for a particular group of cells, someone calls it a "3", another a "4", but
both may have agreed on "3.5", if there was such a choice. So, based on the
doubling time, the 4,3 biopsy and 3,3 pathology, I think of it as "3.5". But, I'm not
concerned with what it is "called", but rather how it responds to dietary changes.

I think diets may work on Gleason 8, based on we have already seen, plus we
haven't even used vitamin D at 60 ng/mL; nor my well kept secret of the optimum
raspberry dosage measured in picograms.

Cashless

I hear you on the diet. I would do the same thing. in fact I referenced Michael Milken in another post http://www.mikemilken.com/articles.taf?page=14.

that said, if pathology says G6 it's G6. it's the "rest of the story" here.


..................................................................................................................................................................

I sometimes think that at least some folks who are so dead set that nothing on earth can help other than the heavy duty treatments, with their SEs and of course expense, have a vested interest in trying to make sure nothing decreases the use of said treatments and meds (SEs and expense be hanged). If it did turn out that a diet or vitamin or exercise or avoiding pre or actual type 2 diabetes cut down on cases or reduced treatment needed, well. Sometimes I think there are at least some folks who would not want that. I hope I am wrong. But sometimes it is difficult to explain the vigorous objection some express to even the possibility of something non-prescription, and without harm and cheap, being even somewhat helpful.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 1/18/2019 7:19:39 AM (GMT-7)

Posted 1/19/2019 2:24 AM (GMT 0)
BillyBob,

My own experiences with three Doctors concerning my diet:

Urologist 1 . . . Not proven by trials, therefore not recommended. End of discussion.

Urologist 2 . . . He didn't want to talk about it. When asked - - "Doc, have you seen diets that work?"
He said that he does have other patients that have been successful with diets.

My GP . . . . . little interest at first, now very interested.

Cashless
Posted 1/19/2019 3:54 AM (GMT 0)
BillyBob,

I am sure that there are some that would not want something simple like diet or supplements, to work for cancer. That certainly does not apply to me or, in my opinion, TA. I spent 40 years in the primary literature, studying it, memorizing it, teaching it and using it to make drug therapy better at the hospitals I was employed at. I can't tell you how many times that drugs, foods, supplements, etc. that originally looked promising in the original cohort or case control studies, ultimately failed in the random controlled studies. However, even random controlled studies have failed many because of poor study design, improper interpretation of the data, and intent to manipulate the data. TA has a higher opinion of RCT than I do. Over time, I have questioned their validity with various topics.
TA would often say that a good RCT was proof of a result. In my experience, many of these studies, over time, have been disproved and forced us to change the practice we were following. However, he was correct that it is the best way to interpret outcomes. But not without some limitations.

BillyBob, do you remember the van den Berghe studies in 2001 showing how very tight blood sugar control in the ICU saved lives. That one random controlled trial changed how blood sugars were controlled nationally in the intensive care units. Nurses had a fit, claiming too many of their patients were crashing with low sugars, but most of us believed they were not dosing the insulin correctly. They were ultimately vindicated. Since then, many studies have shown that this tight control was dangerous to many of these patients. Studies like this, over time, taught me a lesson not to get overly excited over any one study, even if it was in the New England Journal of Medicine.

So, I don't get overly excited about the latest on a vitamin slowing cancer. It is rare for a supplement to show benefit once thoroughly studied. In my experience, extremely rare, and I was looking because like many, I wanted to be able to control a desperate time in my life.

Paul
Posted 1/19/2019 4:34 AM (GMT 0)
Yes, Paul, I think I do remember that general situation you describe with the tight glucose control. And the bad results that came from that. If I recall, that tight control involved a lot of insulin, is that the one? You may know that I have a poor view of high blood insulin levels for overall health, and more specifically concerning cancer. But giving ever increasing doses of insulin to control blood sugar is necessarily something to be avoided for all physicians. I prefer diet control of insulin and sugar, and I am convinced it can be done. And it is not really that hard, and it will never kill anyone- as long as extreme caution is used concerning those meds one is on while making those dietary changes.

I agree with you that well done RCTs are the gold standard, but also that there can be many flaws with any study, and any one study of a med or vitamin is not always the last word. If they were, FDA approved as safe and effective drugs would not be pulled from the market a couple of years later because people have been killed. I will never forget the very close call I had with the fancy new aesthesia muscle relaxant- FDA approved of course. After 2 of those close calls, our OR quit using it and went back to the older stuff. We soon found it had been pulled due to some patient deaths. I'm sure there were some favorable RCTs on that drug in order to get FDA approval and position it in ORs across the country. So yes, you can't really go by any one or even two studies. Even if the studies don't have obvious problems, there is always the question of bias in those doing the study.

I think the last battle TA went out of here on was the one where he had finally proved how useless vitamin D was with an RCT, absolutely good for nothing. But, of course it was just one. No confirming study. And RCTs showing impressive results on numerous cancers in women be hanged, because we were not women. I personally thought there were numerous problems with the study which I pointed out to him. He disagreed 100% of course. This was now "settled science" and there would be no more studies and there was no need for any more studies. I thought that was ridiculous, even indicating a strong bias on his part. I will guess that you agree with me that he had a wrong opinion about the power of that one study, and no need for others, since we have both said that no single study guarantees that another study later will not show different results. It certainly does happen, studies get reversed, for meds as well as vitamins, I think you agree. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 1/18/2019 10:09:10 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 1/19/2019 5:03 AM (GMT 0)

PDL17 said...
................................................

BillyBob, do you remember the van den Berghe studies in 2001 showing how very tight blood sugar control in the ICU saved lives. That one random controlled trial changed how blood sugars were controlled nationally in the intensive care units. Nurses had a fit, claiming too many of their patients were crashing with low sugars, but most of us believed they were not dosing the insulin correctly. They were ultimately vindicated. Since then, many studies have shown that this tight control was dangerous to many of these patients. Studies like this, over time, taught me a lesson not to get overly excited over any one study, even if it was in the New England Journal of Medicine.

So, I don't get overly excited about the latest on a vitamin slowing cancer. ......................................

Paul

Paul, I forgot to say this: while it is perfectly reasonable to not get too excited over a study on a vitamin- or a med IMO and based on my experience, and knowing that the studies on meds are often done by or funded by those that will charge many thousands per year for said approved drug- maybe 50K or 100K - it can be a different standard for diet, food or vitamin. Not different about not getting excited over one study, but different about whether I might use it anyway.

What is different? These diets, foods or vitamins often have a history of decades or centuries of use by millions of people per years, with little or no serious SEs as long as people don't greatly exceed the suggested dose. So, if a study seems favorable, and as long as we are not substituting whatever it is for much needed treatment, what is the down side of giving it a try? A comparatively tiny amount of money blown, while ending up disappointed?

But with prescription drugs or medical treatments, it is an entirely different picture. They can and do- as I'm sure you well know- flat out kill you. Or cause some lessor but still serious harm. People die or suffer damage every year from SEs of approved medications. So, you better be darned sure these are going to do what you want them to do, because due to unwanted SEs, it might be a matter of which one is the smaller risk: the med/treatment, or the disease.

So, I feel fine using a somewhat lower standard for deciding that a certain food, diet or vitamin is worth the risk of buying and taken, compared to the standard I would like for a prescription drug.

Also, I'm curious: after all of your experience with these matters, do you take any vitamins at all? Any special diets?

Thanks, Paul.
Posted 1/20/2019 1:33 AM (GMT 0)
I do take a vitamin for macular degeneration. There have been 2 reasonably good studies suggesting a delay to advanced disease. The 2013 studies were done by the NIH so I was less skeptical than usual!
I agree with you regarding the vitamin D study. I don't believe it is dead yet. I do think that if vitamin D was a patient, I would think it would be in critical condition! I always hope, though, that I am wrong and we discover something as simple as vitamin D proves benefit to patients.

Paul
Posted 1/21/2019 7:25 PM (GMT 0)
Is a piece of the diet "debate" that an RCT is not possible?

How would you double-blind broccoli? Looks like broccoli, cooks like broccoli, tastes like broccoli, has no nutritional value. Or sugar? Or any food?

And how manage dose discipline with actual food?

Isolated nutrients are not a substitute.

And perhaps this is where some get stuck with an emphasis on evidence-based?

I know pretty much squat about med research design - what am I missing?

Wilderness
Posted 1/21/2019 8:36 PM (GMT 0)

Wilderness said...
Is a piece of the diet "debate" that an RCT is not possible?

How would you double-blind broccoli? Looks like broccoli, cooks like broccoli, tastes like broccoli, has no nutritional value. Or sugar? Or any food?

And how manage dose discipline with actual food?

Isolated nutrients are not a substitute.

And perhaps this is where some get stuck with an emphasis on evidence-based?

I know pretty much squat about med research design - what am I missing?

Wilderness

You make an excellent point. It is obviously impossible to do a double blind, placebo controlled diet study. Just as it is impossible to do so for cigarettes or head trauma via base ball bats. And for some folks, if it ain't dbl blind, placebo controlled, it ain't worth considering. At least not for diet, maybe for cigarettes or baseball bats and such.
Posted 1/22/2019 12:15 AM (GMT 0)
Wilderness,

It's my view that nutrition researchers do not yet understand that
"moderation" does not work for cancer. So, cohort studies are unlikely
to work. Comparing the top quintile of something is meaningless
if only the top 2-4 percent are extreme enough to have an effect
on the outcome. For example, if you are looking at the lowest quintile
in sugar consumption, you are still likely providing some 2-3 times the
added sugar as required for a effective diet. You might then falsely
conclude that reducing sugar doesn't help.

Also, there are too many researchers looking for the "silver bullet". And,
if something like vitamin D, soy, green tea, raspberries, vegetables
etc. turns out not to be silver bullets, they conclude that they are
ineffective altogether. Whereas, they could be valuable components of
a larger diet plan.

Cashless
Posted 1/22/2019 7:52 PM (GMT 0)

Wilderness said...
Is a piece of the diet "debate" that an RCT is not possible?

How would you double-blind broccoli? Looks like broccoli, cooks like broccoli, tastes like broccoli, has no nutritional value. Or sugar? Or any food?

And how manage dose discipline with actual food?

Isolated nutrients are not a substitute.

And perhaps this is where some get stuck with an emphasis on evidence-based?

I know pretty much squat about med research design - what am I missing?

Wilderness


I believe that 99+ percent of humans who can read would reject the pseudoscience concepts in this thread simply because it is pure anecdotal evidence--evidence collected without scientific methods and relying on personal testimony. Anecdotal evidence is known as the "hasty generalization," is un-reproducible, and has extremely limited value.

What IS of potential personal value is the feeling of control of something, or doing something following a cancer diagnosis...it can be psychologically empowering, and there's value to that. The only troubling part is when someone gets sucked in to believing it...

Post Edited (Blackjack) : 1/22/2019 1:26:05 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 1/22/2019 8:42 PM (GMT 0)
If you do something and get a result, its no longer pseudoscience.
Posted 1/22/2019 9:18 PM (GMT 0)

Bubbatc said...
If you do something and get a result, its no longer pseudoscience.

hahaha! Yeah...a "real" definition of pseudoscience!

Hilarious!
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
123