HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

Diet and Prostate Cancer

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
1 23
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 1/22/2019 10:37 PM (GMT 0)
I can take my LDL cholesterol from 185 to 100, and my PSA from 17 to 7.
Its an action, and a result, its measurable. It goes back up when I stop.
Is that pseudoscience?
Is anything about that "hilarious"
Do I care?
Posted 1/22/2019 10:38 PM (GMT 0)

Blackjack said...

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

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

Hilarious!


......................................................................................................................................................................................
You must feel there is absolutely no evidence that people should not smoke. Although, you may well have an RCT on smoking, humans vs various diseases. ( no mice, please. You know how evey thing works in mice and many other animals, but not humans)
Posted 1/22/2019 10:46 PM (GMT 0)

Bubbatc said...
I can take my LDL cholesterol from 185 to 100, and my PSA from 17 to 7.
Its an action, and a result, its measurable. It goes back up when I stop.
Is that pseudoscience?
Is anything about that "hilarious"
Do I care?

Bubba, I can take my triglycerides from over 200 to under 50, no drugs required. I can reverse that by reversing the dietary changes I made, then take it back the other way. I know of others, at least one here on this board(name starts with a P ;) who have done something similar, far better than they were able to do with RCT approved drugs. I can demonstrate that in any of us if willing to participate. Guaranteed. But you are unlikely to hear that from many MDs.

But if some folks had triglyceride problems, they would probably prefer to take an expensive medication, with probable SEs, for a fraction of the results. But hey, at least there would probably be some RCTs behind it's FDA approval, and they wouldn't be concerned about pseudoscience.

I can do similar tricks with my HDL and blood pressure, and I could do them in anyone else that would do as I did. If I could be sure that I could control their diet, I would be willing to bet $10K, 4 to 1 odds, that I could do either of the above for anyone.

But no matter, it is pseudoscience. So just wait 30 or 40 years for the RCTs. Maybe they will be done by then.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 1/22/2019 4:11:11 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 1/23/2019 12:10 AM (GMT 0)
Billy Bob says - - - "I can take my triglycerides from over 200 to under 50,
no drugs required. I can reverse that by reversing the dietary changes I made,
then take it back the other way. I know of others, at least one here on this
board(name starts with a P ;) who have done something similar, far better
than they were able to do with RCT approved drugs. I can demonstrate that
in any of us if willing to participate. Guaranteed. But you are unlikely to hear
that from many MDs."


Well, I was not able to take my triglycerides from over 200 to under 50 . . .
but I did go from 205 pre-diet to 51, in June 2017. I'll have to keep trying.
HDL from 39 to 58 in the same two above tests. Man, these anecdotes are
pilling up.

If our Lipid Panels are showing very similar dramatic improvements, perhaps
it is not a stretch that cancer could respond in a similar matter.

I must say, "thank you" Blackjack, you have given me greater confidence in the
utility of this 'diet and exercise' endeavor.

Cashless
Posted 1/23/2019 12:46 AM (GMT 0)
Someone said -
"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."
======
^^^ This is good. I've thought about this for some time.

Post Edited (Bubbatc) : 1/23/2019 5:52:04 AM (GMT-7)

Posted 1/23/2019 1:59 AM (GMT 0)

Bubbatc said...
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.
======
This is good. I've thought about this for some time. I cant explain it either.

That is funny. I am reading all of the above and thinking it is from you, Bubba, and thinking "dang that sounds familiar", and I'm getting ready to answer with a : "right on", and I finally figure out you were quoting me! LOL! You were, weren't you? If not, then you and I just think a lot alike.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 1/23/2019 7:37:05 AM (GMT-7)

Posted 1/23/2019 12:52 PM (GMT 0)
There I fixed it for yousmile
Posted 1/23/2019 1:43 PM (GMT 0)

Bubbatc said...
I can take my my PSA from 17 to 7.
/quote]

I get dietary changes and their effect on blood pressure and cholesterol. But, at the risk of being sorry I asked, what is the magic that can cut PSA from 17 to 7?

Jim

Posted 1/23/2019 2:35 PM (GMT 0)

Bubbatc said...
There I fixed it for yousmile


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

And I see my name is "someone"! ;) Oh well, that is how the quote system has always done.

But the quote system does not work right anymore, since the format change. Or at least doesn't seem right for me. As in Tudpock's recent comment " I get dietary changes and their effect on blood pressure and cholesterol. But, at the risk of being sorry I asked, what is the magic that can cut PSA from 17 to 7?

Jim".

His comment appears in the same different colored "block" or box as do the words from Bubba being quoted. This often fakes me out, I think it is Bubba saying Jims words. I was just about to respond to Jim asking "did you mean to post a comment?", before I saw his comment in the same box with Bubba's words and colored the same. Fakes me out often, maybe I will learn. Sorry, don't want to hijack.
Posted 1/23/2019 3:23 PM (GMT 0)

Bubbatc said...
I can take ... my PSA from 17 to 7.
Its an action, and a result, its measurable. It goes back up when I stop.


Tudpock18 said...
I get dietary changes and their effect on blood pressure and cholesterol. But, at the risk of being sorry I asked, what is the magic that can cut PSA from 17 to 7?

Jim


Agree...exactly what is it that you think you are doing? As Jim says, what's your "magic?" Go ahead and take your PSA to 3.0. (Add a few more raspberries to your oatmeal?) Pseudoscience
Posted 1/23/2019 4:37 PM (GMT 0)
Agree...exactly what is it that you think you are doing?
===
Lets just use the LDL part. What do I think I'm doing, how about saving my life. I wont have 185 LDL, and I cant take a statin. My doc is thrilled with my numbers.
Posted 1/23/2019 6:04 PM (GMT 0)
Jim and I did not ask about LDL. LDL is controllable by diet—one's weight is the dominant response variable.

Here's the question:

Tudpock18 said...
what is the magic that can cut PSA from 17 to 7?


What's your pseudoscientific PSA magic?
Posted 1/23/2019 6:21 PM (GMT 0)
"LDL is controllable by diet"
I dont really diet for LDL I mainly use supplements for LDL. I do follow a modified version the cashless plan for psa. He has been talking about it for 2 years, did anyone read it? Calling it nonsense helps NO ONE !!!

So you're ok with LDL and diet. That means the definition of pseudo scientific magic is whether you already know about it or not? To use your own words - hilarious.

Why does it seem like you are against me for doing something good?

Post Edited (Bubbatc) : 1/23/2019 11:36:12 AM (GMT-7)

Posted 1/23/2019 6:51 PM (GMT 0)
So the question is, does the diet reduce the cancer and thus the lower expression of PSA? Or does the diet work to reduce the PSA expression without reducing the cancer?

Think of the PSA reduction effect of Dutasteride. It reduces PSA primarily by shrinking the prostate, but not necessarily reducing the cancer, per se.

If the diet is only masking PSA expression, but not reducing or killing the cancer, then why bother with such a stringent diet? If it is truly reducing and killing the cancer, hence the PSA reduction, then it is good. Remember correlation is not causation.

Alas, it takes studies, not anecdotes, to be able to scientifically determine the mechanism and apply the results to the masses.

Hats off to cashlessclay and all my support to him. Has he proven that he has a diet that manages and/or kills cancer for all of us?
Posted 1/23/2019 7:08 PM (GMT 0)
Bubba, you're changing the subject. I'm not asking about LDL, HDL, BP the the Cashless plan that (for him) seems to provide stable PSA. Simply asking you about your plan that can reduce a PSA from 17 to 7. Let's hear it.

Jim
Posted 1/23/2019 7:24 PM (GMT 0)
(1)

Bubbatc said...
That means the definition of pseudo scientific magic is whether you already know about it or not?

No.
You seem to be making it up as you go. I've already provided the well-established definition; I'll copy/paste it again for your and everyone's benefit: pseudo science definition: a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.




(2)

Bubbatc said...
did anyone read it?

No. Read the "Executive Summary," which told me and everyone that going further was a complete waste of time, because there was no science to it; pure pseudoscience.



(3)

Bubbatc said...
Why does it seem like you are against me for doing something good?

Something else which I've already written which I'll copy/paste for your benefit:

Blackjack said...
There IS some sound scientific theories in support of the notion that there are foods that "fight" cancer and others that "feed" cancers. With the very complex nature of the human diet, it's impractical to actually isolate and control these, which would be necessary for any shred of scientific evidence/validity. Personally I have very little doubt that many of these theories are at least somewhat correct... The notion that in any way what he (cluelessclay) has described is anything close to a "controlled experiment" or based on scientific methods is absolutely preposterous...even though it seems like he thinks it is. But again, more power to him getting a feeling of being in-control! No harm, no foul. Cute, nonetheless.

Not against you trying something. Against you promoting the proposterous notion that this is science.

Post Edited (Blackjack) : 1/23/2019 12:28:45 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 1/23/2019 7:27 PM (GMT 0)
"Let's hear it."
Nope, I won’t do that.
- I don’t think its allowed.
- People here will go nuts with the pseudoscience snake oil comments. I can feel them waiting to pounce right now. I don’t need that. I had MAJOR problems with a member who has since left but his disciples are still lurking. I had threads locked and was not permitted to post, I think some were locked by you. So Mr. moderator, how many “dust ups” has there been since he left? How many locked threads?

But seriously you really need to do the work and find what works best for you. The research is out there.
But I will help in any way I can.
Posted 1/23/2019 7:34 PM (GMT 0)
"I'll copy/paste it again for your and everyone's benefit: pseudo science definition: a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.."
-
Explain to me in very clear terms what >mistakenly< lowered my numbers? I even posted them here once.
-
"No. Read the Executive Summary,"
So you didn't even read it. Then there is no sense even talking to you about it.
Posted 1/23/2019 7:42 PM (GMT 0)

Bubbatc said...
"LDL is controllable by diet"
I dont really diet for LDL I mainly use supplements for LDL. I do follow a modified version the cashless plan for psa. He has been talking about it for 2 years, did anyone read it? Calling it nonsense helps NO ONE !!!

So you're ok with LDL and diet. That means the definition of pseudo scientific magic is whether you already know about it or not? To use your own words - hilarious.

Why does it seem like you are against me for doing something good?

Bingo! You nailed it, Bubba! Everyone "knows" that you can help heart related items with diet(though I probably think not the diets usually recommended by our docs), but the same ones think it is highly unlikely anything we can do can help with PC. Although, some of the same folks will turn around and tell you that a heart healthy diet is a prostate healthy diet. Presenting us with their own pseudoscience.
Posted 1/23/2019 7:48 PM (GMT 0)

JNF said...
So the question is, does the diet reduce the cancer and thus the lower expression of PSA? Or does the diet work to reduce the PSA expression without reducing the cancer?

Think of the PSA reduction effect of Dutasteride. It reduces PSA primarily by shrinking the prostate, but not necessarily reducing the cancer, per se.

If the diet is only masking PSA expression, but not reducing or killing the cancer, then why bother with such a stringent diet? If it is truly reducing and killing the cancer, hence the PSA reduction, then it is good. Remember correlation is not causation.

Alas, it takes studies, not anecdotes, to be able to scientifically determine the mechanism and apply the results to the masses.

Hats off to cashlessclay and all my support to him. Has he proven that he has a diet that manages and/or kills cancer for all of us?


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

And there will be no study based on Cashless, N=1. Same even if a few others appear to have success, then we have N=3. It will never be scientific "proof" until the RCTs are done. And we can expect them in, when?

All Cashless is reporting is what he does and how that seems to correlate with his doubling time. I don't believe either he, or anyone else, has claimed scientific proof. I never understand why some folks(not you) feel the need to chime in making accusations about his or others pseudoscience.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 1/23/2019 1:06:10 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 1/23/2019 7:56 PM (GMT 0)

Bubbatc said...
"Let's hear it."
Nope, I won’t do that.
- I don’t think its allowed.


Oh, yes, it's "allowed"...and available for peer review. Cashless already "published" his method:

cashlessclay said...
In my case, the diet described at the start of this thread, is a cancer-
neutral diet, with about 2-3 raspberries on the oatmeal. Increasing the
raspberries to 5, has allowed me to "roll-back" PSA.

Pseudoscience. Preposterous.


Let's hear what your technique is to "roll-back" PSA...you said, from 17 to 7 so far, right?

Post Edited (Blackjack) : 1/23/2019 1:00:28 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 1/23/2019 8:04 PM (GMT 0)

Blackjack said...
There IS some sound scientific theories in support of the notion that there are foods that "fight" cancer and others that "feed" cancers. With the very complex nature of the human diet, it's impractical to actually isolate and control these, which would be necessary for any shred of scientific evidence/validity. Personally I have very little doubt that many of these theories are at least somewhat correct... The notion that in any way what he (cluelessclay) has described is anything close to a "controlled experiment" or based on scientific methods is absolutely preposterous...even though it seems like he thinks it is. But again, more power to him getting a feeling of being in-control! No harm, no foul. Cute, nonetheless.

Not against you trying something. Against you promoting the proposterous notion that this is science.


..........................................................................................................................
I can see where several of us refer to scientific studies of various types to say it SEEMS possible that this or that could weIl have an influence on PC, and many other diseases/cancers and so we think it is worth a try FOR us. But, think I missed the part where Cashless, Bubba or anyone else made any sort of claim that they had scientific proof of their diet? Rather than what it SEEMS LIKE to you, could you please provide the quotes where they are making such claims? If you don't have such quotes, then could you please stop with your accusations? You remind me a lot of someone else who used to be around here, and so often took friendly threads of general interest in a different direction. But, then again, maybe you have the quotes? However, saying "I did X, and Y happened" is not claiming scientific proof. It is just saying it happened,simply stating a fact.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 1/23/2019 1:09:36 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 1/23/2019 8:06 PM (GMT 0)
I said no.
How can I compete with your message of - nothing is possible, there is no hope, we have already learned everything we can and there is nothing left to learn.
Posted 1/23/2019 8:14 PM (GMT 0)

BillyBob@388 said...
But, think I missed the part where Cashless, Bubba or anyone else made any sort of claim that they had scientific proof of their diet?


We ALL strongly agree that there is no science here.

It's pseudoscience. It is a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Furthermore, it's preposterous to believe that cancer is controlled by one's diet. Influenced, yes. Controlled, no.

Increasing raspberries on oatmeal from 2-3 up to 5 in order to control cancer...that's downright hilarious!

Post Edited (Blackjack) : 1/23/2019 1:18:28 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 1/23/2019 8:18 PM (GMT 0)
You didn't answer my question, please tell me what mistakenly lowered my numbers
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
123