This forum is for the discussion of anything to do with Prostate Cancer. There are only four rules:
No fundraisers, no commercials (although it is OK to recommend choices of treatment or medical people based on your personal research; invitations to participate in third-party surveys are also acceptable, provided there is no compensation to YANA);
No harvesting e-mail addresses for Spam;
No insults or flaming - be polite and respectful at all times and understand that there may be a variety of points of view, all of which may have some validity;
Opinions are OK, but please provide as much factual evidence as possible for any assertions that you are making
Failure to abide by these simple rules will result in the immediate and permanent suspension of your posting privileges.
Since this is an International Forum, please specify your location in your post.
Stranger,
The two areas of discussion that you point out are so very pertinent these days.
The current breast cancer uproar in this country (US) is very comparable to the prostate cancer situation. Stemming from an independent government panel that has just recommended less screening for breast cancer.
On the nutrition side, the article you cite brings the paradox to the fore. Japanese are much less prone to develop cancer than us in the west. Yet when a Japanese person migrates to the west his/her risk comes to be like that of westerners. So the key factor is not genetic. And thus diet comes to be seen as a likely culprit. But studies of dietary patterns have not yielded much knowledge that could be helpful for cancer prevention.
Each of us will walk our own path, and I also think that being as fully informed as possible is very important. Even though there is so much uncertainty.
I am afraid I disagree with your view that a diet change really isn`t going to help us. When you are with your back against the wall, what choice have you got?
It is undisputed that diet isn`t going to cure cancer, but we should know what food is inhibiting and what food is stimulating cancer growth and should therefore be avoided, eg. sugar, arachidonic acid (high in red and processed meat and eggyolk) dairy products in general, and all high carb food.
By keeping the glycaemic index low and adding fish, soy products like tofu, tempeh, miso, natto (that`s a real challenge), edamame, and soy milk to your diet, as well as the so called "medical mushrooms" (shiitake. reishi, maitake), you can keep cholesterol level and blood pressure down. Chilli improves the blood flow. Add ginger and garlic, try to keep your fat status in balance and you will reduce the problem of comorbidity considerably and be better prepared to attend to your primary problem.
Some supplements may be necessary, but I prefer the real thing whenever possible (Brazil-nut for Selen)etc.
Now I better stop raving, but a diet change has done a lot for me and I think it is worthwhile.
Josh where is the scientifically validated research to support your view re diet and prostate cancer? Please cite the authors, date of publication, and journal. And let us have a rational informed debate on the issue.
Bill G refers to what is termed the "Japanese immigration" effect, something I have always had my doubts about. As far as I know, this was one fairly small study and no one has ever looked at other nationalities other than the Japanese for an 'immigration effect'.
Would Englishmen, to take one nationality at random, have a higher incidence of PCa if they moved to the USA? I think they would, not because of a change in diet, but because of the greater emphasis on PSA testing - and the subsequent higher incidence - of PCa in the US than in Britain. If that were so, it would go some way towards explaining the "Japanese immigration" effect.
There is also, from what people who have lived in Japan say, a societal factor. They say there are still 'macho-man' issues that make it difficult to admit to PCa and the attendant problems with 'loss of manhood'. They claim that some PCa diagnoses are passed off as other sites and that the incidence of stomach cancer is higher in Japan because of this, which would also seem to undermine the 'healthy Japanese diet' argument.
And, of course, food is not the only suspect in the development of PCa. Does stress affect the issue? We simply don’t know. There are studies that demonstrate that stress is not a factor, but how on earth can you measure stress accurately? Only by self-reporting – and my stress is simply not the same as anyone else’s. But if stress were a factor, then wouldn’t that have to be taken into account in any ‘immigration’ study. having moved around the world a fair bit, I can testify to some very high stress levels associated with that activity (and this is supported by studies).
In this connection it may be of interest for those who have not seen it to have a look at Dr Myers COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF PROSTATE CANCER and his views on some of the factrs that may or may not affect the development and progression of PCa.
With these kind of thoughts, I have always felt that it will be impossible to ever have a definitive study on the precise effects of diet on the development and progression of PCa. There are simply too many variables, from the variety of sub-sets of the disease to it’s precise effect on the men concerned, who will all have differing physiological issues depending on their background, their upbringing and current lifestyle.
Given the estimated time scale for the development of PCa, I wonder too how many people eat the same diet from go to whoa. Maybe I’m in a minority, but just from observation, none of my peers eat consistently eat what our parents ate - and our children have very different diets from ours. So to measure diet for a comparatively short period could, I believe never prove anything in terms of a scientific study.
Having said that it seems clear to me from all I have read and seen in this world that a ‘good diet’ is likely to be far more beneficial than a ‘bad diet’. One of the reaons that the incidence of PCa is so low in most Third World countries is so low is not because the men there have a good diet – they simply die too young to develop PCa because they eat a ‘bad diet’ – and very little of that.
Thanks for the replies they were very interesting.
I can't post links to studies to support my feelings about diet and PCa treatments I just developed opinions from what I've read. But that doesn't make me an expert, just a fellow with his own thoughts on the subject.
I'm sure eating right is a good thing. But there's so much evidence against the silver bullets that I feel the studies out weight any good I've read about them.
I'm a person with a technical background so evidence is what sways my opinion. And so far the emerging evidence points out that diet isn't what we've been told it was, and the rush to treament often isn't the right thing to do. The studies to support what I'm refering to are out there and Google is your friend finding them. And of course the links Terry Herbert put in his first post are two of them.
What strikes me the most on the PCa front, or any health issue for that matter, is every person reacts differently. So even the studies that randomize are flawed by that very fact. I get the flu if I speak to a person on the phone that has it, but my best friend can't recall ever having it. So if we're chosen for the same study what will come of it, saying the study was about flu treatment.
Again, thanks for all the comments. In the end each person much go their own way. I'm just leaning towards the newer data being released these days.
Yes, Stranger, I agree that both articles made good reading.
I have always been careful not to use my specific case to endorse the avoidance of surgery or any other conventional treatment, because I am a study of one - an individual and what suits me and my diagnosis may well not suit others and their diagnoses. That is why I merely encourage others to be aware of all options, including if appropriate Active Surveillance, pointing them towards articles like this ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE FOR FAVORABLE RISK PROSTATE CANCER: What Are The Results, and How Safe Is It? rather than using my story.
What my journey does demonstrate beyond any argument is that the doctors who said I would be dead in three to five years were incorrect and that while some men may die within this time frame, I was not one of them.
I think you're correct in not using your case to support your journey. But since I've watched your case with great interest I can point out the courage you've shown and the fact the emerging evidence supports your path. So on the odd occasion I will bear your flag for you.
The "Japanese immigration" effect is an ever present opener on papers about nutrition and cancer (that applies to Chinese and Koreans as well). http://www.moffitt.org/CCJRoot/v14n1/pdf/78.pdf
It should neither be ignored nor overrated. Maybe nobody has ever looked at other nationalities because their eating habits don`t differ that much or are just not interesting enough.
The fact that the Japanese have the highest life expectancy and proportionately more centenarians than any other industrial nation indicates though, that there is more to the Japanese diet than meets the eye.
Although Japanese physicians as a rule don`t tell their patients that they have cancer and inform their spouses or relatives instead, I don`t think that they try to interfere with cancer statics. But PCa especially is still a stigma and best concealed. However, as PCa is on the increase (probably due to a change in eatings habit and contamination of fish), there is more and more information in the media and on TV on the subject and a growing awareness.
Stomach cancer incidence is decreasing in Japan. It was especially high in the northern part of the country and apparently caused by a high consumption of salted pickles and fish. Information campaigns by the government and media have been very effective in bringing about a change in eating habits and a lower incidence of stomach cancer in that part of the country. The Japanese love to do what they are told by the authorities.
John,
Scientifically validated studies on nutrition and cancer as a whole are hard to come by, as studies are usually financed by the pharma industry and they won`t touch anything that isn`t patentable. And whenever a study is not to their taste, they soon publish a contradictory paper and everyone is confused. Nutrition is like a huge puzzle, every single fruit, vegetable or edible substance being a piece of it. To include all and making a study over one or two decades is simply not feasible, it can only be made retrospectively. So studies investigate the effect of a single substance on cancer. All we can do ist integrate cancer suppressing substances thus found in our diet, and exclude those that are stimulating cancer growth. And if we know, that cancer cells require glucose and healthy cells oxigene for their energy generation, it stands to reason that we avoid food rich in carbohydrates and thus glucose. So it is everybody`s choice. People with a systemic disease who will finally be confronted with a helpness medial establishment, can only gain by making the obvious choice. The ones with successful surgery need not concern themselves with a radical diet.
Had I depended on evidence based therapy alone I probably wouldn`t be around anymore. Docetaxel is evidence based and therefore induced for castrate resistant PCa with an average additional benefit of two months or so, at the cost of a damaged immune system and severe side effects, which in fact means that about 2/3 of patients don`t benefit at all. No thanks. I rather take my chance keeping a diet of food that I believe beneficial to me (after a thorough search of pros and contras).
