CSN Login
Members Online: 18

Diet to bring down PSA

G.L.M_61's picture
G.L.M_61
Posts: 30
Joined: Sep 2010

I had IMRT treatment in 2006 and my PSA went down to it's lowest poit to about 1.2 from 4.2 in about six months. I recently joined this discussion board as my PSA last year was 1.9, and two weeks agao it was 2.2. I exchanged thoughts with several people, "KONGO" is one and a member on this site, and a few others are personal friends, my son also who works at Whole Foods. They all told me that eliminated all dairy products from one's diet can somethimes bring down one's PSA level condierably. I had nothing to loose so I stopped all dairy products as much as I could and also sugar, and startd taking Omega 3 fish oil. The end result after two weeks is that I lost 4 lbs. my colestorol came down, and most important is that my PSA level went down 1.1 points, it's lowest level in almost 6 years just by eliminating dairy products. My doctors were actually amazed at the results. In some countries, i.e. China, Japan, Korea, not exactly sure, for every 3 cases of prostate cancer they have, the United Sates has about 200 cases. Humans are the only species I know of that after weaning stops by the Mother, the offspring never drink milk / dairy again. Just water and what ever else they eat from nature. In conclusion, they are many "deseases" / "conditions" that may be just cured by exorsise and diet.

Kongo's picture
Kongo
Posts: 1167
Joined: Mar 2010

GLM,

Great news on the lowering of your PSA!

G.L.M_61's picture
G.L.M_61
Posts: 30
Joined: Sep 2010

If eliminating Dairy may work for men, I wonder if it might do the same for women? BTW: I think that old guy, me, and my beautiful wife is in the reply box now. Let me know Kongo. BTW: I had a file just for you, I looked at it the other day and to my surprise, it was named, TANGO, LOL. I fixed it as I have no idea what was going through my mind. Is that plane made by Northrup? NAH.

Kongo's picture
Kongo
Posts: 1167
Joined: Mar 2010

GLM...GREAT photo. I think the dairy is especially important for women, particularly those at risk for breast cancer and women have breast cancer at a rate comparable to men with prostate cancer. You wife should read the book "Your Life in Your Hands" by Professor Jane Plant which is focused around dairy and its relation to breast cancer. You can find it at Amazon.com.

HillBillyNana's picture
HillBillyNana
Posts: 106
Joined: Jun 2009

we stopped eating dairy products the day we saw your post right after Mr. Nana went to the doctor and had an elevated PSA. I'll let you know how/if it affects his PSA. I joined him in the "no dairy products" just for moral support. We never really ate much dairy anyway. Frozen yogurt at night was hard to give up. But we found frozen fruit bars. Only 1 point on WW. He also had to give up his cottage cheese for breakfast.

ob66
Posts: 218
Joined: Apr 2010

Been a little over two weeks: absolutely no dairy; no red meat; and with sugar every label is read as to it's sugar content, so I am taking as little as possible....Sugarless almond milk, pomegranite juice, green tea, chicken, salmon, anchovies, cocoa 70%+, almonds, walnuts, fruits of every color, turmeric with pepper, broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, no processed flours at all...It is tough, not so much to eat these foods, as it is to learn to shop and cook them in good recipes...And it is possible...Can't wait for my next blood test....If I still need lipitor I will be amazed (was borderline)....If I test close to borderline diabetic, I will be amazed---I was....And I just wish I could see my Omega 3 vs. Omega 6 count which I can't.....It is working, and thank you Kongo (and others)...Cheers.

awife
Posts: 5
Joined: Jun 2010

After reading a Kongo post, we have been following the no dairy, no red meat but not as much focus on the sugar limit for the last two months while waiting on the hubby's robotic scheduled for later this month. We got the results back from an employment physical and the PSA was down almost a point.
After reading Dr. Ornish's spectrum book and watching the Bill Clinton interview we are going to try and move it more to the Vegan no meat diet, maybe try a white meat once a week. We always knew that heart disease will be our next fight.

G.L.M_61's picture
G.L.M_61
Posts: 30
Joined: Sep 2010

My son works for Whole Foods and has told me to eat the same as you are which I have been doing. Heck, I was eating a quart of ice cream per day all summer long, YIKES. I now eat little red meat, and I take the 1200 mg. of Omega 3 fish oil 2 X's per day. My wife is Sicilian so we use a lot of olive oil and garlic. I also started drinkin room temeperature water or something warm with a meal, it keeps any fat from getting hard in your stomach. Yes, eat those greasy French fries and wash them down with a Coke and ice. YUCK in your body.

G.L.M_61's picture
G.L.M_61
Posts: 30
Joined: Sep 2010

Yes, my psa went down from 2.2 to 1.2 which was it'lowest point after my IMRT treatment 5 years ago. I also lost 5 lbs. I drink soy milk now, no butter, and one in a while some soy ice cream. It all taste the same to me anyway, LOL. I was wondering if bread and eggs should be eliminated also from my diet. HUMMMMMMMMM. Good for you and let us know how it is working. This reduction in my weight and psa took only two weeks. The doctors were amazed.

G.L.M_61's picture
G.L.M_61
Posts: 30
Joined: Sep 2010

Please let me know how your "off the dairy" diet works the next time your psa is taken. After I joined this discussion board, I took the bull S. and became my own advocate as a women an here suggested. The doctors have a pill for everything and everyone. I cancelled all my tests they wanted to do on me for 2 weeks while on this diet. My doctor was amazed how my PSA went down, and also how my cholestorol also went way down after the Omega 3 started. BTW: How was I to know that eating a quart of ice cream 24 /7 all summmer long would do this to me. ROFLAO. What a dope I was. The ice cream has been gone for months, and the soy ice cream is expensive, but taste the same. I only eat a little sometimes. I drink coffee and use the soy vanella nut milk. It works fine in coffee and on cereal. NOW, does anyone out there want to buy a new container of cottage cheese my wife just purchased? FREE shiping too. :-)

mrspjd
Posts: 693
Joined: Apr 2010

Breast cancer and prostate cancer are both hormone sensitive cancers. A little known fact is that men can be carriers of the brca 1 and 2 genes, common in breast cancer. The only way to know if a man is a carrier of the brca gene is through genetic testing with follow-up genetic counseling. What this means is that if there is a history of prostate cancer in a man's family, not only are his sons at a higher risk of PCa, but if he is a carrier of the brca gene, then his daughters may be at higher risk of breast cancer.

FreddyJoe
Posts: 42
Joined: Dec 2010

There does seem to be a very strong link to cancer, especially prostate cancer if other family members had it. My mothers sister had 4 male children, all 4 had prostate cancer and were also diabetic, both of my parents died of cancer, and I knew I was bound to get it, and I did.

G.L.M_61's picture
G.L.M_61
Posts: 30
Joined: Sep 2010

Sounds good as it has been a while for me on this discussion board. I am going nuts with this non dairy diet however it seems to work GREAT. I was wondering if you ever eat any eggs or bread as that is dairy for sure, correct? Thank you.

ob66
Posts: 218
Joined: Apr 2010

Good question about eggs. I was wondering the same thing. Are the organic,omega 3 eggs O.K., or is it best to eliminate (for prostate CA, not necessarily heart issues)????? Have not done eggs lately, but wondering????

G.L.M_61's picture
G.L.M_61
Posts: 30
Joined: Sep 2010

My son works at Whole Foods, and looked this up for me. Eggs are NOT dairy at all and he gave me a link to a dairy FREE diet, and what is and what is not dairy. I will have to write down the link and then attempt to post it for anyone interested. If anyoneis interested, I will eventually get it posted.

ob66
Posts: 218
Joined: Apr 2010

Good question about eggs. I was wondering the same thing. Are the organic,omega 3 eggs O.K., or is it best to eliminate (for prostate CA, not necessarily heart issues)????? Have not done eggs lately, but wondering????

Kongo's picture
Kongo
Posts: 1167
Joined: Mar 2010

Eggs are not dairy products. I think when a lot of us grew up we often confused eggs with diary because that is what the milkman often brought to our houses (remember those days) when we were kids. Dairy, by definition, are products from the mammary glands of mammals like cows, goats, sheep, and others. Chickens don't have mammary glands and eggs certainly aren't a product of a mammary gland.

I only eat organic eggs...those without the supplements and chemicals that much of the poultry industry uses today.

G.L.M_61's picture
G.L.M_61
Posts: 30
Joined: Sep 2010

My son works for Whole foods and looked this up for me. Eggs are NOT dairy. My son sent me a link to a dairy free diet and recipe book that includes brownies, and many, many good meals. You know my personal E-mail so it you would like this like, E-mail me and I will reply with the link. I am a PC geek, LOL. but I can build a house with my eyes closed. :-)

FaithnFuture
Posts: 2
Joined: Nov 2010

please post or send site regarding dairy free diet...thanks n God Bless

ob66
Posts: 218
Joined: Apr 2010

Thanks for the clarification. I have not been a big egg eater for years (maybe once every two weeks), but will certainly only eat the omega 3 organics when I do..

bdhilton
Posts: 759
Joined: Jan 2010

I take one step further and just eat the whites....

randy_in_indy's picture
randy_in_indy
Posts: 493
Joined: Oct 2009

I swear...you all are way healthier than I when it comes to your diet....I have never been one to follow all the healthy advice. I believe in moderation as a rule when it comes to everything....do I subscribe to it religiously...nope...I drink too much beer, eat too many dairy products....and probably too much fat....however...my great grandmother lived an excellent life...very much without doctors....she finally passed at 98. lived by herself alone in a house until she was about 89 or 90. I truly believe much of our health is inherited and by luck. Look at jim fix....represented the great running start for millions and died of too much cholestoral in arteries....something running should have fixed or at least put off....he died at 52. Eulle Gibbions the Grape Nut Health expert...died at 64 of complications of marfan syndrome, an inherited disorder. Something is going to get all of us at some point! I know I need to start changing my ways and start moving to the healthier choices. I need to read here more maybe that will motivate me.

To all who fight the beast....may your choice conquer!!

Randy in Indy

G.L.M_61's picture
G.L.M_61
Posts: 30
Joined: Sep 2010

I am 61 now and was treated for prostate cancer about 5 years ago. My back is shot because I owned a furniture moving business and did constuction. My Mother told me when I was 20 that I will ruin my body. AHHHHHHH, what do Mom's know,LOL. It is all a choice for all of us and then we live with our decisions later in life. It is never too early or too late to start a healthy diet as we are what we eat. You look very young so I applaud you for at least making an effort to change your diet. Good luck to you and yours.

bdhilton
Posts: 759
Joined: Jan 2010

yes life is a lottery but we have control on diet, exercise and the fun we have...yea my grandparents on both sides ate eggs and bacon (eggs based in bacon fat) their entire lives...Life is a lottery

Scambuster's picture
Scambuster
Posts: 975
Joined: Nov 2009

Excuse the barge in but it was nice to see you getting good results with PSA, cholesterol etc from the change in diet. Isn't it just amazing that your doctors were surprised !! The reason is they still (in the majority) refuse to believe diet is critical for our health and recover from cancer and many other disease. The fact is, Doctors do not study nutrition and run by the drug company fed information. Sad but true. (Well actually it was shown they study about 8 hours of diet and nutrition in their entire formal medical training).

I am on the head & neck board. I am 15 months out now from treatment (Surgery/Rads Chemo), went Vegan and doing supplements and am doing very well though I have some nasty post radiation side effects but not as bad as many on my board. I am about the healthiest I have ever been.

As for the dairy and meats etc, the evidence is there that all animal protein is not so good for us, that includes eggs and fish. While most people get away with it and yes, many till they are in their 90's, The fact is we didn't, we got cancer, changes the picture, so maybe we should do everything possible to get rid of it and not to get a recurrence.

The way we metabolize animal protein leaves our bodies depleted in certain elements and enzymes as well as it leaving certain oxidases and other irritants which are know to be carcinogenic. They are very different to non animal proteins. If you have not read it yet, I would strongly suggest you read "The China Study' (Dr T. Colin Campbell). It will clarify exactly why you have all noticed changes in your health since you stopped dairy and cut down on meats.

He ran extensive experiments with rats on high diets of Milk Protein and it showed 100% causal to progress of cancer. When they reversed the diets, the cancer stopped and regressed. Quite remarkable. He then went on and undertook the largest ever statistical study of human diet and related disease, and showed the Western Diet to be ..well pretty bad and hence the very high rates of Cardio vascular disease, diabetes and Cancer, far greater than existed in China. As Chinese people introduced the Protein rich foods, guess what happened ? Give up ? Well of course the results showed a direct correlation with increase in CV Disease, Diabetes and cancer. These are know as 'Western Diseases' or 'Diseases of Affluence'.

I have an excerpt on my Blog of a key Chapter from the book and more info on my expression page.

The bad news is we probably should eliminate all animal protein (sorry guys, that also means eggs). As for the white breads, well all processed foods which include white rice, white pastas, white breads are all simple carbs and have had the goodness and fibre stripped away, so they convert to sugars very quickly and it is now known that cancer likes sugar. While they are not so bad for us, they just don't much that is good. Whole grain food is the way to go - these are complex carbs.

Back on the sugar, well, that is how they find it withe PET Scan, they piggy back the radioactive isotopes onto a sugar (FDG), inject into you and the tumors suck it up and it lights up on your scan. So we should give up free sugars - sugar is cancer food.

In general, process foods, free sugars, fried foods and animal proteins are stuff we should avoid. You would have to try this big change in diet to appreciate it. Some of you have already noticed a big change just from eliminating Dairy. A quick side note on dairy is firstly you don;t need it and can get all the calcium etc elsewhere and also consuming dairy actually blocks the absorption of calcium. That is why the countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis are also the countries with the highest consumption of Dairy. A little known fact and one the Dairy boards of the world don't really want to advertise.

It's not all bad, as there are plenty of good foods out there that are in fact all good for us. I hope you do check out the book. There is still too much resistance to using diet as major part of our treatment, recovery and survival by the main stream medical profession. As such, don't expect your doctor to give you accurate information about diet and nutrition. They treat cancer and most illnesses with intervention : Surgery and drugs. that's what they are trained in. Do yourselves a favor, read up as much about diet and nutrition in relation to your general health and especially cancer. Many adopt the 'Moderation and well my grandpa ate 20lb steaks every day etc and he lived till he was 110. I know, but each thing you do that is not so good for us, it changes the numbers and not in our favor.

Anyway, thank you for reading this far, and i hope you are inspired to rad further on the impact diet will have on your health. Take it step by step and increase the number improvements rather than the shock of a complete change if that eases the transition. Keep learning and don't tale any one article or book as the end game, read it all and the truth will emerge.

I wish you all long and healthy lives.

Scambuster

Swingshiftworker
Posts: 657
Joined: Mar 2010

I don't doubt that what you've reported is probably correct but I have no intention of becoming a vegan, which is basically what you'd have to do to achieve the kind of diet you are talking about.

I eat much better than I did before -- almost no dairy, much less sugar, caffeine, alcohol and fat and more fruit and veggies -- but I still like eggs for breakfast, sugar in my coffee, a nice rare steak and a tumbler of scotch now and then.

Frankly, I don't think my eating habits "caused" my cancer and -- despite all of the research -- I don't think anyone really "knows" what causes cancer. There are a lot of statistical correlations between diet and cancer, but there's a big difference between a statistical correction and cause & effect.

If I make any dietary changes, it will be for general health reasons (as I've done in the past) and not because I believe it will prevent cancer. So, unless someone can prove what I eat caused my cancer, I'm not planning any changes and will take the risk that I'll survive my cancer despite what I eat.

Beau2
Posts: 246
Joined: Sep 2010

Hey Swing,

I'm just finishing the book "Ashes to Ashes, America's Hundred-Year Cigarette War, the Public Health, and the Unabashed Triumph of Philip Morris".

When I read your post I was immediately struck by the similarity of you comments and the legal arguments presented by the tobacco industry in defence of cigarettes. Their arguments were (is) that no one "knows" what causes lung-cancer and that a lot of statistical correlations betwen smoking and lung cancer do not establish cause & effect.

I'm not saying you or the Tobacco Industry are wrong; however, I'd been thinking about the Tobacco Industries arguments and was surprised when I read you comments; they were so similar to theirs, and unfortunately apparently true. If only we knew the cause of cancer.

Swingshiftworker
Posts: 657
Joined: Mar 2010

I think there is no doubt that smoking is the cause of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases, based on a long history of research and anecdotal evidence that people who smoke (or who are exposed to smoke from people who do) get those diseases and people who don't smoke (and aren't exposed to smoke) don't get them.

My father died of complications from emphysema "caused" by smoking; ie., if he never smoked he would have never developed emphysema. So, while it's easy to isolate smoking as the cause of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases, isolating one's diet as the CAUSE of whatever cancer they acquire is not so easy.

My father also had PCa. Was that CAUSED by his diet? No one knows. My mother also had breast and uterine cancer. Did what she eat cause her cancer? No one knows. I got PCa, but my sister (who's 70 now) has never had any cancer. If what we ate caused our cancers, why hasn't my sister developed cancer too, given that all of us ate/eat very similar diets. No one knows.

So, it's not the same thing.

I'm not saying that improving your diet will not have health benefits and "may" reduce your risk of cancer. I have changed my diet in order improve my health BUT there really is no PROOF that if you eliminate all of the evil things -- like salt, fat, sugar, meat and diary -- from you diet that you will still not get cancer. Even vegans, who don't each such things, still get cancer. Why is that? Frankly, no one knows. And, if becoming a vegan doesn't prevent cancer, why bother to deny yourself the pleasures of a "normal" diet?

IMHO, until there is such proof, the BEST you can do is eat a "relatively" healthy diet (based on your own medical needs) and exercise regularly. These 2 things will definitely improve your health and prolong your life, regardless of the effect that they may or may not have in reducing your "risk" of cancer.

Just my opinion. I won't "debate" you any further on the topic. You can believe and do as you like and I will likewise.

Ciao! EOM.

Scambuster's picture
Scambuster
Posts: 975
Joined: Nov 2009

HI Swing & Beau,

I should have been a little more explicit in my earlier post. Let's forget for a moment how we got cancer as we know it's very hard to be definite but suffice it to say it could be any combination of : genetics, your general health, the environment, an episodic event (ie. Exposure to radiation) and of course lifestyle - meaning diet and our personal habits of exercise and abuse (Alcohol and tobacco). Getting it is classed as 'initiation'. This is a separate topic to what I intended.

My main intended point is that we already have the cancer, therefore what do we know 'progresses' and 'promotes' cancer ? I think there is indisputable proof that the dietary influence mentioned earlier are in fact proven to cause progress and promotion of cancer, by cell growth by gene expression & cell division and subsequent tumor formation and expansion. The example given and quoted from Campbells book has proven 100% that milk protein 'Promotes' Cancer. The further studies cited cover other aspect of diet and the metabolic overview of how and why it happens. This is no trivial study.

The multitude of other studies now accessible, have shown similar results with meats and sugars and processed foods have the same effect. Whether you are more or less susceptible, is again the luck of genes, general health and ability of your body to combat cancer with it's natural defenses.

The bottom line is the numbers do change considerably either in your favor or against you, depending on how far you take the dietary approach. Reducing all the things we discussed is obviously a good thing. As such the 'more good things' we do, the better our relative numbers will be. If your diet consists of 20% + of animal protein (Meat, dairy etc) and fatty foods and high sugar intake, then your chances of either progression or recurrence will increase. If you keep the consumption below 5%, your chances of recurrence drop dramatically. if you eliminate them all together, then you benefit from a further improvement in the numbers.

There is no doubt changing ones habits, and removing some of our comforts is never an easy thing Swing. My approach has been rather dramatic because i want my chances to be the best I can make them. My motivation is I have 2 tiny kids ages 1 and 3. One was born between my surgery and the start of chemo and rads. I have made a personal commitment to do everything I can to ensure I am still around to watch them grow up and for them to have a Daddy. For a while that didn't look like it was going to happen. I am also not sure I could cope with going through what I went through last year again.

The comparison Beau makes with the tobacco industry does ring a familiar note, and the arguments were the same for many many years. There were always many small isolated studies showing the harm from tobacco, yet the industry and the medical profession refused to admit the harm. In those days, your Doctor might tell you to 'reduce your smoking'. The industry said "there is not conclusive proof..".

Today we know Doctors say 'STOP' smoking because is has been 'proven' to be harmful. They nailed the DNA affected by nicotine. Today they also say "reduce your intake of red meats and fatty foods". Sound familiar ? Swing, the studies are there, the proof is there. It is in isolated pockets but growing in volume and eventually all the dots will be joined up, the lobby groups will be asked to stand aside and there will be a wide scale shift in views from within the medical profession.

As you say, we don't ned to start a peeing contest here, and that is also not my intent, just to encourage a little further research. If you are comfortable with what you are doing and where you, I fully respect that too, and wish you the very best with continued recovery and a full and happy life. That's what we all hope for here on these boards.

All the best to you.

Scambuster

BRONX52
Posts: 156
Joined: Apr 2010

Just a short comment. I have queried several physicians on this diet debate and most agree that the jury is still still out out on the effect it has on cancer. They also pointed out that a reduction in psa through diet doesn't always equate to an overall effect on cancer. PSA is only one of many indicators used to measure cancer progression. Even with the use of hormone therapy, although psa may drop drastically, many cancer cells are immune to this therapy and continue to spread even though the psa drops. One doctor even told me that you can't unring the bell when it comes to cancer. Diet may prevent it but once you have it diet can't make it go away. Sobering thought, and I am not sure if I believe all that they told me. One thing that they did agree on was that a heart healthy diet can prevent several other diseases and lead to a longer life. But when it comes to cancer all bets are off---it's a crap shoot. So what I gather from all all of this is that a change to a more healthy diet can have positive overall effects, but the effect on cancer is still debatable !!---go figure----just my thoughts and observations

HeartofSoul's picture
HeartofSoul
Posts: 732
Joined: Dec 2009

sugar is cancer food? So we should give up free sugars - sugar is cancer food.?

If sugar can cause cancer, then God help us as we would have tens of millions of people dx with cancer yearly. As it is now, 1.5 milion are dx a yr in US.

Cancer Loves Sugar – Truth or Rumor?
This familiar saying, "cancer loves sugar" has been around since the 1924 publication of Dr. Otto Warburg's paper, "On metabolism of tumors." Warburg was a Nobel Prize winning cell biologist who wrote, "Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar." Many people who referred to his work in later years misquoted Warburg's statement by saying, "cancer loves sugar."

Warburg's hypothesis stated that cancer growth was caused when cancer cells converted glucose into energy without using oxygen. Healthy cells make energy by converting pyruvate and oxygen. The pyruvate is oxidized within a healthy cell's mitochondria, and Warburg theorized that since cancer cells don't oxidize pyruvate, cancer must be considered a mitochondrial dysfunction.

Now that we know more about the genetics of cancer, we know that cancer is not a mitochondrial dysfunction, but is caused by genetic mutations, such as appear on the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. It is true that healthy cells and cancer cells convert their food to energy in different ways, but that difference is an effect, and not a cause, of cancer.

Sugar and Cancer: Is There a Connection?
The facts about sugar and cancer can be confusing. They often are presented in a way that is misleading and anxiety-producing for people with cancer. However, if you learn a bit about the science behind the connections between what we eat and cancer risk, you can make wise nutrition choices for better health.

The concept that sugar feeds cancer is not useful. Sugar feeds every cell in our bodies. Our bodies need glucose, or simple sugar, for energy. Even if you cut every bit of sugar out of your diet, your body will make sugar from other sources, such as protein and fat.

So cancer cells need sugar to grow, just like healthy cells. It helps to remember that there is nothing particular about sugar that “feeds” cancer cells any more than sugar feeds all cells in our body.

Do I need to be concerned about sugar?
Even though sugar doesn’t exactly “feed” cancer cells, it is a good idea to limit the amount of simple sugar you eat. This is because when you eat a lot of sugar, your body produces a lot of insulin.

Insulin is a natural substance made by the body. Insulin can tell cells to grow. In simple terms, insulin can “rev up” cell growth. For healthy cells, this is a good thing. This is because the cells in your body grow, divide, die, and are replaced as part of the natural process of living. However, cancer cells can be encouraged to grow more, too, when our bodies produce too much insulin. So while some insulin in the body is normal, excess insulin may encourage cancer cells to grow more, which is not a good thing (1-6).

This is the downside of insulin: Our bodies need it to function, but it’s unhealthy if we make too much of it.

In summary, sugar does not “feed” cancer cells. However, a lot of sugar can cause our bodies to produce too much insulin, and this is not good for health.

VascodaGama's picture
VascodaGama
Posts: 1594
Joined: Nov 2010

Hi Bronx52,

I do not know if your doctors are correct in their views, but I like your observation. Surely I am the reverse of what it is commented about “good” diets and “good” supplements to fight prostate cancer. As a Portuguese, I grew up with the famous “Mediterranean diet” until my mid-twenties, then I moved to Japan and were fed for 30 years with the famous “low cancer risk oriental diet”, drunk kiloliters of green tea, had lots of “take” mushrooms and soy products, etc, etc, ….you name it. Back to my country lavished again with the Med-diet based on tomatoes, fish, fresh vegetables and fruits, olive oil and excellent red wines, every day. Nevertheless, nothing of that prevented me of having prostate cancer.
I recall the so famous PC-SPES, an Oriental Medicine of Chinese herbs, in 2000 claiming to be effective in the treatment of prostate cancer, because it lower the PSA, and then it was proven that its composition included the estrogen DES .
Well, it is hard to trust recommendations on treatments based on “good” diets.

Take care,
VGama

Kongo's picture
Kongo
Posts: 1167
Joined: Mar 2010

The recent posts on this thread exhibit a refreshing level of discourse with well articulated points of view that highlight the nuances of dealing with a cancer diagnosis.

We may never know for sure what causes our cancers but I personally don’t believe we will be able to pinpoint a single causative factor with any degree of certainty. In my own cancer journey I have become very suspicious of those who spout bumper sticker solutions to these very complex problems. Perhaps when we are conceived a process is launched that eventually results in our demise. Maybe there are an infinite number of environmental factors and lifestyle choices that combine to create varying levels of vulnerability. Maybe it’s all part of some master plan by our creator to teach us something in this life that we can’t yet comprehend. Maybe it is none of these things but whatever causes prostate cancer at this relatively mature stage of our lives we must all face fundamental decisions about how we choose to treat it (or not) and how we will live the rest of our days.

I think much of the hype surrounding diets and supplements are misplaced. We should not be treating PSA. Instead we should be treating the disease itself. We all know the nuances of what a PSA reading might mean. Is it before or after treatment? Did we have sex before the blood draw? Did we go bicycle riding or do we have a urinary tract infection? Is it an indolent form of cancer producing the antigen or a more sinister breed of cancer which has cells that are no longer capable of making PSA? Treating PSA is like the government giving unemployment benefits to those who have lost their jobs…it does something but fails to address the fundamental reasons for the loss of jobs in the first place.

My personal belief is that dairy in particular creates a chemical environment in our bodies where cancer is encouraged to grow beyond what our natural defense mechanisms can handle. I also think that too much red meat (or poultry or pork) from animals fattened in feed lots with artificially enhanced additives and growth hormones create similar chemical environments. The imbalance in our chemical stoichiometry has been shown to be related to Insulin Growth Factors (IGFs) which come from dairy products and to a lesser extent from the meat of the animals that provide our dairy products. In my own case, eliminating dairy resulted in a rapid decrease in my PSA readings and similar results have been experienced by countless others who embark on a no-dairy diet. I suspect that eliminating dairy brings the chemical balance around the prostate (or other areas where cancers form) back into a balance where our own immune system can contain or reduce the tumors and cancer cells that are producing the PSA. I disagree with doctors who dismiss dietary factors with condescending euphemisms. And I believe that some of these dietary choices can cause cancer to reverse itself. It is not just a scalpel or a radiation beam that can kill cancer.

As far as all the supplement cocktails others swear to, I just don’t know. My personal belief is that we shouldn’t need all of these supplements if our diet is balanced. It seems to me that the chemical interactions that surround the growth of healthy versus cancerous cells is just too complicated to state with any degree of certainty what any single supplement (much less a combination of supplements) might have on treating cancerous growths.

The other aspect of this is our whole approach to living with cancer. What Swing alluded to in his post was that his decisions about lifestyle choices trumps following a rigid vegan diet. I agree with Swing completely on this issue. We all made choices (either consciously or unconsciously) about how to treat our cancer based on our view of life and how we wanted to live after treatment. My personal view is that quality of life is more important to me than quantity of life. I suspect that Swing (and others) has reached similar conclusions. Others may choose quantity over quality with respect to life and that is fine too. We all have to make these choices and there is no right or wrong answer. At the end of the day, I believe that it is not how long we live that matters but rather how we choose to live and whether or not the world is a better place for our being here.

Personally I find it too hard, given the life I lead at present, to follow a purist diet such as some have described here. I do what works for me which is to avoid dairy, reduce meat consumption, increase soy intake, and try to exercise more and remain active. I too enjoy a tumbler of fine scotch (or a dirty Grey Goose martini), an occasional Cuban cigar, a perfectly cooked steak (maybe once or twice a month) and consider these things part of the lifestyle I consciously choose to have. I hope that each man in this forum makes these decisions consciously and not by accident.

Again, a great discussion. I hope we have more of these in this forum in the future.

steckley
Posts: 100
Joined: Aug 2009

Since this thread is discussing food and cigarettes you may want to remember that Philip Morris (Marlboro Country) bought General Foods AND Kraft while RJR bought Nabisco. At the time these were among the biggest buyouts in US history and placed big tobacco in charge of a huge share of what is placed on grocery store shelves.

Kongo believes that dairy products encourage cancer ... I can't think of a larger producer of dairy products than Kraft. You might want to read the labels on the General Foods and Nabisco labels and see if they contain any of the "foods" you want to avoid. I can remember the more recent past when some food companies resisted lableing (especially of transfat) similar to big tobacco's succesful resistance to labeling cigarettes.

My point, to a large extent big food has been run by big tobacco ... if these companies did the research and found out that their ingredients caused cancer do you think they might be a bit cautious with the information? Wouldn't that expose them to possible huge liabilities ... such as those faced by big tobacco?

My bottom line, you might want to focus on fresh foods and not processed ... and maybe organic, but organic's are another story.

Kongo's picture
Kongo
Posts: 1167
Joined: Mar 2010

Steckley, you make some interesting observations with respect to linking food production in the United States to the tobacco companies. What I always believed was that the tobacco companies diversified to food products because they had mountains of cash from cigarette sales but saw declining revenue potential in the USA after the Surgeon General report directly linked tobacco use to lung cancer.

The inference you draw is that there is something sinister about a tobacco company owning a large food company. Maybe there is. Certainly obesity in this country can be directly correlated to the rise in processed foods and fast foods as part of our diet. I would also think that like any large company (or bank) that is basing future revenue projections on a variety of market factors, big food companies are loathe to see any government oversight or regulation that might affect their botton line. I don't know if there is a conspiracy afoot here or not but I do agree that unprocessed, organic foods are better for you. They also just taste better.

steckley
Posts: 100
Joined: Aug 2009

Kongo,

Don't get me wrong, I very much support free enterprise and free markets. Any company should be able to purchase any other company, and tobacco's diversification efforts (especially Philip Morris') were spot on.

What I feel is sinister is what the tobacco companies did (and are still doing) in order to protect their earnings; and quite frankly, I feel they would do the same thing to protect their earnings from the food enterprises. It is one issue to be aggressive in keeping government out of your business, it is quite another to put your business in front of the health of your customers.

I agree with you about unprocessed food taste ... however, at times I crave processed food (taco chips)... I think its the salt load ... now where did I put that Twinki?

Kongo's picture
Kongo
Posts: 1167
Joined: Mar 2010

I think we're in perfect agreement. I too am all in favor of capitalism...but when companies break the law, their CEOs should go to jail. I also think any business sell consumer products, whether it's a TV set, an I-Pad, or food has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the public from faulty products that could impair their health to the best extent reasonable technogy can provide. I have a lot of qualms about the "nanny state" aspects of too much government oversight (I don't wear a bicycle helmet) but most of these laws stem from someone somewhere screwing it up and the public demanded the laws.

My weakness is Taco Bell but I can usually get them to make me a bean burrito without cheese!

mrspjd
Posts: 693
Joined: Apr 2010

Sorry to have to tell you this, but you may be better off with the cheese (not) and not the beans, at least from Taco Bell--those beans are most likely cooked in lard and is probably why they taste so good. The TB basic tacos aren't too bad once in a while (everything in moderation), but heaven knows what the "meat" is and I'm better off not knowing...and why did they ever discontinue those white meat soft chicken tacos (please hold the sauce)--those were the best! Probably because they were too healthy and, therefore, not selling well...

mrspjd
Posts: 693
Joined: Apr 2010

Steckley and Kongo,
Great talking (writing) points. Besides being highly educated consumers when it comes to purchasing heart/prostate healthy foods, wondering what suggestions anyone might offer on how we might impact our representatives in Washington related to the food industry/lobbyists concern for profit over health? This is a particularly interesting discussion, especially in light of the First Lady's recent national campaign in the "fight against obesity."

Kongo's picture
Kongo
Posts: 1167
Joined: Mar 2010

mrspjd:

You pose a daunting challenge: How to fix the system. In my opinion, a large part of the problem is that the rules governing drugs, foods, levels of acceptable toxin, definitions of what is organic and what isn't, and so forth are not subject to a legislative agenda but are administrative rulings that have the force of law and are handed down by a plethora of federal agencies such as FDA, EPA, CCDC, Department of Agriculture, trade agreements, and many others of similar ilk. The number of federal regulations in this area is truly staggering and I've seldom seen a regulation put in place by bureaucrats that was taken away. They only grow in volume.

While I'm no expert in this area, there are probably enough laws on the books at both the state and federal levels to protect consumers from having big businesses foist unsafe products on unsuspecting consumers. In the medical field, for example, there are strict laws against practicing without a license or using unapproved procedures, but almost daily we hear of doctors being banned in one state and simply moving to another to set up practice again. The paper trail gets lost much too easily.

I think one thing we should do as a matter of priority is to upgrade the tools regulatory agencies need to monitor and enforce the existing regulations. This may take the form of better database utilizaton, digitizing medical records for medical professionals as well as patients, ensuring that patients can't go from doctor to doctor to get harmful dosages of medication, and so forth.

We also have to have a way of monitoring and overseeing the production of products that do not add unreasonable hidden costs to price of doing business. Sarbanes Oxley, for example, which was enacted after the Enron debacle did a lot of good things with respect to required reporting requirements to the SEC for public companies but the cost of implementing these regulations, particularly for large businesses was enormous.

Just a few thoughts here but I don't know how we can legislate or direct common sense.

steckley
Posts: 100
Joined: Aug 2009

Hey mrsjpd,

Over the years our representatives have not had a very good record of adressing consumer problems; and they (the representatives) will most likely address an issue if consumers file suits that threaten the earnings of the companies that the representatives represent (lot of "represent" in that sentence!). I feel that consumer advocate groups that bring suits are more likely to effect change than are well intentioned representatives.

Also, passing new laws and developing new regulations will help only if there is funding to enforce the regulations. Currently funding to FDA, EPA, etc. is not adequate to enforce the existing plethora of regualtions. For several sets of regulations, enforcement has been passed down to the states, and many states are short of funds.

As you pointed out being a "highly educated consumer" is a persons best defence when buying food or addressing health issues. Someone will always be willing to sell us anything we want to buy ... even if it kills us.

Scambuster's picture
Scambuster
Posts: 975
Joined: Nov 2009

The FDA is a long way off fixing the bad food pushers out there. It is very hard to 'scientifically prove' the exact negative impact on health at a cellular level hence the long wait we had till tobacco was finally 'scientifically proven' to be bad for us. Food is the same and on the other side, certain health supplements, herbs and foods that are in all likely hood very good for us or can even cure us, it is very hard (unless you spend many millions) to 'scientifically prove why they are good.

Jumping sideway now, I gather some states in the US and other countries have lobby groups pushing for the 'Traffic Light' food labeling to introduce and made mandatory. In brief junk foods high in free sugars, additives, fats etc are labeled with a red tag ( Sodas, cakes, sugar cereals, pop tarts, bacon, packet mix rubbish and condiments)

Foods that are not really that bad and also have some good like cereals, white rice, white breads, etc are given an orange tag and of course fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, pulses, whole-grains and whole-grain products (Brown, red and black rices), are all given the Green tag.

There would some fighting on where lean red meats and other animal product would land but you get the drift (fighting from the meat /poultry/ dairy industries' lobby groups).

As for my 5 cents worth, as a cancer survivor with the intention or remaining one, I shop in my imaginary Green zone only (we haven't got the labeling system where I live). Anyhow, I do hope this does get legislated and soon. It would be an easier first step to raise awareness especially when shopping aisles in supermarkets are sectioned into these 3 distinct areas.

I can see it now..."You are now entering the RED ZONE..(warning lights flashing) ". How I wish.

Best to all Scam

PS Bronx - remember that Doctors do not study diet or nutrition hence their reluctance to commit on such issues. If you want a Doctor to give you nutritional advice, find one whose kid has cancer or one that has cancer himself. As for "Once you got it well there nothing you can do.." comment, I say complete bollocks ! Change Doctor, the guy is not plugged in. There are thousands of documented cases of how diet can affect cancer and recovery. There is also emerging studies in Anti-angiogenesis from diet, reduction in Metastasis and complete cures, many are not yet 'scientifically proven' because of the reasons mentioned above. Silymarin is a good example. It promotes liver cell renewal and improves outcomes from liver patients but they cannot nail down why but the figures are there, they just can't explain them yet. There is a lot of hope Bronx so find the information that will help you and get to it.

mrspjd
Posts: 693
Joined: Apr 2010

Several months ago in another thread, I posted a link to an extremely interesting & facinating thought provoking (audio/visual) presentation on the subject of the possible relationships between cancer & angiogenesis, anti-angiogenesis, cell death, & food. The presentation was made by Dr. Li at the Feb 2010 TED conference--a conference of the best and brightest cutting edge leaders in their field of expertise, such as medical, scientific, etc. With the interest in angiogenesis & cancer in another post, thought the link might be worthy of a second post:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/william_li.html

This is truly, literally & figuratively, "food for thought!"

bdhilton
Posts: 759
Joined: Jan 2010

Is the glass half full or half empty? Attitude has a whole lot to do with not only survival but living a healthy and productive life in general. Did you ever think how aggressive your PCa would have been without these life time diets of yours?

Since you do not mention how your heat is doing I would assume great because of your diets…Cancer or heart related problems get most folks in the end…We all die but I choose to die as healthy as I can be…and guys get PCa in Asia and the Mediterranean countries that live on these diets too...just not in the same numbers...Peace

VascodaGama's picture
VascodaGama
Posts: 1594
Joined: Nov 2010

Hilton
In Portugal, by tradition, a dinner is only complete with a bottle of wine on the table. You would love our traditions too.
Your comment recalls me ten years ago (May 2000), when I was told that I had prostate cancer. I enter into denial “….What, me, why, I am so healthy and have no symptoms…..”. I did not fit the typical guy described by many in this forum, with all that fatty diet healthy problems. I was physically ok and had no healthy pointers out of the brackets (maybe because of all that olive oil in my veins).
At 50 years old, PSA was 22.4, Gs 2+3=5. RP in Aug2000, SRT in Nov2006 and ADT in Nov2010. Quality of life has been my principal aim in this long fight. For me, “Abstinence” is the worse attitude someone could do once marked with cancer. Respect the bandit and learn about it but don’t make it as a friend.

In my country I made part of the 4,000 new PCa cases annually. We are only 10 million which makes it nearly to a half of your USA number (218,000), but we have three times more death (45%) than you (15%). The higher mortality may be due to lack of earlier prevention programs, therefore advanced cases is the norm at diagnosis.

Hope your wish come true; healthier and over the 100th mark.
VGama

bdhilton
Posts: 759
Joined: Jan 2010

Thanks VGama and the best to your journey

FreddyJoe
Posts: 42
Joined: Dec 2010

I was put on a low cholesterol diet and dairy and eggs are both out. The whites seem to be OK, but the yolk, maybe one or two a week. I was watching Dr Oz one day and he was talking about no white food, there were 3 that we can eat he says, egg whites were one, sugar and white bread definately not.

hopeful111
Posts: 13
Joined: Nov 2010

I'm following this thread with interest - besides the pca I have, gs7, a dexa
showed osteoporosis, and am trying to increase calcium and vit d,
and hopefully put off using the bone rx like fosamax or zometa;
however will be starting adt/lupron soon which could have further
negative impact on bones and muscles.

in any case, wanted to ask folks if a little dairy like 12 oz full fat
yogurt once a da would be ok in context of this thread and stopping all dairy.

I am underweight and trying to add more protein, but have ibs and its tough to find non dairy foods high in protein that don't exacerbate it. I tried 1 oz salmon
for 5 days and it did not agree - had to stop.
(and makes me hesitant to start the fish oil capsules and its frustating since really want to get the benefits of that)

So went back to yogurt I had stopped just to get some protein - its only
12 g in the 12 oz, but better than nothing.

Now slowly trying soy milk - 2 8oz glasses a day, barely making it digestion wise with that, but keeping at it.

But really need to use soy protein powder and/or tofu which has more protein in reasonable amts I need., and thats the next step of the experiment.

If experiment is ok, I could drop the yogurt and take calcium supplements and
calcium in rice and soy milk toget the calcium instead.

questions

1. is even the 12 oz of yogurt taken too much in the context of pca
and this thread ?

2. would using the non fat yogurt help instead - it has more protein somehow -- or is it that dairy is dairy, regardless of fat content ?

Thanks for feedback or opinions

Kongo's picture
Kongo
Posts: 1167
Joined: Mar 2010

hopeful,

Yogurt, fat or unfit, has the same insulin growth factors that other dairy products have. All dairy comes from the same place...the mammary glands of mammals. While some may disagree, my feelings are that you have to eliminate dairy. Humans have no biological need for dairy after they are weaned and there are plenty of sources of protien other than from dairy products.

Suggest that you check with your local health food stores or markets and see if there are any soy-based yogurts in your area.

I strongly urge you to do your own research on this and some will say cutting back on dairy is good but I would suggest you read Dr. Jane Plant's books on dairy for a great perspective. The dairy that she was eating as part of her doctor directed diet for her breast cancer was killing her. With only months to live she eliminated all dairy and her trumors shrank and disappeared in a matter of weeks. While everyone is affected differently, here account of dairy and how it works in the body was compelling to me. Her first book chronicled her own journey with breast cancer (a sister disease to prostate cancer) and is titled "Your Life in Your Hands." She has also written a companion bood for prostate cancer called "Prostate Cancer." Both books available at Amazon.

Good luck to you.

K

Swingshiftworker
Posts: 657
Joined: Mar 2010

FWIW, I eat very little dairy (no whole milk, only soy milk and very little yogurt or cheese) and can go weeks without eating any dairy products at all but my PSA levels were and still are higher than they should be. Go figure . .

So, low or no dairy intake doesn't apparently work for me but I'll still keep my dairy intake down because I'm not compelled to eat dairy products much anyway.

VascodaGama's picture
VascodaGama
Posts: 1594
Joined: Nov 2010

Hopefull
Your osteoporosis may become more harmful than your prostate cancer once hormonal shots start. Surely you have to be careful with your calcium income (lack of) and bone loss.
I would not give up with the yogurt and would take calcium supplements together with a bisphosphonate, until recovery from osteoporosis. Stop dairy has no meaning unless you are in an earlier status, which seems not to be the case.
Here is a list of produces high in calcium which you may incorporate in your diet.
http://www.weightlossforall.com/foods-rich-calcium.htm

Take care.
VGama

Subscribe with RSS
About Cancer Society

The content on this site is for informational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice. Do not use this information to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease without consulting with a qualified healthcare provider. Please consult your healthcare provider with any questions or concerns you may have regarding your condition. Use of this online service is subject to the disclaimer and the terms and conditions.

Copyright 2000-2014 © Cancer Survivors Network