Is Diet a real potential solution

ob66 said:

With all this diet talk, I decided to start the recipe sharing and see if it has legs. If not, that is fine. My wife is an excellent cook, and was hating life for a long while starting seven months ago when I went on the NO red meat, NO dairy, and as little sugar as possible diet. But she has not only rolled with the punches very well, but come up with some recipes that we feel we could serve not only to dieters like us, but of a quality that would be liked by all. So let me start with a total vegan recipe, even though I eat fish and range chicken. Maybe a thanks to Kongo here for all his help and advice.

BLACK BEAN AND BUTTERNUT SQUASH CHILI WITH CILANTRO PESTO

Yield: 6 to 8 servings

2 large onions, coarsely chopped
2 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil
4 cloves garlic, minced
2 bay leaves
1 tablespoon ground cumin
1 tablespoon dried oregano
1/2 teaspoon freshly ground pepper
1 tablespoon chili powder
1/4 teaspoon ground cloves
1 teaspoon of tumeric
1/8 teaspoon cayenne pepper
2 (28 ounce) cans of whole tomatoes, with juices
4 cups 1/2 inch diced butternut squash (about 1 medium squash)
2-3 cups water
2 cups canned black beans, rinsed
Kernels from 3 to 4 ears fresh corn (about 2 cups)
2 to 3 teaspoons salt

CILANTRO PESTO:

1/3 cup walnut pieces, toasted, see cook's notes
1 bunch cilantro, washed and tough stems removed (about 1 cup)
2 cloves garlic (minced)
1/2 cup canola or olive oil, or a mix of the two
Salt

Cook's Notes: To toast nuts, place in single layer on rimmed baking sheet. Place in middle of a 350 degree oven until nuts are lightly browned. Watch carefully because nuts burn easily.

Procedure:
1) In a large soup pot over medium heat, saute' the onions in oil until translucent, 10 to 15 minutes. Add garlic and saute' another 1-2 minutes. Add spices and continue cooking while stirring to prevent burning, about 1 minute. Add tomatoes and break apart with a masher. Add squash and 2 cups of the water. Bring to a boil, turn down the heat to a simmer until squash is tender, about 20 minutes.

2) Add black beans, corn and the additional water if needed, and simmer to let flavors blend, 5 minutes. Remove bay leaves. Season with salt.

3) To make the pesto, pure'e the walnuts, cilantro, garlic and oil in a food processor until smooth. Add salt to taste. Serve the soup with cilantro pesto on top, or with plain chopped cilantro if you prefer.

Nutrition Info: 420 calories (40% from fat), 19 gms. fat, 3.9 g. saturated fat, 32 mg cholesterol, 50 g. carbohydrates, 11 g. protein, 781 mg sodium, 4.1 g. fiber.

Judy also dabs a tablespoon of non dairy sour cream or soy plain yogurt on top of the chili, and places the cilantro on top of that. For many it may be too much work. For others some of the nutrition info may not be palatable. Enjoy, and if you do, add a favorite recipe of yours.

Kongo said:

Causes and effects
Swing,

I agree with you completely that no individual, specific food, vitamin, supplement, or herb will cause or cure cancer. What bothered me when I first began researching diet was the lack of any consistent, definitive data that showed any of these things actually had an impact. One study shows pomegranate juice lowers the risk of cancer, another says no impact. One study says Vitamen E lowers the risk of cancer, another says it was nothing more than a placebo effect. All of the doctors I initially consulted with tended to raise condescending eyebrows when I brought up the subject of diet or dairy on prostate cancer.

It wasn't till I read The China Study that it struck me that there is a fundamental fallacy in the studies conducted that look at a specific or individual food or supplement. If you take a typical cohort of American men who are eating average amounts of red meat, processed sugars, dairy products, and so forth and change a single variable in their diet (like say Vitamin D or Vitamin E) it became clear to me why none of the studies showed any conclusive evidence. The overwhelming impact of eating processed food, red meat from animals fed growth hormones and antibiotics and fattened in vast slaughter operations and fed corn instead of grass, dairy products, and so forth simply outweighed the impact of a single change in diet. Of course the studies had to have a control group where nothing changed and one where they changed a single variable (if you changed more than a single variable you can't tell what is the cause and effect).

It seemed to me that the only way you could validate the assumptions was to look at very large cohorts of people where one group was eating a "normal Western diet" and another was eating a plant based diet. That would be difficult to construct in America but in fact, that is exactly what The China Study did when it looked at a homogeneous population across China where certain parts of the population were primarily plant based and others followed a more Western diet. The results, at least to me, were startling.

There are always going to be outliers like George Burns or the billionare who made his fortune without ever graduating from high school. But although I'd like to be smoking a cigar and drinking martinis at 100, I think I have a better chance of getting there by avoiding the red meat, processed foods, and dairy that comprise so much of our diet in this country.

I wish I knew more. I'm doing a lot of reading. At least in the few months I've followed this course I've seen many positive impacts such as more energy, a gradual weight loss, improved blood levels relating to chlorestoral and other measures.

BTW, Swing, changing the subject here: There's a new 5-year CK study out on the original cohort of patients treated by Dr. King at Stanford and Freeman at Naples that you might wish to look at. Overall cancer free progression rates of 93%. No lasting rectal or urinary toxicity, and 80% of the men retained erectile function without the use of performance enhancing drugs.

You can see it at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21219625. Click on the free text link to see the complete paper.

Best to you,

K

Kongo said:

Causes and effects
Swing,

I agree with you completely that no individual, specific food, vitamin, supplement, or herb will cause or cure cancer. What bothered me when I first began researching diet was the lack of any consistent, definitive data that showed any of these things actually had an impact. One study shows pomegranate juice lowers the risk of cancer, another says no impact. One study says Vitamen E lowers the risk of cancer, another says it was nothing more than a placebo effect. All of the doctors I initially consulted with tended to raise condescending eyebrows when I brought up the subject of diet or dairy on prostate cancer.

It wasn't till I read The China Study that it struck me that there is a fundamental fallacy in the studies conducted that look at a specific or individual food or supplement. If you take a typical cohort of American men who are eating average amounts of red meat, processed sugars, dairy products, and so forth and change a single variable in their diet (like say Vitamin D or Vitamin E) it became clear to me why none of the studies showed any conclusive evidence. The overwhelming impact of eating processed food, red meat from animals fed growth hormones and antibiotics and fattened in vast slaughter operations and fed corn instead of grass, dairy products, and so forth simply outweighed the impact of a single change in diet. Of course the studies had to have a control group where nothing changed and one where they changed a single variable (if you changed more than a single variable you can't tell what is the cause and effect).

It seemed to me that the only way you could validate the assumptions was to look at very large cohorts of people where one group was eating a "normal Western diet" and another was eating a plant based diet. That would be difficult to construct in America but in fact, that is exactly what The China Study did when it looked at a homogeneous population across China where certain parts of the population were primarily plant based and others followed a more Western diet. The results, at least to me, were startling.

There are always going to be outliers like George Burns or the billionare who made his fortune without ever graduating from high school. But although I'd like to be smoking a cigar and drinking martinis at 100, I think I have a better chance of getting there by avoiding the red meat, processed foods, and dairy that comprise so much of our diet in this country.

I wish I knew more. I'm doing a lot of reading. At least in the few months I've followed this course I've seen many positive impacts such as more energy, a gradual weight loss, improved blood levels relating to chlorestoral and other measures.

BTW, Swing, changing the subject here: There's a new 5-year CK study out on the original cohort of patients treated by Dr. King at Stanford and Freeman at Naples that you might wish to look at. Overall cancer free progression rates of 93%. No lasting rectal or urinary toxicity, and 80% of the men retained erectile function without the use of performance enhancing drugs.

You can see it at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21219625. Click on the free text link to see the complete paper.

Best to you,

K

ob66 said:

VGama: When it comes to cooking I am the resident idiot (maybe a good chop boy, I make). I copied the recipe that Jude used and put it out there. She has read your suggestions and agrees. She uses extra virgin olive oil in all her cooking so does not have the non extra virgin, but agrees that its use in the cilantro is important. The wine, we both agree, is a great idea. Matter of fact, why not a glass or two of a good red while cooking to get the revertrol levels up to snuff. And yes, reducing the salt is a good idea. Hope you try the recipe. Sounds like you may be a good chef. Bon appetit' and cheers.

Hullo all, I'm the latest recruit. A 62 year old male from the land down under with a bit of a health issue down under so to speak. in early 2010 my PSA had climbed to 9. The GP felt a lump, the biopsy came up with a GS of 3+4 from one of 13 points and the urologist wanted to whip it out. A female vegan friend suggested I try some alternatives while in the wait for surgery while training other muscles to control urinating period.

A tough decision? Three months of rebbit food vs major surgery + incontinence + no more orgasms. My PSA which had kicked up to 11 8 weeks after the biopsy dropped to 4.2. I lost 10 kg without a hunger pang (from 82 kg) and loved the food. But I was also dropping muscle mass. My diet stayed mainly vegan for till about June last year but PSA climbed back up to ~ 7 and plateaued.   

In March last year I read T. Colin Campbell's The China Study. Great read. Lots of scientific rigour and what a total gentleman he has been shown to be by his temperate responses to critics. However like Beau2 I wonder if he has missed the point. By coincidence my next two books were Nora Gedgaudas Primal Mind, Primal Body and the Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith. Now neither lady appears to have Dr T's rigorous approach and Lierre wanders off with the pixies from time to time (but writes a highly entertaining book) there is some interesting material in both. Nora won me over by telling me on about page 2 that double thick cream was good for me provided it came from grass fed bovines.

So I started a dietary experiment of one last June and ate a large proportion of animal fat and protein and dairy products and mostly avoided carbs but probably drank more wine than was good for me. (I see a lot of you lads talk about avoiding sugar. My school science told me all carbs end up as sugar/glucose. If you don't disagree with the chemistry why are you eating any carbs?). My friends expected me to die of a heart attack before Christmas. I just had all the blood tests done: cholesterol and blood sugar easily in normal range. PSA 1.5 (free 0.5). That PSA result is so good I am going to get it re-done at a different lab. I'll keep you posted.

In summary I suspect for this particular old, non-desexed male mammal with the common problem of prostate gland hyperplasia (as my veterinarian daughter termed it) Nora's paleo diet is the go. But I would urge all of you to try cutting down on the carbs (and processed food).   

I for one believe in diet having an impact. But the question is how much? I don't think diet alone can replace a real cancer treatment. But if you looks at studies for lets say flaxseed ( omega 3's) Just that simple super food was shown to have postive effects on cancer parameters. So ofcource eating all these anticancer foods will PREVENT and in some cases slow progresion of cancers. Problems occur when people read these positive results and try replacing real treatments for a cancer diet. 

Plus the medical industry will not for the most part support healthy eating as greatly benificial because the effect is small and takes long to be noticed. They will only support things that will be noticeable instantly. I mean that is the entire reason why PREVENTION is really not payed much attention to in the united states. 

CowboyBob said:

An epidemiological treatise you can't hang your hat on

Unfortunately, this book is based on an ecological observational design and chooses to simply ignore the facts that don't fit the preconceived notions of the authors.  Fro example the incredibly high rate of gastric cancers among native Japanese consuming a diet with almost no beef/pork or processed foods or the low rates of cancers in the Maasai and the Inuit consuming almost exclusively animal proteins. 

I am on the opposite side of this argument. I believe human evolution never contemplated the high levels of refined carbohydrates the typical modern human eats.  At least we have some experimental data advocating for low carbohydrate diets as beneficial.

I also don't agree with xcancer's assertion that prevention is not payed much attention in the US. Almost all of primary care is prevention. The attention is placed on proven prevention targets, like prenatal care, childhood immunizations, smoking cessation, primary and secondary prevention of heart disease and screening. 

 

 

I wholly agree with your assessment here, Cowboy.  My medical system group and its associated insurance is constantly harassing all of its members regarding weight, cholesterol, etc.  My oncology group provides a R.D., and recommends consultations with her.  Humans evolved as omnivores. 

The American philosopher/writer Thoreau (the author of Walden) noted that in his day people were basically coerced into eating meat, and were told the old truism that "you become what you eat, and cannot have muscle without consuming meat."  He then reflected on cows, and noted that they become meat, eating only straw and grass.....  I used to spend time at Christian monasteries, and have read the history of monasticism extensively. A century ago, the monks were ridiculed for veganism, with Americans especially regarding the practice as unhealthy and un-natural.  Today, it is vanguard, trendy, cutting-edge.

A few years ago the largest compliation study in history regarding saturated fat was conducted under a joint venture of Cambridge University in England and Harvard University in the U.S.  They took all of the results of the 72 largest studies ever, worldwide, regarding longevity and saturated fat consumption, and then mathematically extrapolated the results.  The study concluded that saturated fat consumption has NO (zero, none, kein) effect on coronary heart disease.  It did not draw conclusions regarding CANCERS.

The results were 180-degrees out from what nutritionists have been force feeding us for many decades. But dietary recommendations have not changed due to this study.   This is not some internet mythology. These are the premier schools on earth. Review the data for yourself. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/sarah-knapton/10703970/No-link-found-between-saturated-fat-and-heart-disease.html

I am sorry that the link above was corrupted somehow (will not scroll when opened). And one correction: The meta-analysis used 72 previous studies, not 80, as I had originally recalled from memory.  This link is a fuller Abstract of the study, published by Cambridge University itself.  The core paragraph is the one  that begins, "For the meta-analysis..."

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/new-evidence-raises-questions-about-the-link-between-fatty-acids-and-heart-disease

max

As noted, the comment regarding meat consumption being essentially normative was explicated by Thoreau in Walden (published in 1854). One of my points is that what is 'healthy' vs what is not oscillates over the centuries, despite the dogmatism present today regarding what is recommended by nutritionists and their 'established science.'

The bulk of my point regarded the report from Cambridge University, which renders much in contemporary dietary recommendations ridiculous and non-empirical (that is, what they say about fats does not match the best, most recent conclusions).  But I have yet to meet a register dietician who even knows of the report.  When I began long term followship at my cancer center for lymphoma a  year ago, my last check in was with their Register Dietician.  I was going to ask her about the saturated fats report. After waiting in the hall some time, she called me in, digging her teeth, saying she had broccoli seeds stuck -- broccoli having been her meal. She then gave me a stack of 'why veganism is the only way to live' literature.  I knew straight away that asking about fats would be a pretty dumb thing in that office, as indeed it would be most places. Sadly, even food is highly politicized today.