Diet revisited

New Topic Locked Topic Printable Version
67 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2  3 
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> ]

compiler
Veteran Member


Date Joined Nov 2009
Total Posts : 7213
   Posted 12/3/2010 11:16 AM (GMT -6)   
In Uro Today there was an article regarding the association of diet (actually red meats) and PC. It was a meta analysis (ie: studying other studies). Their conclusion:
 
"In conclusion, the results of this meta-analysis are not supportive of an independent positive association between red or processed meat intake and prostate cancer."
 
Once again, I think we have to be very careful when extolling this or that diet/supplement as beneficial in eliminating, preventing, or reducing PC. Now, this study was just for red meat. But I have read a lot and I still fail to see definitive proof regarding what we ingest and PC. The best might be fish oil and vitamin D-3, but I think I've read some later studies even debunking some of that.
 
 
Having said that, we KNOW that there seems to be lots of evidence regarding diet and heart disease and overall health. So, surely, we should eat a low-fat diet and increase our intake of the good oils (eg: virgin olive oil) and reduce our intake of other stuff. One would even think that good overall health can only be beneficial in fighting PC.
 
But we should be careful about going overboard here in PC-specific food/supplement recommendations.
 
In a similar vein, we know exercise is VERY beneficial in so many ways. It would be interesting to see a study comparing those with similar PC characteristics with the only difference being exercise vs. non-exercise. Would there be a difference in terms of PC prognosis. I predict the exercisers will live longer and we know almost by definition they are in better condition. But in terms of the PC path, I am not convinced one group will do better than another.
 
We all like to believe that if we exercise and eat right, we are better in fighting PC. It makes sense, it sounds logical, but I'm not at all convinced that it is true.
 
Mel
PSA-- 3/08--2.90; 8/09--4.01; 11/09--4.19 (PSAf: 24%), PCA3 =75 .
Biopsy 11/30/09. Gleason 4+3. Stage: T1C. Current Age: 64
Surgery: Dr. Menon @Ford Hospital, 1/26/10.
Pathology Report: G 4+3. Nodes: Clear. PNI: yes. SVI: No. EPE: yes. Pos. Margin: Yes-- focal-- 1 spot .5mm. 100% continent by 3/10. ED- in progress. First post-op PSA on 3/10/10-: 0.01. PSA on 6/21/10--0.02. 9/21/10--0.06

Purgatory
Elite Member


Date Joined Oct 2008
Total Posts : 25380
   Posted 12/3/2010 12:18 PM (GMT -6)   
Mtel, I am most proud, when I saw the subject of this post, I thought, oh no, not another dogmatic post about diet. But upon reading it, you and I are on the same page, all the way.

Before I get jumped on by others (not you), I have always said, and will say again: best bet is for all adults to be on an approved heart healthy diet, not because of cancer, but for general health and well being. (Can't imagine anyone arguing with that).

Twice in my life, I have had access to highly experienced Oncology Dietician. In this case, post my most recent surgery. The woman has been in the field, oncology specific, for nearly 30 years. She stated to me that you need to stay with all the food groups in the revised Food Pyramid to be healthiest in dealing with cancer. She is not advocating any kind of junk food, so don't anyone read anything negative into that.

She said you do your body harm when you avoid entire food groups, i.e. red meats, dairy, etc. She also promotes discipline and self control in moderate consumptions of things you enjoy. We talked about my love of chocolate, she said small amounts of quality dark chocolate is good for me, but not eating Ho-Hos, Oreos, and convenience store candybars.

Here at HW, some folks, in my opinion, are too dogmatic about preaching strict diet standards, which in fact, put folks into a stressful situation in the long run, always worrying about what they are eating or shouldnt be eating. I think that is a big dis-service.

Anyone can dig up a report blaming this or that for prostate cancer, and then the next person can pull a report that de-bunks the first one.

Most of us are in our 50s or older, yes we have some younger brothers, and like the dietician told me, you can't undo a lifetime of bad eating just because you got cancer. And she said, in her 30 years of research, there is no positive proof or link thats indisputable, that any particular food or food group causes cancer, or makes cancer worse, and that avoiding a particular food or food group isn't going to slow down or change the course of a cancer once its in your body. I believe this strongly.

Again, no one is talking about giving up and eating a terrible diet. That would be reckless and irresponsible for one's health.

I get wary of the "experts" that keep ramming the diet stuff down peoples throat, when there is no positive conclusive proof that it will change the course of things. Sure, a few big names publish books with their theories, but that still doesn't make it the Gospel. It just sells book.

Heart healthy diet, all things in moderation, cut back on the booze if you are a heavy drinker, and no healthy reason to keep smoking if you smoke. That's an easy plan to follow, and is backed by sound medical advice by any doctor.

david in sc
Age: 58, 56 dx, PSA: 7/07 5.8, 10/08 16.3
3rd Biopsy: 9/08 7 of 7 Positive, 40-90%, Gleason 4+3
open RP: 11/08, on catheters for 101 days
Path Rpt: Gleason 3+4, pT2c, 42g, 20% cancer, 1 pos marg
Incont & ED: None
Post Surgery PSA: 2/09 .05,5/09 .1, 6/09 .11. 8/09 .16
Post SRT PSA: 1/10 .12, 4/8 .04, 8/6 .06 11/10 Not taking it
Latest: 6 Corr Surgeries to Bladder Neck, SP Catheter since 10/1/9, SRT 39 Sess/72 gy ended 11/09, 21 Catheters, Ileal Conduit Surgery 9/23/10

BB_Fan
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jan 2010
Total Posts : 1011
   Posted 12/3/2010 12:29 PM (GMT -6)   
Milken had, I think, the best response to the issue of diet and PCa. It was someting like - "I don't have the time to wait for definitive proof that diet will effect prostate cancer". The issue of diet and PCa has been very controversal, including on HW, and we all have to decide what action we want to take in this area. However, I am clearly in the Milken camp. If there is a reasonable possibility that diet will have a positive impact on slowing the growth of PCa, I am going for it I don't need definitive proof.
Dx PCa Dec 2008 at 56, PSA 3.4
Biopsy: T1c, Geason 7 (3+4) - 8 cores, 4 positive, 30% of all 4 cores.
Robotic Surgery March 2009 Hartford Hospital, Dr Wagner
Pathology Report: T2c, Geason 8, organ confined, negitive margins, lymph nodes negitive - tumor volume 9%, nerves spared, no negitive side effects of surgery.
PSA's < .01, .01, .07, .28, .50. HT 5/10. IMRT 9/10.
PSA's post HT .01, < .01

Jstars
Regular Member


Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 489
   Posted 12/3/2010 12:44 PM (GMT -6)   
As has been mentioned many times before, the impetus for these studies has been the striking difference between whole countries, their regional diets, and various different (usually lower) cancer rates (Japan, China, etc). Added to that is some type of correlation that as people in these countries move toward a more western style diet their cancer rate rises (and any other bad thing that happens to foolish Westerners also increases).

So, can't fault Western Medicine for trying to figure out what it is that makes a difference.

And I love Chinese and Japanese food ... just not the way they make em in those countries!

Casey59
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2009
Total Posts : 3172
   Posted 12/3/2010 12:48 PM (GMT -6)   

 

With all due respect, Mel, you should have also mentioned the relevant fact that this minor summary report was privately funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

 

 

What we already know is that omega-3 fatty acids reduce prostate tumor growth, slow histopathological progression, and increase PC survival, whereas omega-6 fatty acids have the opposite effects.

 

We know that fatty fish are high in omega-3 fatty acids, and red meats are high in omega-6 fatty acids (particularly the grain-fed meats, but also to a lesser degree the grass fed meats).

 

We know that we make choices every day on what we consume, and as a result we create our own balance (or imbalance, as the case may be) cancer fighters in our diet.  What increases the risk of prostate cancer when eating a lot of red meat is the imbalance of omega-3 fatty acids-to-omega-6 fatty acids.  Many of us make a daily choice between red meat or fish, and for many in the western world the more frequent choice is red meat...and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association would like to see that continue.  [Some individual's "western diets", in fact, choose to eat red meat multiple times per day.  The report referenced by Mel did, in fact, include reference to studies which pointed directly to bacon and sausage as linked to prostate cancer.]

 

My recommendation:  make good choices  (in order to help stack the odds in your favor).

 

Doing nothing different is, however, always an alternative for anyone who doesn't feel motivation to change.

 

 

 

edit:  added comment on bacon and sausage

Post Edited (Casey59) : 12/3/2010 12:13:03 PM (GMT-7)


English Alf
Veteran Member


Date Joined Oct 2009
Total Posts : 2216
   Posted 12/3/2010 12:53 PM (GMT -6)   
A healthy, balanced diet. And moderation in everything. Singing from the same song sheet.

There is no harm in a cardiac-healthy diet and lifestyle, The thing to advise against is following any "fashion" that has yet to be proved, as there has to be a risk that it might also turn out to do more harm than good. (My hospital basically says no change of diet without seeing there dietician first)
By way of an example: Is orange juice bad for you? Not in moderation, but I worked with a guy who had been hospitalised with vitamin C poisoning after drinking too much OJ when he worked on an oil rig that was "dry".

Alf

Zen9
Regular Member


Date Joined Oct 2009
Total Posts : 314
   Posted 12/3/2010 1:11 PM (GMT -6)   

I eat turkey, chicken, and fish but no red meat.

I eat a lot of fruit and as many vegetables as I can stand.

Until I got cancer I had an Italian wife who cooked great Mediterranean meals.  Unfortunately, no longer.

I drink only water (no alcohol for religious reasons).  I smoked a pipe for three weeks way back in college but gave it up because I could never keep the darned thing lit.

And oh yeah ... post-cancer I gave up peanut M&Ms and now only eat regular M&Ms.
 
Zen9

BB_Fan
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jan 2010
Total Posts : 1011
   Posted 12/3/2010 1:32 PM (GMT -6)   
For a man with prostate cancer, I think that the answer is a diet heavy in colorful fruits and berries, and leafy green veggies, cabbage/broccoli, tomato sauce. Severely reduce red meats, limit other animal protein, and substitute fish and soy. But of course that is just me, based on some of the reseach that I have done. Some men try to eliminate almost all fat (a la Milken) and others go vegan (Ornish diet). Are those diets better? Perhaps? To me it seems that there is enough evidence to indicate that these types of diets are better in delaying the progression of prostate cancer than "moderation in everthing".
Dx PCa Dec 2008 at 56, PSA 3.4
Biopsy: T1c, Geason 7 (3+4) - 8 cores, 4 positive, 30% of all 4 cores.
Robotic Surgery March 2009 Hartford Hospital, Dr Wagner
Pathology Report: T2c, Geason 8, organ confined, negitive margins, lymph nodes negitive - tumor volume 9%, nerves spared, no negitive side effects of surgery.
PSA's < .01, .01, .07, .28, .50. HT 5/10. IMRT 9/10.
PSA's post HT .01, < .01

BB_Fan
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jan 2010
Total Posts : 1011
   Posted 12/3/2010 1:35 PM (GMT -6)   
Compiler, you opened Pandora's box again.
Dx PCa Dec 2008 at 56, PSA 3.4
Biopsy: T1c, Geason 7 (3+4) - 8 cores, 4 positive, 30% of all 4 cores.
Robotic Surgery March 2009 Hartford Hospital, Dr Wagner
Pathology Report: T2c, Geason 8, organ confined, negitive margins, lymph nodes negitive - tumor volume 9%, nerves spared, no negitive side effects of surgery.
PSA's < .01, .01, .07, .28, .50. HT 5/10. IMRT 9/10.
PSA's post HT .01, < .01

compiler
Veteran Member


Date Joined Nov 2009
Total Posts : 7213
   Posted 12/3/2010 2:29 PM (GMT -6)   
BB:
 
Well, I think maybe we need to reopen Pandora's Box! As David said, some of the posts border on the dogmatic.
 
My eating habits are okay. I eat very little red meat. I do eat chicken and fish and I also enjoy some chocolate on occassion.
 
If I could push a button and choose a diet, I would pick a Medit.-type diet. But I don't have the willpower.
 
But my point is that this is a heart-healthy diet. Also, I believe we KNOW that certain diets do put folks at increased risk for colon cancer (high fat). I believe there are studies and back-up studies.
 
I am just saying that it makes sense to eat healthy, but at this juncture there is no confirmed proof about specific dietary items and their impact on those of us who have PC.
 
So, I would agree with most of the responses in terms of good stuff to eat. But, again, I remain unconvinced that the stuff will retard my PC. Studies have not repeatedly confirmed this... AT ALL.
 
Casey: the study I quoted was a meta analysis from Uro Today. It appears to have been written by "Health Sciences Practice, Exponent Inc, 185 Hansen Court, Suite 100, Wood Dale, IL 60191, USA"
 
I guess I was unaware that this was the Cattleman's Association. Are you sure? I googled them and it appears that the cattle folks are sure quick to cite that study. But did they sponsor that study?  That would certainly indicate a greatly biased study.
 
But I am also making my point independent of the particular study.
 
Mel

Casey59
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2009
Total Posts : 3172
   Posted 12/3/2010 2:51 PM (GMT -6)   
compiler said...
I guess I was unaware that this was the Cattleman's Association. Are you sure?
 

Yes.  Check the Acknowledgements section and the Conflict of Interest section in the paper itself (not the abstract).  The article was published in "Nutrition Journal."

 

I ate lunch at my desk so I could spend 10 minutes pulling back the covers of this NCBA (National Cattlemen’s Beef Association) funded “report.”  As one would expect of this type of report (and that’s what it was, a report and not a study), the NCBA report very selectively pulled data from other studies.  I perused through two of the referenced details; here’s some of my informal findings:

 

·         One of the studies supporting NCBA’s views reported no association of red meat and PC, but also cited in it’s conclusion four identical studies which did find an association.  No mention of this in the NCBA report.

 

·         Another study similarly pointed out that it’s results were opposite to other similar published studies, and went on to explain the possible reason for the difference (specifically, that the study was simply a questionnaire, and “may be partially due to the limited number and nature of the dietary items in the 1966 [yes, 1966] food frequency questionnaire."

 

 

Very weak.  Too weak to spend any more time on...time to move on.  I wish I could get those wasted 10 minutes back…

 

 

 

edit:  fixed typo

Post Edited (Casey59) : 12/3/2010 1:02:06 PM (GMT-7)


Casey59
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2009
Total Posts : 3172
   Posted 12/3/2010 3:34 PM (GMT -6)   
compiler said...
Also, I believe we KNOW that certain diets do put folks at increased risk for colon cancer (high fat). I believe there are studies and back-up studies.
 
 

I’m sorry, I did say it I was moving on, but I had one more hunch that I had to do 5-minutes more research on.

 

My hunch was that the company (www.exponent.com) which took the NCBA funding and wrote the “report” relating to red meat and prostate cancer had a “history” of working for the Beef Association.

 

My hunch proved correct and it was easy to find...they do indeed have quite a lengthy “working relationship.”  Numerous “reports” have been published by this company (in various minor periodicals) which all end in a similar sounding conclusion statement but addressing different cancers.

 

Mel, from your quote above, it appears you thought high fat red meat might be a problem for colon cancer.  (Please forgive me if I completely mis-read this sentence from you; but, this is truly what I thought you meant.)   Try this conclusion statement in the highly esteemed “Obesity Reviews Journal” (I’m not kidding! (Obes Rev), but I will point you to the PubMed reference).

 

Because of these factors, the currently available epidemiologic evidence is not sufficient to support an independent positive association between red meat consumption and colorectal cancer.

 

PubMed:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20663065

 

[By the way, a plethora of data exists to support the direct relationship between red meat and colon cancer.]

 

I've said over-and-over here that one has to filter out the reputable information from the disreputable information (it's not that hard to do).

 

OK, I'm done, I’m going back to work now…

 

 

edit:  added the "Please forgive me..." parenthetical sentence

Post Edited (Casey59) : 12/3/2010 2:05:08 PM (GMT-7)


compiler
Veteran Member


Date Joined Nov 2009
Total Posts : 7213
   Posted 12/3/2010 5:08 PM (GMT -6)   
Casey:
 
I just read the abstract. I am surprised the Uro Today would publish this if it was just a shill piece for the cattle industry.
 
Are you saying that there is no corrlation between diet (ie: high fat) and colon cancer risk? I thought that was a well-known fact.
 
Mel
 
 

compiler
Veteran Member


Date Joined Nov 2009
Total Posts : 7213
   Posted 12/3/2010 5:21 PM (GMT -6)   
Did a bit of googling and this is one of the first things that came up:
 
 
Mel
 
 

Casey59
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2009
Total Posts : 3172
   Posted 12/3/2010 11:29 PM (GMT -6)   
compiler said...
Are you saying that there is no corrlation between diet (ie: high fat) and colon cancer risk? I thought that was a well-known fact.
 
 
 

No, Mel.   My belief is that linkage between red meat and colon cancer is well established.

 

 

 

The company that wrote the paper you initially referenced in this thread is called Exponent.  Exponent has a business relationship with the NCBA.  They write papers for NCBA which end with remarkably similar conclusion statements, like "from our research, red meat and xxx cancer do not appear to be directly related."  Then, they publish their articles in largely obscure journals.  PubMed does not selectively discriminate the articles that they catalogue; PubMed is merely a library of what's published elsewhere.

 

In your initial post of this thread, it appeared to me that you were placing trust and belief in Exponent’s paper “debunking” (your word) the link between red meat and prostate cancer, despite the plethora of studies in highly reputable medical journals to the contrary.

 

I then pointed out to you another result published (published separately, in a different obscure journal) by Exponent with a remarkably similar conclusion statement which read:

 

Because of these factors, the currently available epidemiologic evidence is not sufficient to support an independent positive association between red meat consumption and colorectal cancer.

 

 

 

Prior to my posting Exponent’s conclusion about colon cancer, if I understood you correctly, your earlier post said you believed (no, you “KNEW”) of the link between red mean and colon cancer.  So, I was wondering if that knowledge is now “debunked” now that you’ve seen Exponent’s conclusion to the contrary.  If Exponent says in the most recently published online report on the topic that there is no link between red meat and colon cancer, then do you believe that there is no link between red meat and colon cancer just because it is online?  just because it is recent?  just because it is in a journal?

 

 ---------------------------------------------

 

I hope that with this further clarification you can now re-read what I wrote previously and it will be more clear...

 

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.  Look to well-respected resources...they aren't that hard to find. 

 

I am not a doctor, just an inquisitive layperson, but in my mind the article you started this thread with didn’t “debunk” anything.

 

 

 

You concluded your initial post in this thread with this statement (regarding the linkage between red meat and prostate cancer): “It makes sense, it sounds logical, but I'm not at all convinced that it is true.  I genuinely hope that it doesn't come across that I am trying to force-feed you anything, but I would urge you (or anyone) to make your choices on the levers of change with are within your control based on the most reliable, best informed, sources.  All the PC experts say the same thing in this area...

 

 

 

 

edit:  fix typo

Post Edited (Casey59) : 12/3/2010 9:44:05 PM (GMT-7)


compiler
Veteran Member


Date Joined Nov 2009
Total Posts : 7213
   Posted 12/4/2010 10:33 AM (GMT -6)   
Casey:
 
Glad you clarified your points. I did misread your post (or it wasn't clear). You had a post that talked about a plethora of evidence (red meat and cancer) and in that same post you appeared to eschew that point. Anyway, as I said, you just calrified that. I am surprised Uro Today would pick up that abstract.
 
I will still reiterate that too many times we see people here pushing this or that food/supplement, when the reality is that there is scant evidence pro or con (or maybe a plethora of evidence both pro and con).
 
I might add that it can get even more complicated than that. For example, Omega-3 is good. But many fish oil supplements have not only Omega-3 but also Omega-6. I have read that the latter is a no-no.
 
Sigh....
 
Notice that at times here on HW folks seem to disagree a lot, but when you really analyze what is said the disagreement is more on attitude and minute details rather than the basics. For example, I haven't seen any disagreement regarding the overall general importance of a heart-healthy diet.
 
BUT, there are many aspects of diet/supplements and their benefits in retarding PC that are unproven and unclear.
 
I have come full circle (ie: repetitious) in making my point.
 
Mel

Herophilus
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2009
Total Posts : 663
   Posted 12/4/2010 10:57 AM (GMT -6)   
Thanks Casey and Mel.
Yes, isn’t it very interesting how the industry uses this legal loophole to meet the requirements of disclosure (even though it should be but often isn’t… full disclosure ). Big pharmacy is the “King” of “fine print” but they are followed closely by various special interest group... the banking industry…”PRE-APPROVED…..(subject to conditions)” . It can be very challenging (sometimes amusing although time consuming) to drill down to the granular level on published “studies”. My general rule is that any document that is an outlier to my current understanding must be vetted. Interestingly this isn’t just a print media ruse as my father always said that the three fastest words on TV were “some assembly required”, however one could make the argument that it could be “bateries not included”…God is in the details

Hero

Post Edited (Herophilus) : 12/4/2010 10:09:29 AM (GMT-7)


RCS
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2009
Total Posts : 1247
   Posted 12/4/2010 12:35 PM (GMT -6)   
Hey Questions,

Actually I have the same concern ... carried my cell phone in my pants pockets for several years.

Recently I heard a Good Morning America (or similar show) that said if you wore your phone on a holster attached to your belt there was no problem; the stand-off distance was great enough to attenuate the radiation. So now I wear the phone on my belt.
PSA 2007 - 2.8; 11/24/2008 - 7.6; PCa Dx 2/11/09; age at Dx 62; RLP 4/20/09

Biopsy - Invasive moderately differentiated prostatic andenocarconoma; G 3+3=6; PT2C; No evidence of Seminal Vesicle or Extraprostatic Involvement; Margins clear; Tumor identified in sections from prostatic apex. 70 gram prostate. Continent after removal of cath.

ED - Trimix works well; levitra @ 90%
PSA - 7/31/09 <0.06; 12/1/09 <0.06; 3/29/10 <0.06; 8/4/10 <0.06

fulltlt
Regular Member


Date Joined Nov 2010
Total Posts : 264
   Posted 12/4/2010 3:12 PM (GMT -6)   
Zen9 said...
I eat turkey, chicken, and fish but no red meat.

I eat a lot of fruit and as many vegetables as I can stand.

Until I got cancer I had an Italian wife who cooked great Mediterranean meals. Unfortunately, no longer.

I drink only water (no alcohol for religious reasons). I smoked a pipe for three weeks way back in college but gave it up because I could never keep the darned thing lit.
And oh yeah ... post-cancer I gave up peanut M&Ms and now only eat regular M&Ms.



Zen9


I would think eating regular peanuts not coated with anything would be better than straight M&M's.

After all plain peanuts are all natural as far as I know.
age 57 2/2010
PSA 8.2 2/2010
biopsy 2/2010 - 2 of 8 left & 2 of 8 right positive, Gleason 3+4=7
attended support group - advised to get a second opinion
second opinion on pathology from John Hopkins 4+4=8
PSA 15 4/2010 just before IMRT began
5 weeks IMRT 4/2010-6/2010 at Copley Hospital in Aurora, IL
91 implants of palladium 103 7/2010 at Chicago Prostate Center, Westmont, IL
PSA 3.97 10/2010

Jerry L.
Veteran Member


Date Joined Feb 2010
Total Posts : 3065
   Posted 12/4/2010 3:37 PM (GMT -6)   
Questionabout it,

Sounds like we should be an Argetinian Mormon. Just kidding.

Does PC run in your family at all? Father, brothers, uncles?

Jerry L.
Nov. 2009 Dx at Age 44
Dec. 2009 DaVinci Robotic Surgery
Jan. 2010 T3b, Gleason 9
Feb. 2010 Adjuvant Radiation

PSA History:
-----------------
Nov. 2009 4.30
Feb. 2010 <.05
May 2010 <.05
Aug. 2010 <.05
Nov. 2010 <.05

Piano
Veteran Member


Date Joined Apr 2008
Total Posts : 847
   Posted 12/4/2010 4:21 PM (GMT -6)   
Regarding cellphones: I rarely carried a cellphone, and seldom used one. Both colon cancer and PCa.

If cellphones are indeed an issue we should have seen a rise in PCa diagnosis/mortality in the last 20 years, but if there is such a trend, it would be very muddied by better screening and treatment over that same timeframe.
No symptoms; PSA 5.7; Gleason 4+5=9; cancer in 4/12 cores
Non-nerve-sparing RRP 7 March 2008 age 63
Organ confined, neg margins. Gleason downgrade 4+4=8
Fully continent
Bimix worked well; now using just VED
PSA undetectable at first but now 0.3, doubling time 7 months
Radiation and ADT coming?

compiler
Veteran Member


Date Joined Nov 2009
Total Posts : 7213
   Posted 12/4/2010 6:43 PM (GMT -6)   
I've heard of alleged links between cell phone use and brain cancer.
 
But, Pc???
 
Mel

mr bill
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2010
Total Posts : 697
   Posted 12/4/2010 9:14 PM (GMT -6)   
You can't go wrong eating right. I was a real junk food fan, my wife was the bean eater because of her migraines. If she ate the wrong foods or ones containing MSG she had instant migraine. Much like Michael Jordan. She looks about 20 years younger than me, and will no doubt outlive me.
 
Here is an interesting read:
 
http://health.yahoo.net/rodale/WH/is-your-health-on-the-line
Age 66
BPH since 1996. at least three negative biopsies Erie. Uro did not prescribe finasteride
2007 acute urine retention photovaporize Clev. Clinic prscb finasteride
8-9-10 PSA rose to 10.14 with finasteride positive biopsy Cleveland gleason 9, cat & bone scan negative
9-8-10 RP at Cleveland. Biopsy 9 nodes 2 positive, 2 positive,seminal & vas deferens
PSA 3 wk .06, 6 wk <.03, 12wk 0.0

Radical
Veteran Member


Date Joined Mar 2009
Total Posts : 739
   Posted 12/4/2010 10:52 PM (GMT -6)   
You guys can debate this one until the cow's come home [Please excuse the pun], but at the end of the day, I believe eat what you like, BUT IN MODERATION. Its that simple ! .....................Kev
Age 52yrs [Gold Coast Qld, Australia]
6 out of 8 cores positive 3 X 60% / 3 X 10%
PSA 4 Gleason Score 3+4=7 Stage T1c
RP 24/12/08
Upgrade Gleason Score 4+3=7 Gleason Differential 60%/40%
Stage T2c Three small foci total volume <10%
Neg Margins and Nodes
Nil - EPE
Dry less than 1 week. ED- okay with Meds.
PSA at 18mths no change remains 0.03
"Everyday in Everyway, I get better"

Purgatory
Elite Member


Date Joined Oct 2008
Total Posts : 25380
   Posted 12/4/2010 11:41 PM (GMT -6)   
I am with you, Kev, some folks seem to relish in all the academic debate on the subject, when even the doctors and experts can't agree on it. Moderation is the key word, and thats what an experienced Oncology Dietician discussed with me, not this notion of avoiding entire food groups in hopes that its going to change one's cancer outcome. Why make yourself miserable by skipping or avoiding the things you enjoy, seems kind of self-defeating to me.

david in sc
Age: 58, 56 dx, PSA: 7/07 5.8, 10/08 16.3
3rd Biopsy: 9/08 7 of 7 Positive, 40-90%, Gleason 4+3
open RP: 11/08, on catheters for 101 days
Path Rpt: Gleason 3+4, pT2c, 42g, 20% cancer, 1 pos marg
Incont & ED: None
Post Surgery PSA: 2/09 .05,5/09 .1, 6/09 .11. 8/09 .16
Post SRT PSA: 1/10 .12, 4/8 .04, 8/6 .06 11/10 Not taking it
Latest: 6 Corr Surgeries to Bladder Neck, SP Catheter since 10/1/9, SRT 39 Sess/72 gy ended 11/09, 21 Catheters, Ileal Conduit Surgery 9/23/10
New Topic Locked Topic Printable Version
67 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2  3 
Forum Information
Currently it is Saturday, July 21, 2018 4:35 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 2,984,014 posts in 327,172 threads.
View Active Threads


Who's Online
This forum has 161966 registered members. Please welcome our newest member, SarahBarnes2.
415 Guest(s), 4 Registered Member(s) are currently online.  Details
cashlessclay, Morgan Rae, Sheepster, Nacho Libre