Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / February 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

B-12 and Prostate Cancer?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Tom Cular - 12 Feb 2005 12:21 GMT
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Feb 11 - Adequate folate levels are thought to
protect against malignant tumors, but results of a prospective study suggest
that folate may actually stimulate the development of prostate cancer.

At Umea University Hospital in Sweden, Dr. Johan Hultdin and colleagues
analyzed plasma folate, vitamin B12, and homocysteine levels in 254 men with
prostate cancer and 514 matched control subjects. All of the men were
members of the Northern Sweden Health and Disease Cohort.

The researchers report in the February 20th issue of the International
Journal of Cancer that men in the highest quartiles of plasma folate and
vitamin B12 levels had odds ratios for prostate cancer risk of 1.6 and 2.63,
respectively, compared to subjects in the lowest quartiles.

Higher plasma homocysteine levels were associated with a reduced risk of
prostate cancer, but this finding was only of borderline significance.

When the investigators adjusted for body mass index and smoking, the
increase in risk was significant only for vitamin B12. In fact, the authors
add, the 3-fold increase in risk associated with vitamin B12 was independent
of age at study entry, follow-up time, and disease stage at diagnosis.

"Our results suggest that factors involved in maintaining an adequate folate
status are not protective against prostate cancer, and that high plasma
levels of folate and especially vitamin B12 may even have a detrimental
effect," the researchers conclude.

Int J Cancer 2005;113:819-824
I.P. Freely - 12 Feb 2005 18:11 GMT
OTOH, people our age produce ever-diminishing quantities of stomach acid,
which is necessary to absorb B12. Thus as we age our B12 drops off, often
way off by retirement age. The bad side, even if B12 is detrimental ? Our
nervous system NEEDS B12. Its lack often causes irreversible nerve damage,
even more noticeable at our age because we've lost 40% of our nerves by age
60 anyway. With less stomach acid, we can't get enough B12 from diet or
pills (it's tough to get enough from unsupplemented food anyway, so the
choices are injections or sublingual (under the tongue) pills.

PC takes many years, more like decades, to grow. Lack of B12 can harm nerves
much more quickly. I've been taking sublingual B12 for a couple of years,
and will keep doing so. One reason is that I'm sick of all this knowledge
burning holes in our screens and brains. Right now, today, we have
conflicting advice on scores of nutrients, and that's just the "proven",
mainstream, Johns-Hopkins/Mayo/NEJM kind of proof. The BS flooding the
internet and bookstores merely compounds the REAL conflicts a thousandfold.
The legitimate contradictions alone will increase exponentially with medical
knowledge in general, and will expand to devour our waking hours if we let
it. Look at what the low-carb BS alone has done not only to its obsessive
victims' waking moments (and cardiovascular systems) and to several whole
industries. Thank goodness people are starting to see through it and it's on
the decline.

B12 MAY promote cancer. Its lack DOES harm our nervous systems, and much
more quickly. And we can find legitimate conflicting demands in dang near
everything we eat, so why drive ourselves nuts over it? KISS, eat a wide
variety of healthy foods, avoid a few like the plague (because, like sat
fats, they will sneak through our guard anyway, and we need small quantities
of even the worst offenders -- except trans fats), and enjoy your food
rather than fear it . . . ribs and bacon and chicken skin and commercial
junk food notwithstanding.

Maybe in another decade "they" will enlighten us with "the word" on whether
B12 is good or bad overall for people with both prostates and nervous
systems. Of course, by then they will also know of 5 more good and bad sides
to it and to each of the other few hundred foremost nutrients in our diet.

I don't have the free time to worry about that many details. Do you? I mean,
hell, some of us still SMOKE, let alone eat Oreo cookies and drive fast.

I.P.

> high plasma
> levels of folate and especially vitamin B12 may even have a detrimental
> effect [on PC patients]," the researchers conclude.
Tom Cular - 13 Feb 2005 02:53 GMT
I.P.,

I posted the article because I thought it might be of interest to some
folks. Personally, I take a B-12 shot once a month and will continue to do
so. Some time ago I had mentioned anemia that was attributed to Lupron by my
GP, the B-12 has helped with the fatigue. The Lupron should begin
dissipating soon, but I'll probably continue with the B-12 for the reasons
you stated.

Tom
> OTOH, people our age produce ever-diminishing quantities of stomach acid,
> which is necessary to absorb B12. Thus as we age our B12 drops off, often
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> > levels of folate and especially vitamin B12 may even have a detrimental
> > effect [on PC patients]," the researchers conclude.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.