Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / March 2005
diet supplements
|
|
Thread rating:  |
dan - 26 Mar 2005 04:59 GMT Is anyone familiar with the AO Force supplements from aoforce.com or with Proancyol 2000. Both appear to be valid supplements for PC survivors. Thanks, Woodrat Please post responses to this ng
Alan Meyer - 26 Mar 2005 15:42 GMT > Is anyone familiar with the AO Force supplements from aoforce.com or with Proancyol > 2000. Both appear to be valid supplements for PC survivors. > Thanks, > Woodrat > Please post responses to this ng I wish these kinds of products were available from recognized pharmaceutical houses. I never know whether to trust these kinds of companies.
Alan
I. P. Freely - 26 Mar 2005 23:21 GMT My academic researcher / med school professor / urologist / surgeon / oncologist, the med school staff he consults weekly, and my months of literature research all reached the same conclusion: no foods or supplements have yet been proven by formal trials to cause, prevent, cure, or impair the spread of PC. Plenty of hope, a few promising suspicions, some harmful BS, but no proof. As each new antioxidant clinical trial maturation blows THAT idea sky-higher, I place little faith in unproven food and supplement theories; they're rapidly moving, conflicting targets, each with its own contraindications. Stay tuned.
I.P.
Harold - 26 Mar 2005 23:20 GMT > Is anyone familiar with the AO Force supplements from aoforce.com or with > Proancyol 2000. Both appear to be valid supplements for PC survivors. > Thanks, > Woodrat > Please post responses to this ng No, not me. I have never heard of them.
I take supplements but I also view much of the advertising to be suspect with little or no valid long term studies to back up the claim. My guess if there was a branded supplement "valid" for PC survivors we would have heard about them.
My supplement regimen is:
Multi vitamin / multi mineral tablet which includes, among other things...
Vitamin E...400 IU Selenium....200 mcg Green Tea Extract...325 mg
Additionally I take:
Lycopene...15 mg Gamma E Mixed Tocopherols...359 mg Omega 3 EPA / DHA...4200 mg Soy Isoflavones...135 mg Aspirin...81 mg
I don't know if these are "valid" for PC survivors but there are some docs around with experience treating men with PCa who indicate there may (MAY) be some benefit to these supplements.
But next year we may hear otherwise.
The only thing certain about PCa is uncertainty.
Harold
I. P. Freely - 26 Mar 2005 23:36 GMT Several of this list also has problems, such as Vit E's deleterious effect on heart disease. At about the 78th time new "hard data" shot down last year's "hard data", I quit knee-jerking. Hell, "they" now even say our multi-vitamin should not have multiminerals because we're getting too much of certain minerals even in low-dosage MVMMs.
I.P.
"Harold" <haroldhull@robsoncom.net> wrote >
> My supplement regimen is: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Soy Isoflavones...135 mg > Aspirin...81 mg Harold - 27 Mar 2005 06:12 GMT I.P.
Having read a number of your posts I think it fair to say you and I have different philosophies when it comes to evaluating and deciding on PCa treatment regimens. Nothing wrong with different philosophies, may be a good thing. I do think we both agree there is no silver bullet, no magic potion that will eliminate every PCa cell wandering around in our bodies. Current treatments may not yet be proven be extend life.
BUT, In my case I have a high grade aggressive form of PCa with a fair chance that there may be micro metastatic disease. My attitude is to accept the fact that no treatment is best, no treatment is perfect and all treatments will have side effects - some serious. I have no interest in waiting around till hell freeezes over just because there are unknowns. While I do some of the following I don't I have much time to sit on my a.s reading, studying, evaluating, contemplating, considering, wondering, thinking and then point my cynical middle finger at all the details.
You said: "My academic researcher / med school professor / urologist / surgeon / oncologist, the med school staff he consults weekly, and my months of literature research all reached the same conclusion: no foods or supplements have yet been proven by formal trials to cause, prevent, cure, or impair the spread of PC."
Okay, lets accept that. The difference betwen you and me is that I'm willing to accept that and forge ahead anyway, roll the dice that just maybe one or some combination of these will, at some time, prove to be helpful and by that time I may ahead of the treatment curve.
I have opted for ADT3, Chemotherapy and IMRT. You can make a valid point that none of these have been proven to extend life. Granted - but to me that is not a reason not to at least try to see if they may be effective in my case. No doctor ever told me these treatments will cure my PCa. None has ever told me they will extend my life. I was willing to do this just from the pure hope that MAYBE they will help.
If sometime down the road one or some combination of these treatment regimens proves to be effective in extending life I would be plenty pissed if I had left undone those things I ought to have done. I'm willing to accept the risks involved and endure the side effects. I feel good that I am fighting like hell with most everything available to fight off this disease. Frankly, I.P., I don't give a damn that I don't fully understand everything about what the treatment regimens may prove to be - or not be.
Regarding my list of supplements, you said: "Several of this list also has problems, such as Vit E's deleterious effect on heart disease."
Well, many things we do every day could have problems. Riding in a car could have problems, walking down the street could have problems, riding in an airplane could have problems. I do it anyway. Life is a risk.
As to your comment: "such as Vit E's deleterius effect on heart disease". Do you know that as a fact? Has that been proven beyond question? No, it has not. There are numerous studies that indicate positive advantages of moderate intake of Vitamin E. Whose to say what is right and whatt is wrong? Not you and not me.
The apparent difference between you and me is that, at least in my opinion, you seem not want to do someting because it has not been proven to be effective. You want proof. That's fine - clearly your option. As for me I'm willing to take on some amount of risk not knowing everything there is to know about everything and do so just on pure hope that it may extend my life. That's fine - clearly my option.
Your posts do raise awareness, do point out risks, do accent the uncertainty of PCa treatments. Fine. Personally I think you come across somewhat negative, somewhat cynical. Perhaps I come across as uninformed, naive.
I guess it's just a matter of, as is said "different strokes for different folks"
Harold
As they say, I.P.
Steve Kramer - 27 Mar 2005 12:49 GMT > I.P. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > no magic potion that will eliminate every PCa cell wandering around in > our bodies. Current treatments may not yet be proven be extend life. 'Tis true... 'tis true.... None of us have a guarantee. None of us know that the treatment or those treatments that we select today are the correct ones. Since I have been on this NG, all manner of treatments have been selected and, with one minor exception (urine therapy), there are representatives for each still here to say his seems to be working as well as any other.
Compound that with the fact that we all come in with different PSAs, grades, stages, ages and genetics, even the last man standing cannot reliably gloat.
 Signature PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3bN0M0 Seminal Vesicle involvement, Neg margins PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05 PSA .07 .05 .06 .05
non Illegitimi carborundum
I. P. Freely - 28 Mar 2005 19:04 GMT > I.P. > > Having read a number of your posts I think it fair to say you and I > have different philosophies when it comes to evaluating and deciding on > PCa treatment regimens. In general, yes, but my post you address didn't address or imply any philosophies. It just answered the topical question directly and factually, extended it to other foods and supplements, and supported your stated view and guess -- "I . . . view much of the advertising to be suspect with little or no valid long term studies to back up the claim. My guess if there was a branded supplement "valid" for PC survivors we would have heard about them." -- with authoritative comments from urologists/oncologists.
> BUT, In my case I have a high grade aggressive form of PCa with a fair > chance that there may be micro metastatic disease. My case exactly.
> I'm > willing to accept that and forge ahead anyway, roll the dice that just > maybe one or some combination of these will, at some time, prove to be > helpful and by that time I may ahead of the treatment curve. I didn't say I don't take any supplements or eat any special foods. In fact I do, but that was not pertinent to the question or to my answer. I didn't have time -- which makes some people happy -- to go into details on supplements, nor my philospphy or practice regarding them.
(Has it dawned on anyone that in two concurrent threads, some people say my posts are too short/incomplete while others describe them as too long?)
> As to your comment: "such as Vit E's deleterius effect on heart > disease". Do you know that as a fact? Has that been proven beyond > question? No, it has not. There are numerous studies that indicate > positive advantages of moderate intake of Vitamin E. Whose to say what > is right and whatt is wrong? Not you and not me. As usual, 'tain't me sayin' it. It's the trials plastered all over last week's news, which found that 400 I.U. of Vit E exacerbates cardiovascular disease. Beyond that I haven't read the new data yet.
> The apparent difference between you and me is that, at least in my > opinion, you seem not want to do someting because it has not been > proven to be effective. You want proof. Then I've STILL not stated my position clearly enough. Once more, briefly: I'm not willing to pursue a treatment (ADT1) almost certain to destroy my QOL (as per Strum, Sholz, Walsh, my own doctors, et.al.) and which MAY add months to my heartbeat (as per most sources). I'm even less willing to pursue a treatment (ADT2 or 3) which adds SEs but no heartbeats to ADT1 (by consensus of all the studies), while neither lab tests, clinical exams, nor symptoms indicate any mets (as per Johns-Hopkins, et.al.). But I've not advised anyone else to make the same choice.
> I'm willing to take on some amount of risk not > knowing everything there is to know about everything and do so just on > pure hope that it may extend my life. It seems incongruous that you'd criticize my QOL-preservation approach after you say -- quite understandably -- that you wish your heart would fail and preempt your struggle with your other ailments, just as it seems incongruous that some people criticize my use of statistics to make decisions yet continually (mis)quote SE statistics.
> Your posts do raise awareness, do point out risks, do accent the > uncertainty of PCa treatments. Then my message is sinking in.
> Personally I think you come > across somewhat negative, somewhat cynical. I prefer to call my approach pragmatism, and rely heavily on it in most aspects of my life. I can't control what emotions, judgements, or words others may attach to this approach. Knowledge is power, which is why my opening comment in this thread was for you to change doctors.
I.P.
Heather - 28 Mar 2005 19:29 GMT Minor point here......but you have thoroughly mixed up Horace and Harold. It was Horace who hoped his heart would fail and has numerous other ailments. And he didn't criticize your preference for QOL over Life. He just said he was afraid of pain.
Heather
> > I.P. > > It seems incongruous that you'd criticize my QOL-preservation approach after you say -- quite understandably -- that you wish your heart would fail and preempt your struggle with your other ailments, just as it seems incongruous that some people criticize my use of statistics to make decisions yet continually (mis)quote SE statistics.<<<<<<
> > Personally I think you come > > across somewhat negative, somewhat cynical. > > I prefer to call my approach pragmatism, and rely heavily on it in most > aspects of my life. I can't control what emotions, judgements, or words > others may attach to this approach. Knowledge is power, which is why my opening comment in this thread was for you to change doctors.
> I.P. I. P. Freely - 28 Mar 2005 21:35 GMT Sounds like we're both confused, and I certainly contributed to it by attributing "that you wish your heart would fail and preempt your struggle with your other ailments" to Harold and by typing "Harold" instead of "Horace" in my response to your assault in Horace's thread. Mea culpa, and my apologies to all parties. OTOH, I never said Horace criticized my QOL preference; you got that from my resonse to Harold. Seems the name similarities confused us both. .
I.P.
> Minor point here......but you have thoroughly mixed up Horace and Harold. > It was Horace who hoped his heart would fail and has numerous other > ailments. And he didn't criticize your preference for QOL over Life. He > just said he was afraid of pain.
>> "Harold" <haroldhull@robsoncom.net> wrote >> SNIP >> I.P. wrote >> It seems incongruous that you'd criticize my QOL-preservation approach Harold - 28 Mar 2005 22:35 GMT Harold said to I.P.:
> As to your comment: "such as Vit E's deleterius effect on heart > disease". Do you know that as a fact? Has that been proven beyond > question? No, it has not. There are numerous studies that indicate > positive advantages of moderate intake of Vitamin E. Whose to say what > is right and whatt is wrong? Not you and not me. I.P replied:
As usual, 'tain't me sayin' it. It's the trials plastered all over last
week's news, which found that 400 I.U. of Vit E exacerbates cardiovascular disease. Beyond that I haven't read the new data yet.
Harold's reply:
Yes, there was a fair amount of news recently about the vitamin E study of previous trials. This study was produced by several physicians and published by Johns Hopkins so, of course, it made the news. What didn't make the news was numerous responses to that publication that questioned the evalutations made in the study.
For anyone who wants to see a rather expanded group of responses to the study you may wish to click on the following link which will take you to the Annals of Internal Medicine webpage about the study.
Once there, if you first click on "abstract" you will see a basic view of what the study had to say about vitamin E. Once you have perused that you can then go "back" to the original webpage and scroll down through a variety of comments about the publication.
Perhaps you won't learn anything new but it may well give you a broadened perspective from which to evaluate the original article. I.P. said..."Beyond that I haven't read the new data yet" perhaps this link will provide him with some additional information.
Like a lot of stuff these days one thing gets sensationalized but follow-up information often gets buried.
http://www.annals.org/cgi/eletters/142/1/37#641
Heather - 28 Mar 2005 23:05 GMT Thanks for that link, Harold. Ron and I have both taken 400 IU of Vitamin E daily for well over 30 years and the original reason had to do with the heart. With regard to females, they are now thinking it helps to prevent menopausal hot flashes. Maybe.....I never had them.
I think that you could find a *study* on anything you eat or drink in your lifetime that says it is no good. I tend to ignore that sort of thing.....still kickin' here and no heart problems.
Remember when the news came out that you could get cancer from barbequed steak?? Didn't stop too many from eating it, did it. (G)
Cheers....Heather
> Yes, there was a fair amount of news recently about the vitamin E study > of previous trials. This study was produced by several physicians and [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > http://www.annals.org/cgi/eletters/142/1/37#641 I. P. Freely - 29 Mar 2005 00:29 GMT Right! That's why I hadn't followed the story closely yet. I just wanted to make sure you knew that Vit E is not all roses, that some tests say even 400 I.U., which I used to take, presents hazards.
I.P.
> Harold said to I.P.: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > didn't make the news was numerous responses to that publication that > questioned the evalutations made in the study. Snip
Harold - 29 Mar 2005 01:20 GMT I.P.
I'm going to make this post then move on to other things. You and I have beat this subject into submission and we need to move on - in my opinion.
You said: "Several of this list also has problems, such as Vit E's deleterious effect on heart disease."
Deleterious is defined as: harmful to health or well-being.
Above you said: That's why I hadn't followed the story closely yet. I just wanted to make sure you knew that Vit E is not all roses, that some tests say even 400 I.U., which I used to take, presents hazards.
Yes, I agree SOME tests do say even 400 I.U. presents hazards but, then again, there is substantial disagreement about the subject and it is far from certain just who may be right.
It's a minor point but sometimes you say things read by many other folks that come across as factual. Your comment - "such as Vit E's deleterious effect on heart disease" - is one such statement.
Personally, just to leave some wiggle room, I think sometimes it would be more accurate to say "may" or "perhaps" or "some say" or "in my opinion" or "possibly".
Example: "such as Vit E which MAY have a deleterious effect on heart disease."
Perhaps I'm nit picking here but I have a thing about accuracy and playing loose with the actual facts.
Bye.
I. P. Freely - 29 Mar 2005 17:56 GMT I appreciate your advice, Harold, but you're preaching to the choir. As a professional writer in many widely diverse fields for many decades, I pay a great deal of attention to my choices of words and the topical messages they convey, and have professionally ught scores, maybe hundreds, of professionals to do the same. If you can find any cases in which I've understated PC treatment benefits or overstated their SEs, please bring them to my attention -- with refeences -- so I can correct them. When I encounter credible, professional contradictions in the literature, I err on the conservative side, i.e., overstate benefits and understate SEs. So far the broad panel of physician specialists that regularly reviews my assessments of treatment benefits and SEs has approved them 100%; what I present here reflects those assessments. With my very life dependent in my accurate assessment of both sides of the issue, I'm highly motivated to assess and present them accurately, even conservatively.
My Vit E comment was intended as a heads-up to an unknown person taking a large list of supplements ranging from harmless to potentially harmful to known harmful in some common cases, not as a medical discussion of Vit E. Since you appear to have researched Vit E more deeply than I, I'll defer to your claim that it is still on the controversial list, even though many people should not take it in the quantity you do.
Your implication that I've "played loose with actual facts" in my PC statements would be much more useful -- and credible -- if you backed it up from the archives rather than presenting it and "moving on to other things".
I.P.
> I.P. > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Bye. I. P. Freely - 29 Mar 2005 18:31 GMT Errr, TAUGHT. ???
I.P. "I. P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in
> and have professionally UGHT scores, maybe hundreds, of professionals to > do the same. ckh - 29 Mar 2005 01:57 GMT > Is anyone familiar with the AO Force supplements from aoforce.com or with > Proancyol 2000. Both appear to be valid supplements for PC survivors. > Thanks, > Woodrat > Please post responses to this ng Good morning Woody,
I'm of Japanese extraction. This is important because the Japanese have a very low incidence of Prostate Cancer. Unfortunately something environmental or dietetic or maybe lifestyle related in my 3 generations of U.S. has shifted the odds against me.
Although the Rad appears to have dope-slapped the cancer, I remain suspecious that maybe, something, got loose and is festering, waiting for the chance to "get me".
As a consequence, it seems prudent to shift my diet away from western items and back to something more asian.
I'm cutting my overall caloric intake and have lost a pound a month for the last year.
I have shifted to a soy based pasta (which is surprisely good, health food stores carry it.) and will be adding tofu and similar soy products to my diet.
I take a single multi-vitamin. I don't take any of the "Prostate-friendly" additives and have not looked into them.
There is clearly something to the diet thing, and I'm not sure that supplements will right the balance.
|
|
|