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 / March 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

diet supplements

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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.  

Rate this thread:






 
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.