 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / May 2007PCa & Meat: Another View
"......we found little evidence of any relation of fat and meat intake with prostate cancer risk within any of the 4 racial/ethnic groups (African Americans, Japanese Americans, Latinos and Whites). There was a suggestion of a protective effect of n-3 fatty acid intake that was limited to Latinos and Whites. However, overall, our findings from a large cohort study of ethnically diverse population give no indication that intake of fat and meat substantially affects prostate cancer risk." See, Park SY et al., "Fat and meat intake and prostate cancer risk: The multiethnic cohort study." Int J Cancer. 2007 May 8 Search on Pub Med ID: 17487838 at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/ Regards, Steve J "Digressions, objections, delight in mockery, carefree mistrust are signs of health; everything unconditional belongs in pathology." --Friedrich Nietzsche The never ending search for what causes prostate cancer. We hear eat tomatoes, don't eat meat. Eat vegies only It is amazing the differing theories... Gosh knows the answer....... Have a BBQ ! John Loomis > "......we found little evidence of any relation of fat and meat intake > with prostate cancer risk within any of the 4 racial/ethnic groups [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > of health; everything unconditional belongs in pathology." > --Friedrich Nietzsche > "......we found little evidence of any relation of fat and meat intake > with prostate cancer risk within any of the 4 racial/ethnic groups [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > multiethnic cohort study." Int J Cancer. 2007 May 8 > Search on Pub Med ID: 17487838 Atkins always said that "fat being bad for you" studies weren't really definitive because no one ever took into account the carb intake of the subjects at the same time. In other words those that ate lots of fat and had heart attacks and/or cancers, may have also been eating lots of sugar and starch. Don't forget he was a cardiologist for years before his book, and firmly believed that it is sugars in the diet that's the real cause of heart disease and cancers. Whether you're a fan of his or not, his logic shouldn't be ignored, and someone someday will actually prove it's worth. I'd love to see a PCa study for carbs over a long period of time.  SignatureJK Sinrod www.SinrodStudios.com www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com ... > Atkins always said that "fat being bad for you" studies weren't really definitive > because no one ever took into account the carb intake of the subjects at the same time. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > be ignored, and someone someday will actually prove it's worth. I'd love to see a PCa > study for carbs over a long period of time. I wonder if fats, sugars and starches are bad by themselves, or mainly bad if you eat a lot of them and don't do enough exercise to burn off the extra calories. In other words, is it the structure of the substances that is bad, or is it mainly just getting too many calories? Alan > is it the structure of the substances that is bad, or > is it mainly just getting too many calories? According to the largest diet study ever performed, it's the substance that causes cancer, and the substance is animal protein. Read "The China Study". Beside, plenty of thin people get cancer. I.P. >> is it the structure of the substances that is bad, or >> is it mainly just getting too many calories? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I.P. Big does not mean especially valid. I read all these studies as you do. Comparing another countries rural population with ours and drawing any veggie vs meat conclusion is silly to me. Where do they take into consideration climate, air quality, stress, tobacco usage, carbs, and dozens of other possible causative agents. This study is quite flawed IP. Check out this one of many detractors: http://mercola.com/blog/2006/feb/6/why_the_china_study_is_flawed SignatureJK Sinrod www.SinrodStudios.com www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com On 19 May 2007, you wrote in alt.support.cancer.prostate: >>> is it the structure of the substances that is bad, or >>> is it mainly just getting too many calories? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > http://mercola.com/blog/2006/feb/6/why_the_china_study_is_flawed It is interesting that many PCa patients in the internet support groups I belong to have given up red meat altogether and seem to be doing fine with their PCa. I'm fine right now (in remission) but won't give up red meat although I don't eat a lot of it. What I did find interesting was a comment made by a urologist doing a presentation to our local prostate cancer support group. He said that there was a study being conducted in Vancouver. There the oriental population is high. IF I recall correctly he said that generally orientals have much fewer problems with PCa. However, it is becoming more common in the next generation (those children born and raised in Canada). The study is looking at diet. Too much McDonald's and Burger King maybe or is it the red meat? I don't know when the study is supposed to be out. Russ D > It is interesting that many PCa patients in the internet support groups > I belong to have given up red meat altogether and seem to be doing fine > with their PCa. I'm fine right now (in remission) but won't give up red > meat although I don't eat a lot of it. Of all the foods we eat, mammal meat is pretty much the most widely suspected of causing various forms of cancer. Add to that its strong blame for heart problems and it's got us coming and going. But I still eat it once or maybe twice a week at home (I never get it in a restaurant), small servings of very lean cuts carefully trimmed of all visible fat. After all, we need *some* saturated fat, and that's a tasty way to get it. I.P. snip........ >Of all the foods we eat, mammal meat is pretty much the most widely >suspected of causing various forms of cancer. Add to that its strong [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I.P. Hi I.P. You wrote that "we need *some* saturated fat". I don't recall seeing this stated anywhere else. I wonder if you could provide some links on this... Thanks. Just > Hi I.P. > > You wrote that "we need *some* saturated fat". > > I don't recall seeing this stated anywhere else. I wonder if you could > provide some links on this... One such link is http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/import_sat_fat.html, which begins with "The Importance of Saturated Fats for Biological Functions By Mary G. Enig, PhD Many people recognize that saturated fats are needed for energy, hormone production, cellular membranes and for organ padding. You may be surprised to learn that certain saturated fatty acids are also needed for important signaling and stabilization processes in the body." Could be that others disagree, but I doubt that Mother Nature would package sat fat into even wild game if cave men didn't need some. I.P. > On 19 May 2007, you wrote in alt.support.cancer.prostate: > It is interesting that many PCa patients in the internet support groups I > belong to have given up red meat altogether and seem to be doing fine > with their PCa. Fine meaning what? That they still have it, or that they had it and now it's gone? I ate carbs like nobody ever did. Bread, pasta, potatoes, sugar. I got PCa.... I've eaten almost a carb free and fat loaded diet for 5 years now with an undetectable PCa. Strict vegan & pro athletes alike have all gotten PCa. Someday someone will poll all us folks to find out how much sugar & starch we have been eating. Diabetes, heart disease, cancer, all helped by carb consumption. I had a big juicy BBQ'd steak for dinner. Ya think I'll live a week less than the ones that had salmon? SignatureJK Sinrod www.SinrodStudios.com www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com On 19 May 2007, you wrote in alt.support.cancer.prostate: > Fine meaning what? That they still have it, or that they had it and > now > it's gone? I meant that they seem to be managing their disease successfully in their own way. I didn't mean to intend that they said they were cured although a couple I know through the groups have gone 10 to 15 years since their primary treatments without much change to their PSA readings. Congrats to them! Russ D > On 19 May 2007, you wrote in alt.support.cancer.prostate: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I meant that they seem to be managing their disease successfully in their > own way. Me, too; I cut it out and it hasn't returned. But that just means I hit it over the head with a 2X4; "managed it" is still just semantics until and unless I die of something else 20 years from now. I.P. > Fine meaning what? That they still have it, or that they had it and now > it's gone? I ate carbs like nobody ever did. Bread, pasta, potatoes, > sugar. I got PCa.... I've eaten almost a carb free and fat loaded diet > for 5 years now with an undetectable PCa. Strict vegan & pro athletes > alike have all gotten PCa. Concur. It is amazing how much time this NG is bogged down by looking for blame for our cancer. I ate too much. I exercised too little. I lived in the wrong climate. I grew up in the wrong culture. I didn't eat any of the supplements and the only decent help I gave myself was processed tomatoes -- that, too, and accident of genealogy and geography. Having been diagnosed, I never spent a second worrying over what I did wrong. I have a modicum of interest in causal effects for my brothers', son, and grandsons' sakes, but otherwise I could give a damn. I am otherwise only interested in what I can do about it now and what I need to get done before it puts me in the ground. SignaturePSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04, <0.05 Non Illegitimi Carborundum > Having been diagnosed, I never spent a second worrying over what I did > wrong. I have a modicum of interest in causal effects for my brothers', > son, and grandsons' sakes, but otherwise I could give a damn. > > I am otherwise only interested in what I can do about it now and what I need > to get done before it puts me in the ground. That's all that matters, at least until "they" can learn from tens of thousands of PC pts what -- if it's anything we can control -- caused theirs. I.P. > That's all that matters, at least until "they" can learn from tens of > thousands of PC pts what -- if it's anything we can control -- caused > theirs. WHAT!?!?!?!?!? Wouldn't that be anecdotal? :-) >> That's all that matters, at least until "they" can learn from tens of >> thousands of PC pts what -- if it's anything we can control -- caused [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Wouldn't that be anecdotal? :-) Not if done via a sound study. I.P. > JK Sinrod > www.SinrodStudios.com > www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com If you haven't already seen it, you may be interested in this. http://www.thefutureofconeyisland.com $1-1/2 billion rehab/overhaul >> JK Sinrod >> www.SinrodStudios.com [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > $1-1/2 billion rehab/overhaul Thanks, but I've been hearing of these kind of projects for too many years to take them seriously. Hope it happens. SignatureJK Sinrod www.SinrodStudios.com www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com > I had a big juicy BBQ'd steak for dinner. > Ya think I'll live a week less than the ones that had salmon? Hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people have died early -- years to decades early -- due to a diet like that, if we're to believe most of the world's hospitals, medical schools, and dietary researchers. I.P. >> I had a big juicy BBQ'd steak for dinner. Ya think I'll live a week less >> than the ones that had salmon? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I.P. Most were also heavy carb eaters IP. They were eating french fried potatoes, bread, pasta, soda, candy, cookies, cake with that steak. From my experience and studies I honestly think it was the carbs that did them in, and can provide just as many Googled studies saying so. Sugar is the real poison. SignatureJK Sinrod www.SinrodStudios.com www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com >>> is it the structure of the substances that is bad, or >>> is it mainly just getting too many calories? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > http://mercola.com/blog/2006/feb/6/why_the_china_study_is_flawed I can't argue the study's accuracy, but one of the most qualified people here expressed doubts about Mercola, so who knows? The study is huge, lengthy, and funded by the big gum'mint agencies like NIH, not by Del Monte and Bird's Eye. I suspect one has to read the book to draw real conclusions from it; I've just begun the book. The most erudite debate I've found on the study ran dozens of pages, so I won't be studying the debate any time soon. I.P. On May 19, Mike Freely replied to JK Sinrod: > I can't argue the study's accuracy, but one of the most qualified people > here expressed doubts about Mercola, so who knows? The study is huge, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I've found on the study ran dozens of pages, so I won't be studying the > debate any time soon. In short, Mike is clueless and, though eager to pontificate, is not willing to cure his shortcoming. Typical of him. Phooey. Regards, Steve J |
Reply to this Message |
 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.