 |
 | 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 / February 2008Study: Supplements Not Helpful -- Except for PC?
Large Study Nixes Supplements -- Mostly Experts at the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) recently reported that whole foods, not dietary supplements, play a role in lowering cancer risk. Citing a huge and comprehensive AICR report on cancer prevention, the panel of experts cautioned against relying on pills and powders as a means of protection. "When the panel examined the accumulated evidence from almost 50 different supplement trials, cohort studies and case-control studies, the results were simply too inconsistent to justify using supplements to protect against cancer," said AICR Nutrition Advisor Karen Collins, MS, RD. The panel also reported that under certain conditions, some high-dose supplements seemed protective at specific doses, some did nothing, and some actually increased the risk of cancer. "Let's be clear: although some people have misread the recommendation as simply, 'Don't take supplements ever,' that's not what the expert panel concluded," said Collins. "The panel members were careful to make an important distinction, namely: Don't rely on supplements to protect you from cancer." Different Grades for Different Cancer Links Of all the supplements reviewed by the panel, only two seemed to have a potential role in protection, and even then the research was less than clear. *According to the panel, selenium probably protects against prostate cancer, while calcium probably protects against colorectal cancer. Yet they also concluded that high calcium consumption probably increases risk for prostate cancer.* Whole Foods vs. Supplements The data on prevention are considerably more consistent, however, when it comes to foods that contain many of the same vitamins, minerals and other substances that are often sold in supplement form. The panel judged the evidence on several categories of such foods as protective against a variety of cancers, including: * Foods containing lycopene are probably protective against prostate cancer. * Foods containing selenium are probably protective against prostate cancer. That said, no matter how you say it, "to-may-to" or "to-mah-to," it's good for you. Have a pizza. Leah prostatecancerblog.net ----------------------------------- PS: I for a letter from a well-known PC surgeon today who mentioned that selenium may actually spur tumor growth. Don't know what he's been ingesting. Will find out. > calcium probably protects against colorectal cancer. Yet > they also concluded that high calcium consumption probably increases > risk for prostate cancer.* I grew up drinking a gallon of milk a day, drank pints for many more years, and still drink cups. I've played outdoors in extreme sun climates for my whole life. All that calcium failed to prevent my colon cancer and all that natural Vit D failed to prevent my PC. Nothing is guaranteed, not even close. I.P. > *According to the panel, selenium probably protects against prostate > cancer, while calcium probably protects against colorectal cancer. Yet > they also concluded that high calcium consumption probably increases > risk for prostate cancer.* That poses something of a quandary for someone like me. My mother and one brother had colon cancer, and I had prostate cancer. Since calcium may also help lower blood pressure, that makes my quandary particularly difficult. Walsh, in his Guide to Surviving Prostate Cancer, suggests that calcium my encourage prostate cancer by interfering with Vitamin D metabolism. He goes on to say that fruit sugars may moderate the effect of calcium on prostate cancer. So I mix my yogurt with fruit. Since I'm an ovo-lacto vegetarian, it is sort of hard to avoid milk products and still injest enough proteins. I take in the equivalent of three (non-fat) glasses of milk daily and eat lots of fruit (because I like it). That puts me a bit below the high risk category for calcium. Of course if my cancer was removed entirely with my prostate in 2000, it doesn't matter, but one never knows. So far I've been recurrence free. > Since calcium > may also help lower blood pressure, that makes my quandary particularly > difficult. Calcium may help a bit, but the old-fashioned way -- moderate cardiovascular exercise -- cut my BP from 130/75 to a so-far-repeatable 90/60 with standing (not resting) pulse in the 50s. Even slower cardio exercise actually builds new capillaries throughout our bodies, helping among other things our resistance to and recovery from heart attacks. I.P. >> Since calcium may also help lower blood pressure, that makes my >> quandary particularly difficult. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I.P. I think your genetics may having something to do with it. The lowest my blood pressure ever got was when I was running marathons in my 50s. It got down to about 110/60, occasionally dropping to 105/60. At that time I weighed as little as I ever have during my adult life, about 145 lbs. I had to give up running because of a problem with my hip, but I continued with vigorous exercise, mostly cycling. My weight eventually increased to 175, but my blood pressure stayed below 120/70. Then I had a herniated disc and a series of related back problems. As a result I take a lot of NSAIDs, and I think that raises my systolic pressure. About 5 years ago I lost 20 lbs and have been stable at about 155 since. My blood pressure went down after that but it has since continued to climb. It got to be a concern about three or four years ago. Because of "white coat hypertension", it measures higher in doctors' offices---systolic, often over 150, and I haven't been able to get a good estimate using home devices---I have more than one, but they don't agree. I estimate that my average systolic resting blood pressure is about 135, but it might be as low as 125 and perhaps as high as 145. My diastolic is fine, at about 60. It is unlikely that additional weight loss would help. (Even when heavier I've sunk in water, so I think I currently have to be considered at the low end of normal weight for my build.) I've tried a low salt diet without much effect, and I just started a mild blood pressure medication, a diuretic, but I am not happy about adding yet another medication with attendant side effects. I don't know what the problem is except the NSAIDS. My daughter-in-law, who is a physician, says it is just a matter of age, but I suspect it is not that simple. I probably have some arteriosclerosis, but it is not enough to show up on an echo stress cardiogram. I've been on a low fat diet for something like 30 years, but it is difficult to avoid fat build-up entirely. My LDL is very low, but so is my HDL---possibly because I'm a vegetarian. I've never smoked, and engaged in moderate to intense physical activity for at least 40 years. I always assumed that something like cancer would get me before cardiovascular disease did, but now I wonder. I really would rather not have a stroke. By my age, everyone on my mother's side of the family had cardiovascular disease; my mother died of the effects of a stroke and one brother died of a heart attack. So I suppose I'm way ahead of my genetics. Sorry to run on and on about what might seem to others to be a minor problem, given my age, but I think I would rather die of cancer than suffer a serious stroke and become a burden on my family. If anyone has anything to suggest beyond the obvious, I would be happy to learn about it. Also, I would appreciate any comments about how to accurately measure one's blood pressure at home when it seems to vary so much, Clearly, there is a big difference between resting systolic 125 and 145. Because of "white coat hypertension", it measures higher in > doctors' offices---systolic, often over 150, and I haven't been able to > get a good estimate using home devices---I have more than one, but they > don't agree. "White coat hypertension" is often a result of the physician/nurse/ practitioner not knowing how to take blood pressure. Ideally, you should be seated with some time elapsed since any walking or standing. Your arm should be resting on an armrest support or at least held more or less horizontally by the practitioner. An extreme example of what can go wrong happened to me when a nurse said "Follow me and we'll get your blood pressure." I followed him at a rapid pace for about 50 yards down one hall, down another and finally into an exam room. He immediately put the cuff on while I was standing with my arm hanging straight down and the hand on that arm clenched around a jacket I had removed during the walk in anticipation of the pressure test. Of course, the systolic was over 140 which prompted another doctor visit "to see what we can do about that high blood pressure." Of course, at the next visit it was done properly and the reading was 107. Dave Perry > "White coat hypertension" is often a result of the physician/nurse/ > practitioner not knowing how to take blood pressure. Ideally, you > should be seated with some time elapsed since any walking or > standing. Your arm should be resting on an armrest support or at > least held more or less horizontally by the practitioner. And you should have a back rest. And a significant recent meal often raises BP significantly, often even dramatically. I've given up trying to inform nurses taking my vital signs of the proper procedures. All I got was, "I've been doing this for 17 years...". Yep. And wrongly. What I get at 90/55 just after walking in and climbing onto a gurney is, "Do you feel OK?" We can't win. I.P. >>> Since calcium may also help lower blood pressure, that makes my >>> quandary particularly difficult. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I think your genetics may having something to do with it. Could be, but I was hitting 125-145/75-95 before I added more cardio. A restaurant meal (think salt!) before checking might make me hit 155/95. I'm guessing that much salt at once osmoses excess water into the blood stream, raising its volume and thus its pressure. > My LDL is very low, but so is my HDL Does your diet allow fish oil? My docs were not surprised that it almost doubled my low HDL (low 30s to almost 60). > I always assumed that something like cancer would get me before > cardiovascular disease did, but now I wonder. I hear that. Especially now that my cancers are cured (well, it's POSSIBLE, isn't it?), my rising blood glucose concerns me. That's serious stuff, and needs to be resolved until and unless the cancer alligator returns to the front of the herd. I.P. >>>> Since calcium may also help lower blood pressure, that makes my >>>> quandary particularly difficult. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Could be, but I was hitting 125-145/75-95 before I added more cardio. Because of spinal stenosis, there is a limit to what I can do. I am now exercising almost every day for about 35 minutes, either cycling or walking on a treadmill. According to the usual rule, at my age, my target pulse rate should lie between 111 and 128. Since I have to work up slowly, it takes me almost 15 minutes to get above 111, but I do get up close to 128 before I'm done. If I could go for an hour, it might make a difference, but I don't think my back could handle it. I just barely manage what I do by taking multiple pain killers and doing back exercises. My wife had horrible stenosis which a back surgeon fixed, and she is doing fine now. If my stenosis got bad enough, I might qualify for the surgery which is not usually undertaken unless the circumstances are dire indeed. My wife was taking something like 70 mg of oxycodone per day before the surgery! The most I use is a little tramadol. So I think I am out of luck on that score. Perhaps my body is telling me it doesn't want to live forever. )-; > Because of spinal stenosis, there is a limit to what I can do. I am > now exercising almost every day for about 35 minutes, either cycling or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > barely manage what I do by taking multiple pain killers and doing back > exercises. I crushed L1 (i.e., broke my back) decades ago (Feb 20, 1983, at about 3:00 PM), and have been warned that I probably face spinal stenosis some day, so I can commiserate. Your 120 heart-rate training may not only be counterproductive (unless you plan to compete at very short distances), but may stress your back more than necessary. Maybe lower cardio rates would be easier and less painful to achieve and maintain AND do your cardiovascular system more good. Target pulse rates depend far less than on age than on an individual’s physiology (primarily his aerobic and anaerobic thresholds) and goals (e.g., top sprinting speed vs health and endurance). Cardio work above one’s aerobic threshold (the max heart rate at which one can operate while burning only fat, no carbs) starts to emphasize speed at the expense of endurance. Even more important at our age, it reduces the capillaries which transport nutrients and oxygen and waste to and from our muscles, including our heart. Angiogenesis -- the development of new capillaries -- is maximized by LSD (long, slow distance) cardio training at our aerobic threshold. On the good side, angiogenesis helps protect us from and recover from heart attacks while increasing our muscular endurance. On the bad side, at least for those who enjoy running hard like you did, LSD places emphasis on the “S”; it’s sllloowwwww. Unless your aerobic threshold is very high, you’re burning sugar, training your muscles to burn ever more sugar, and slaughtering capillaries when running with a heart rate in the 120s. Lance Armstrong and his cycling and running peers were dismayed to learn this, as it mandated long, boring, slow (to them) training sessions far below their excitement thresholds. Their payoff for this “sacrifice”, however, was a litany of world championships and Iron Man first places, because their months of LSD increased the strength and endurance of and nutrient flow to their muscles and altered the chemistry of their muscle cells to burn fat rather than sugar throughout a much broader and higher range of heart rate. Fast cardio is akin to the low-carb approach to weight loss: it dumps excess weight fast in the short term, but is counterproductive, often even detrimental, in the long haul. And while charts may peg our fat-burning rate at 110 or 120 or more, in fact my aerobic threshold is 91. Why? Because I trained for months at 130-155 plus sprints well into the 170s, which depleted my capillaries and trained my muscle cells to burn sugar rather than fat. Without realizing it, I was training for the 220-yard dash I ran in high school, not the quasi-ultra-marathons I now “run” every windy day (8-12 hours of very vigorous windsurfing). How do I know mine’s 91? Metabolic testing (treadmill testing with a mask on my face and a heart rate monitor on my chest). If you can hit 120, maybe even just 100, you can determine your aerobic threshold; the extreme exertion is required only to determine our VO2max, the most direct measure of ultimate fitness. Easier ways to estimate our aerobic threshold are all over Google. I will compare a couple of them to my recent scientific measurement to check their accuracy ... for me. > Perhaps my body is telling me it doesn't want to live forever. )-; The race is on to determine which contender ends my playtime and/or my life. The registered entrants in that race includes PCa, carcinoid colon cancer, OA in C-6, knees, Meniere’s disease, elevated lipids, prediabetes, and mental function decline (word recall, multitasking). I hope to achieve the life span you have, but am not holding my breath. I.P. All cells, cancerous and otherwise, require nutrients and I suppose some nutrients are more beneficial to some cells than to others. How do we know, or how does anyone know for that matter, whether or not our increased intake of vitamin whatever isn't precisely the nutrient a particular cancer cell needs to thrive. Until we do know, I'm going to avoid extra doses of just about everything, except perhaps pizza. Dave Perry On Feb 19, 2:31 pm, "brainyblog...@gmail.com" <brainyblog...@gmail.com> wrote: > Large Study Nixes Supplements -- Mostly > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > that selenium may actually spur tumor growth. Don't know what he's > been ingesting. Will find out.
|
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.