Posted on 07/13/2013 4:42:55 AM PDT by rickmichaels
Half of men over the age of 60 who were studied posthumously were found to have prostate cancer even though they died of other causes, a new study out of Mount Sinai Hospital shows.
The study shows that a large proportion of prostate cancer tumours are in fact not life-threatening, Dr. Alexandre Zlotta said Friday.
Results show there should be an improved screening method which would detect the disease based on clinical significance and level of aggressiveness instead of screening for all forms of this cancer.
The findings also say the common use of prostate-specific antigen testing for the disease increases the risk of detecting low-risk prostate cancers and leads to unnecessary treatments.
“In North America, men with clinically significant prostate cancer are offered radical treatment usually in the form of surgery or radiation and there are heavy personal tolls to these treatments,” Zlotta said. “But our study shows that in Japan, despite completely different lifestyles, despite a much lower incidence of clinically detected prostate cancer, and a much lower mortality rate due to prostate cancer compared to men in North America, Asian men have similar prevalence of the disease, but they aren’t dying from it.”
Caucasian men in Russia, who share the same characteristics as men in North America, such as a high-fat diet and reduced sun exposure, were used in the study.
The study also researched Asian men in Japan, who generally have a lower death rate from prostate cancer than men in North America as they eat healthier diets.
By studying two different populations, the research showed that the differences in incidence and mortality rates, and in genetics and lifestyle factors, the likelihood of prostate cancer was similar in both Caucasian and Asian men.
The prostate cancer in Asian men was actually more aggressive but they actually died from other factors.
The medical community needs to reexamine the definitions of “clinically unimportant” and “clinically significant” prostate cancer, Zlotta said.
“The study emphasizes the importance of understanding how many men in North America over a certain age harbour the latent form of prostate cancer, as this population is often over-diagnosed and over-treated, potentially leading to major side effects that affect lifestyle and personal well-being,” he said.
its the undigested meat that contributes to an unhealthy gut - yes sugur feeds cancer - but there is a multiple element approach where cancers gets a foothold and starts growing. At the end of the day, this comes down to a personal choice - a choice where people have to do their own research and decide for themselves...not eating meat will not kill you - it will actually make you healthier...check out http://engine2diet.com/ - the entire fire depart has gone this route....it’s another way to defeat Obamacare — by LIVING!
The hell that is cancer treatment...
Again, Prostate cancer is normally something you die with, unless you “eat healthy like an Asian” in which case it becomes something you can die of.
High fat diets seem to keep prostate cancer in check. High carbohydrate diets seem to enable prostate cancer to become more aggressive.
Yup, but it depends on the diet strategy. The diet that "Wheat Belly" (Davis) recommends is borderline keto (although he doesn't say so outright) and is easy to stay on, and getting easier.
> With regards to TSH/T4, I will marginally disagree with you. My family's had thyroid issues for generations, and having suffered from it myself, I can say it's a very real problem.
Absolutely, my family too. The problem is that what needs to be measured (free T3, free T4 and reverse T3) are not in the standard panel, and the usual treatment excludes T3 and/or dessicated thyroid. See "Stop the Thyroid Madness" (Bowthorpe).
>I do, however, believe that diet is the primary culprit in the destruction of our thyroids and our waistlines.
Little question about it.
> Cancer only became a big health problem in the 20th century, it seems.
And very little progress since Nixon declared "war" on it, in terms of survival rates for most types. Lots of money spent, tho.
> Was it our migration to modern lifestyles of leisure?
No, but the people digging in the wrong place for a cure do like to blame the victim.
> Did our diets change so dramatically?
Yes. There are multiple near-simultaneous problems:
There are further problems with trans fats, omega 6 oils, and probably GMO, but I don't think we'll have the full picture on those until the big 3 are swept away.
> Did our medical sciences finally start diagnosing cancer reliably?
What matters is what people die of, and the picture for cancer hasn't changed much.
This report got my attention:
CBN: Starving Cancer: Ketogenic Diet a Key to Recovery
Two striking things about that:
Connecting the dots led me to:
"Cancer as a Metabolic Disease" (Seyfried, 2012)
Note: this is an expensive scholarly text.
It concludes that a calorie-restricted keto diet may be the most effective treatment for cancer presently available.
Sounds like a great diet. Wine and brandy come from fruit, and whiskey and beer come from grains. Almond milk probably tastes great when mixed with gin.
A majority of vegetarians I know tout tofu (soy) as the go-to for protein since protein from vegetable sources is not very diverse. Or are you a vegetarian who just doesn’t eat land animals?
A majority of antibiotics are fat-soluble, so yes, any type of animal fat is going to be the storage locker for whatever the animal ate or was fed before slaughter.
I don’t do sweeteners at all. I am lucky to not have a sweet tooth, and I generally avoid any sweet foods except for an occasional peach or prune.
I’m an adherent to the Paleo Diet in general. While I disagree with their addition of certain high-sugar fruits, I find that a healthy mixture of Paleo, keto/Atkins, and non-soy has provided the most favorable results for my health.
I’ve followed your posts for a while now, boundless, and we’re in general agreement across the board. You’ve done a lot more research and homework than I have into your niches, but I’ve experimented for the better part of 15 years to conquer and stave off obesity through dietary science.
One of the most insidious things with diet in this country is the outright ridiculous espousal of high-carb/grain diets by our own government! Since the 1980s, America’s obesity epidemic has become worse every year, every decade. You would think SOMEONE would step up to say, “Umm... maybe we’re giving bad advice?”
But then considering how much grain producers give the Federal government, it’s really no surprise to me that we’re forced to eat that which is making us fat and killing us.
If one goes Soy, good to get fermented Soy, that’s what the Okinawans mainly eat, that’s a whole ‘nuther topic in itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet
This is a real good thread.
It's the meat from factory farm raised animals and its lack of omega-3, that is bad for you.
The USDA food pyramid is a joke.
Think people: how is it animals don’t need dentists?
How could it be that humans alone evolved with the first means of injesting sustenance—teeth—that are quickly destroyed by the very food they eat?
Unless we did not evolve to eat such food.
And if we’re eating food that rots our teeth, who knows what other damage it’s doing to our insides which are hidden from view.
Sugar and such “foods” as bread, pasta, dairy should all not be eaten.
Is "medicine smell and taste" like the sound of wet grass?
“You would think SOMEONE would step up to say, ‘Umm... maybe we’re giving bad advice?’”
Some are saying it—but are people listening?
Sugar: The Bitter Truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
My rule: if it comes in a bag or a box, it doesn’t go into my mouth.
The official diet, which all other agencies endorse, comes from the USDA, which is the revolving door employer for the grain industry. The FDA is the revolving door employer for the drug industry, who are making big bucks on potions to manage (but never cure) the consequences of the USDA diet.
I had some further words on the situation at:
Flash in the Pan Fad Diet?
What's Up With My Doctor?
I work in the farm machinery biz, by the way, and when people figure out what the problem is, and how to fix it, the company will be facing "interesting" times. I'm doing what I can to warn management.
I wouldn't bother. With the way politics work in this country, the agri-pharma-tobacco industry complex will have complete control over their respective agencies for time immemorial.
Common sense does not equal cash.
> I wouldn't bother. With the way politics work in this country, the agri-pharma-tobacco industry complex will have complete control over their respective agencies for time immemorial.
The USDA and FDA may be beyond remediation, but they don't yet directly control how individuals spend their food dollar. If a significant number of people ditch wheat and added fructose, and go low carb, farming is going to have to change radically (speaking as a small farmer, also).
If the market for wheat collapses, I suppose the USDA might subsidize it anyway, and dump the surplus at sea, or give it to the Norks, but you don't have to eat it.
While we are on the subject, what might one try for carbohydrates? I can cook up a fair amount of brown rice, quinoa which I know has a lot of protein it, etc. Even chia seeds.
Sometimes, when I don’t feel like I’m getting enough veggies, I go for the whole food pills or mixes too which have a wide array of nutrients.
Try for carbohydrates? You mean to consume? I espouse a carbohydrate-free lifestyle. If you have to take in carbs, make sure they’re paired with high fiber such as with firm-skinned fruits.
No legumes, no tubers, no processed or pasteurized foods. All natural eating is easy: can you go out in a field somewhere and pick it or kill it and grill it and have a tasty meal? Then it can be consumed!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.