Re: ALA/Prostate Confusion

[Guest guest]

Can we have references from reliable sources for your statements???

on 8/10/2004 1:04 PM, loganruns73 at loganruns73@... wrote:

> From the available research, it seems prostate problems are

> correlated with chronic inflammation and malnutrition. BPH seems to

> me more likely to be chronic inflammation and BPC to be from

> malnutrition, and the former does not equivocally imply the latter.

>

> In diets high in ALA, most of the delta-5 desatures will be used in

> the Omega-3 pathway, leaving little available to convert DGLA into AA

> in the Omega-6 pathway. So, it doesn't make too much sense to me

> that ALA is the problem, unless the delta-5 desaturase is somehow

> being co-opted by the Omega-6 pathway for AA. The Omega-6 pathway

> does have GLA and PGE1 which are anti-inflammatory counterparts to

> Omega 3's DHA and EPA. Yet if LA is supposedly so good for

> preventing prostate problems, then why are modern diets excessively

> high in LA compared to ALA? LA, saturated fat and trans-fat also

> inhibit EPA/DHA conversion up to 40% and unimpeded ALA conversion to

> EPA is already limited to 15% for EPA and 5% for DHA.

>

> Estrogen is clearly linked to both prostate and breast cancer. Soy,

> a phytoestrogen, blocks the estrogen receptors on the prostate.

> Resveratrol, a phytoestrogen, has efficacy. Beta sisterol (saw

> palmetto), a phytoestrogen, has efficacy. Pumpkin seed, a

> phytoestrogen, has efficacy. Probably so do various other estrogen

> receptor blockers that haven't been specifically researched for the

> issue or bad-estrogen-destroyers, such as TMG and I3C.

>

> Wasn't it even said in here that phytoestrogens were responsible for

> improving total cholesterol?

>

> Interestingly, flax seed is high in a particular phytoestrogen,

> lignan, which is thought to inhibit estrogen production, behavior

> quite different than acting as a receptor blocker. Maybe it is the

> lignan and not the ALA that is the culprit.

>

> Environmental xenobiotics are also phytoestrogens, which are thought

> to increase estrogen levels, behavior quite different than acting as

> a receptor blocker. Pesticides, milk, plastic wrap and Tupperware-in-

> microwave comes to mind.

>

> And, of course, there's the selenium and boron soil defenciencies in

> the regions with high prostate problems. Maybe the same regions

> don't eat much tomatoes (lycopene) either.

>

> Logan

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Logan:

1. " ...... it doesn't make too much sense to me that ALA is the

problem ........ " . Well what reason do you have to doubt the study

posted here recently from the Physicians Health Study (by no means

the first to show the link) which followed ~48,000 subjects for many

years and found that ALA is a major problem for prostate cancer, and

**especially** ALA derived from plant sources?

2. " ........ Maybe it is the lignan and not the ALA that is the

culprit. " They did not test whether flax was a problem, they

studied ALA consumed from all sources. Most, I am willing to bet,

were not getting it from flax. MUCH more likely from soybean and

canola oils. In any event, it is either ALA or something else for

which ALA is an excellent marker. Which for practical purposes is

what we need to know.

" .......... Yet if LA is supposedly so good for preventing

prostate problems, then why are modern diets excessively

high in LA compared to ALA? " . I didn't know that LA was " good for

preventing prostate problems " . Could you please provide a source for

that? That would be very helpful. As for the implications of the

higher amount of LA than ALA, an obvious conclusion might be that a

little ALA goes a long way in promoting prostate cancer. (A doubling

of incidence in the PHS study I noted earlier).

" Resveratrol, a phytoestrogen, has efficacy. Beta sisterol (saw

palmetto), a phytoestrogen, has efficacy. Pumpkin seed, a

phytoestrogen, has efficacy. " Are you saying that resveratrol, saw

palmetto and pumpkin seed are beneficial at protecting against(?) or

treating(?) prostate cancer(?) Or BPH(?) Or breast cancer(?).

These, as you know, are very common afflictions so it would be very

helpful to know exactly what it is you believe they are good for, and

see the references that support those beliefs.

Thanks,

Rodney.

> From the available research, it seems prostate problems are

> correlated with chronic inflammation and malnutrition. BPH seems

to

> me more likely to be chronic inflammation and BPC to be from

> malnutrition, and the former does not equivocally imply the latter.

>

> In diets high in ALA, most of the delta-5 desatures will be used in

> the Omega-3 pathway, leaving little available to convert DGLA into

AA

> in the Omega-6 pathway. So, it doesn't make too much sense to me

> that ALA is the problem, unless the delta-5 desaturase is somehow

> being co-opted by the Omega-6 pathway for AA. The Omega-6 pathway

> does have GLA and PGE1 which are anti-inflammatory counterparts to

> Omega 3's DHA and EPA. Yet if LA is supposedly so good for

> preventing prostate problems, then why are modern diets excessively

> high in LA compared to ALA? LA, saturated fat and trans-fat also

> inhibit EPA/DHA conversion up to 40% and unimpeded ALA conversion

to

> EPA is already limited to 15% for EPA and 5% for DHA.

>

> Estrogen is clearly linked to both prostate and breast cancer.

Soy,

> a phytoestrogen, blocks the estrogen receptors on the prostate.

> Resveratrol, a phytoestrogen, has efficacy. Beta sisterol (saw

> palmetto), a phytoestrogen, has efficacy. Pumpkin seed, a

> phytoestrogen, has efficacy. Probably so do various other estrogen

> receptor blockers that haven't been specifically researched for the

> issue or bad-estrogen-destroyers, such as TMG and I3C.

>

> Wasn't it even said in here that phytoestrogens were responsible

for

> improving total cholesterol?

>

> Interestingly, flax seed is high in a particular phytoestrogen,

> lignan, which is thought to inhibit estrogen production, behavior

> quite different than acting as a receptor blocker. Maybe it is the

> lignan and not the ALA that is the culprit.

>

> Environmental xenobiotics are also phytoestrogens, which are

thought

> to increase estrogen levels, behavior quite different than acting

as

> a receptor blocker. Pesticides, milk, plastic wrap and Tupperware-

in-

> microwave comes to mind.

>

> And, of course, there's the selenium and boron soil defenciencies

in

> the regions with high prostate problems. Maybe the same regions

> don't eat much tomatoes (lycopene) either.

>

> Logan

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> 1. " ...... it doesn't make too much sense to me that ALA is the

> problem ........ " . Well what reason do you have to doubt the

study

> posted here recently from the Physicians Health Study (by no means

> the first to show the link) which followed ~48,000 subjects for

many

> years and found that ALA is a major problem for prostate cancer,

and

> **especially** ALA derived from plant sources?

Because I haven't seen anything negative about the Omega-3 pathway.

I think ALA is just a spurious correlation. If ALA is going to be

blamed, then the exact pathway component needs to be identified as

the guilty party.

I'm generally not a fan of vegetable oils based on our

paleoanthropological diet, but blanket statements that " ALA is bad "

when it is a grandmother pre-cursor to many other fatty acids just

seems to me like sloppy reasoning and not specific enough.

> 2. " ........ Maybe it is the lignan and not the ALA that is the

> culprit. " They did not test whether flax was a problem, they

> studied ALA consumed from all sources. Most, I am willing to bet,

> were not getting it from flax. MUCH more likely from soybean and

> canola oils. In any event, it is either ALA or something else for

> which ALA is an excellent marker. Which for practical purposes is

> what we need to know.

But there's also other stuff in canola and soybean oil that may be

bad. I didn't see any controlling for them vs ALA.

> " .......... Yet if LA is supposedly so good for preventing

> prostate problems, then why are modern diets excessively

> high in LA compared to ALA? " . I didn't know that LA was " good for

> preventing prostate problems " . Could you please provide a source

for

> that? That would be very helpful. As for the implications of the

> higher amount of LA than ALA, an obvious conclusion might be that a

> little ALA goes a long way in promoting prostate cancer. (A

doubling

> of incidence in the PHS study I noted earlier).

It was my impression you wanted to focus on increasing LA by

minimizing ALA since you want to use vegetable oils. Maybe the final

answer will be to minimize both, but that would definitely fly in the

face of the status quo.

> " Resveratrol, a phytoestrogen, has efficacy. Beta sisterol (saw

> palmetto), a phytoestrogen, has efficacy. Pumpkin seed, a

> phytoestrogen, has efficacy. " Are you saying that resveratrol,

saw

> palmetto and pumpkin seed are beneficial at protecting against(?)

or

> treating(?) prostate cancer(?) Or BPH(?) Or breast cancer(?).

> These, as you know, are very common afflictions so it would be very

> helpful to know exactly what it is you believe they are good for,

and

> see the references that support those beliefs.

It was my impression the studies showed efficacy against BPH, except

resveratrol for BPC. But, if I have to post abstracts for everything

I summarize in this forum because people are too lazy to look it up

in PubMed, I'm simply going to stop posting here. I don't have time

to copy and paste hundreds of abstracts to dispel the notion that I

rely on beliefs rather than evidence. Most of the time the

references I post are deemed " too old " or because just one later

study contradicts a body of earlier studies and therefore is deemed

to be the " final answer " . The bias in here that research is always

impartial and non-corrupt is ridiculous given the obvious conflicts

of interest in funding research and the use of non-placebo placebos,

et al.. Allright, now that I'm done complaining, I'll post a

reference for the three substances I mentioned. If anyone doesn't

like them for whatever reasons, tough. :-)

JR, Artime MC, O' CA; Resveratrol: a candidate

nutritional substance for prostate cancer prevention; J Nutr. 2003

Jul;133(7 Suppl):2440S-2443S.

Awang D.V.C.; Saw Palmetto, African prune and stinging nettle for

Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH); Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal

(Canada), 1997, 130/9 (37-44+62).

American Society for Cell Biology; San Francisco, CA; December 13,

2000; Presentation by Dr. W. H. Goldmann of Children's Hospital in

Boston, MA. [saw palmetto inhibits prostate cancer cell growth in the

test tube].

Schiebel-Schlosser G., Friederich M.; G. Schiebel-Schlosser,

Kline Beecham GmbH and Co. KG, Hermannstrasse 7, 77815 Buhl

Germany; Phytotherapy of BPH with pumpkin seeds - A multicentric

clinical trial. Zeitschrift fur Phytotherapie (Germany), 1998, 19/2

(71-76)

Logan

[Guest guest]

Logan: People are not too lazy to look things up in PubMed. Our routine

here is to post because of a credible source with good information.

Certainly later studies have more credence than a much older study because

knowledge increases with time.

Research may not be " perfect " but it's the best we have. So either post

according to our rules, or post elsewhere where the standards are less

rigorous.

on 8/10/2004 11:01 PM, loganruns73 at loganruns73@... wrote:

> It was my impression the studies showed efficacy against BPH, except

> resveratrol for BPC. But, if I have to post abstracts for everything

> I summarize in this forum because people are too lazy to look it up

> in PubMed, I'm simply going to stop posting here. I don't have time

> to copy and paste hundreds of abstracts to dispel the notion that I

> rely on beliefs rather than evidence. Most of the time the

> references I post are deemed " too old " or because just one later

> study contradicts a body of earlier studies and therefore is deemed

> to be the " final answer " . The bias in here that research is always

> impartial and non-corrupt is ridiculous given the obvious conflicts

> of interest in funding research and the use of non-placebo placebos,

> et al.. Allright, now that I'm done complaining, I'll post a

> reference for the three substances I mentioned. If anyone doesn't

> like them for whatever reasons, tough. :-)

>

> JR, Artime MC, O' CA; Resveratrol: a candidate

> nutritional substance for prostate cancer prevention; J Nutr. 2003

> Jul;133(7 Suppl):2440S-2443S.

>

> Awang D.V.C.; Saw Palmetto, African prune and stinging nettle for

> Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH); Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal

> (Canada), 1997, 130/9 (37-44+62).

>

> American Society for Cell Biology; San Francisco, CA; December 13,

> 2000; Presentation by Dr. W. H. Goldmann of Children's Hospital in

> Boston, MA. [saw palmetto inhibits prostate cancer cell growth in the

> test tube].

>

> Schiebel-Schlosser G., Friederich M.; G. Schiebel-Schlosser,

> Kline Beecham GmbH and Co. KG, Hermannstrasse 7, 77815 Buhl

> Germany; Phytotherapy of BPH with pumpkin seeds - A multicentric

> clinical trial. Zeitschrift fur Phytotherapie (Germany), 1998, 19/2

> (71-76)

>

> Logan

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Logan:

Thanks for that response, and the studies noted, which I will try to

locate on the weekend. A couple of points worth responding to:

> But there's also other stuff in canola and soybean oil that may be

> bad. I didn't see any controlling for them vs ALA.

Agreed. And we very well may not even know of the existance of the

substances responsible. But it certainly looks like ALA is a pretty

good marker for these things, some of which perhaps may not be

isolated for decades.

> It was my impression you wanted to focus on increasing LA by

> minimizing ALA since you want to use vegetable oils. Maybe the

final

> answer will be to minimize both, but that would definitely fly in

the

> face of the status quo.

Sorry for my lack of clarity. I am known around here, and have been

criticised for it, for trying to avoid fats in general whenever

possible (avocadoes, peanuts are examples). For a long time my diet

was 10% to 15% calories from fat. It is now more like 15% to 20%

calories from fat because I now am eating much more fish, and more

nuts than I used to. BECAUSE of my low fat intake I want to make

sure that I DO get the fats I need. Which for me means avoiding

sources with significant quantities of ALA, getting plenty of EPA and

DHA from fish, and getting the RDA for linoleic from the lowest

calorie source possible. (Safflower oil, or Jeff's suggestions

regarding green vegetables. As regards the latter I have never been

able to find a source that gives the kind of breakout of fat content

of vegetables that I would like to see. I.E. into OA, LA, ALA, DHA,

EPA, saturated, trans, etc.)

> if I have to post abstracts for everything

> I summarize in this forum because people are too lazy to look it up

> in PubMed, I'm simply going to stop posting here. I don't have

time

> to copy and paste hundreds of abstracts ..........

None of us have time on our hands. I thought that since it was you

who posted the benefits of LA, resveratrol, pumpkin seeds and saw

palmetto you might be able to easily reference the serious sources

you had found most compelling. Perhaps in part I made the request

because you quite often do make blanket statements about what I

regard as obscure herbal remedies, notably only those produced by

specified methods (usually not the supplement going by that name

readily found in the drug store supplements aisle) from specific

producers. Quite likely some of these things may turn out to be

highly beneficial. But I would like to check them out pretty

carefully before thinking about swallowing them. If there are a

couple of pubmed studies on them that would help a lot, of course.

> Allright, now that I'm done complaining, I'll post a

> reference for the three substances I mentioned. If anyone doesn't

> like them for whatever reasons, tough. :-)

>

> JR, Artime MC, O' CA; Resveratrol: a candidate

> nutritional substance for prostate cancer prevention; J Nutr. 2003

> Jul;133(7 Suppl):2440S-2443S.

>

> Awang D.V.C.; Saw Palmetto, African prune and stinging nettle for

> Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH); Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal

> (Canada), 1997, 130/9 (37-44+62).

>

> American Society for Cell Biology; San Francisco, CA; December 13,

> 2000; Presentation by Dr. W. H. Goldmann of Children's Hospital in

> Boston, MA. [saw palmetto inhibits prostate cancer cell growth in

the

> test tube].

>

> Schiebel-Schlosser G., Friederich M.; G. Schiebel-Schlosser,

> Kline Beecham GmbH and Co. KG, Hermannstrasse 7, 77815 Buhl

> Germany; Phytotherapy of BPH with pumpkin seeds - A multicentric

> clinical trial. Zeitschrift fur Phytotherapie (Germany), 1998, 19/2

> (71-76)

>

> Logan

Thanks for the references.

Rodney.

[Guest guest]

FWIW, saw palmetto, stinging nettle, soy protein isolate, isoflavones, and several other things I've tried (I've got a box of empty bottles of stuff that didn;t work for anything) do not work for BPH. Flomax will work for a while. Proscar may act better than other stuff, but I don't know yet. In the real world of therapy which you are discussing, when you say to treat BPH, all is BS. Get the info from a urologist. Rodney and I have posted such refs. If I want to know about PCa, I will ask Dr Snuffy Myers, or the like - someone actually involved in every day treatment of PCa.

AFA BPH is concerned, they consider it so far down in importancy that little can be said. They think the obvious answer is a TURP.

I think the problem arises when we state positives in a world where there are VERY FEW positives. You can state your opinion, AFAIC, unchallenged. The world we discuss, is the pre-therapy world where people can guess a lot, like how to live longer. But when a disease is involved, I'd like to hear what your doctor said,eg, as opposed to 10000 articles of guesswork. Better to find a summary article where the "stuff" has been digested by an expert, first.

AFA resveratrol is concerned, I'll wait til they get it "perfected" (ala DHEA). But we do eat grapes, use a little wine etc.

BTW, one of the best indicators I've noticed to evaluate supplements is the drop in price at Puritans(ha). If it's on sale, take another look. Carnosine is 60% off. Resveratrol has not entered their market yet.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: loganruns73

Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:01 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: ALA/Prostate Confusion

It was my impression the studies showed efficacy against BPH, except resveratrol for BPC. But, if I have to post abstracts for everything I summarize in this forum because people are too lazy to look it up in PubMed, I'm simply going to stop posting here. I don't have time to copy and paste hundreds of abstracts to dispel the notion that I rely on beliefs rather than evidence. Most of the time the references I post are deemed "too old" or because just one later study contradicts a body of earlier studies and therefore is deemed to be the "final answer". The bias in here that research is always impartial and non-corrupt is ridiculous given the obvious conflicts of interest in funding research and the use of non-placebo placebos, et al.. Allright, now that I'm done complaining, I'll post a reference for the three substances I mentioned. If anyone doesn't like them for whatever reasons, tough. :-) JR, Artime MC, O' CA; Resveratrol: a candidate nutritional substance for prostate cancer prevention; J Nutr. 2003 Jul;133(7 Suppl):2440S-2443S.Awang D.V.C.; Saw Palmetto, African prune and stinging nettle for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH); Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal (Canada), 1997, 130/9 (37-44+62).American Society for Cell Biology; San Francisco, CA; December 13, 2000; Presentation by Dr. W. H. Goldmann of Children's Hospital in Boston, MA. [saw palmetto inhibits prostate cancer cell growth in the test tube].Schiebel-Schlosser G., Friederich M.; G. Schiebel-Schlosser, Kline Beecham GmbH and Co. KG, Hermannstrasse 7, 77815 Buhl Germany; Phytotherapy of BPH with pumpkin seeds - A multicentric clinical trial. Zeitschrift fur Phytotherapie (Germany), 1998, 19/2 (71-76)Logan

[Guest guest]

just to add more fuel to the CANCER RISK fire:

American Family PhysicianVolume 66 • Number 8 • October 15, 2002

Practice Guidelines

American Cancer Society Releases Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention

Other Dietary Factors Affecting Cancer Risk

The following points address concerns about diet and physical activity in relation to cancer.

• There is currently no evidence that the substances found in bioengineered foods now on the market are harmful or that they would increase or decrease cancer risk because of the added genes.

• Men and women should try to get recommended levels of calcium primarily through food sources.

• There is no evidence that lowering blood cholesterol levels has an effect on cancer risk.

• There is no evidence that caffeine use increases the risk of cancer.

• Fluorides do not increase cancer risk.

• Folic acid deficiency may increase the risk of colorectal and breast cancer. To reduce this risk, folic acid is best obtained through eating vegetables, fruits, and enriched grain products.

• Additives are usually present in very small quantities in food, and no convincing evidence exists that any additive consumed at these levels causes human cancers.

• Insufficient evidence exists to support a specific role for garlic in cancer prevention.

• Radiation does not remain in the foods after treatment, and there is no evidence that eating irradiated foods increases cancer risk.

• Even if lycopene in foods is associated with lower risk for cancer, it does not follow that high doses taken as supplements would be more effective or safe.

• Consumption of meats preserved by methods using smoke or salt increases exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals and should be minimized. Braising, steaming, poaching, stewing, and microwaving meats minimize the production of these chemicals. Microwaving and steaming may be the best ways to preserve the nutritional content in vegetables.

• Consumption of olive oil is not associated with any increased risk of cancer.

• At present, no research exists to demonstrate whether organic foods are more effective in reducing cancer risk than are similar foods produced by other farming methods.

• There is no evidence that residues of pesticides and herbicides at the low doses found in foods increase the risk of cancer.

• There is no evidence that phytochemicals taken as supplements are as beneficial as the vegetables, fruits, beans, and grains from which they are extracted.

• No evidence suggests that salt used in cooking or in flavoring foods affects cancer risk.

• There is a narrow margin between safe and toxic doses of selenium. The maximum dose in a supplement should not exceed 200 mcg per day. Seafood, meats, and grain products are good sources of selenium.

• There is no convincing data that soy supplements are beneficial in reducing cancer risk.

• Food is the best source of vitamins and minerals, not supplements. If a supplement is taken, the best choice is a balanced multivitamin/mineral supplement containing no more than 100 percent of the daily value of most nutrients, because high doses of some nutrients can have adverse effects.

• Tea has not been proven to reduce cancer risk in humans. The few studies in which vitamin C has been given as a supplement have not shown a reduced risk of cancer.

• Recent evidence demonstrates that trans-fats have adverse cardiovascular effects, such as raising blood cholesterol levels, but their relationship to cancer risk has not been determined.

• Drinking at least eight cups of liquid a day is usually recommended, and some studies indicate that even more may be beneficial.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 8:56 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: ALA/Prostate Confusion

[Guest guest]

Where exactly are these rules located so I may peruse them? They

were not in the introduction message when joining the forum.

Logan

> Logan: People are not too lazy to look things up in PubMed. Our

routine

> here is to post because of a credible source with good information.

> Certainly later studies have more credence than a much older study

because

> knowledge increases with time.

>

> Research may not be " perfect " but it's the best we have. So either

post

> according to our rules, or post elsewhere where the standards are

less

> rigorous.

[Guest guest]

and I left out:

"PROSTATE CANCER

To reduce risk, limit intake of animal-based products, especially red meats and high-fat dairy products, and eat five or more servings of fruits and vegetables a day."

regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: jwwright

Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 10:47 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: ALA/Prostate Confusion

just to add more fuel to the CANCER RISK fire:

American Family PhysicianVolume 66 • Number 8 • October 15, 2002

Practice Guidelines

American Cancer Society Releases Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention

Other Dietary Factors Affecting Cancer Risk

The following points address concerns about diet and physical activity in relation to cancer.

• There is currently no evidence that the substances found in bioengineered foods now on the market are harmful or that they would increase or decrease cancer risk because of the added genes.

• Men and women should try to get recommended levels of calcium primarily through food sources.

• There is no evidence that lowering blood cholesterol levels has an effect on cancer risk.

• There is no evidence that caffeine use increases the risk of cancer.

• Fluorides do not increase cancer risk.

• Folic acid deficiency may increase the risk of colorectal and breast cancer. To reduce this risk, folic acid is best obtained through eating vegetables, fruits, and enriched grain products.

• Additives are usually present in very small quantities in food, and no convincing evidence exists that any additive consumed at these levels causes human cancers.

• Insufficient evidence exists to support a specific role for garlic in cancer prevention.

• Radiation does not remain in the foods after treatment, and there is no evidence that eating irradiated foods increases cancer risk.

• Even if lycopene in foods is associated with lower risk for cancer, it does not follow that high doses taken as supplements would be more effective or safe.

• Consumption of meats preserved by methods using smoke or salt increases exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals and should be minimized. Braising, steaming, poaching, stewing, and microwaving meats minimize the production of these chemicals. Microwaving and steaming may be the best ways to preserve the nutritional content in vegetables.

• Consumption of olive oil is not associated with any increased risk of cancer.

• At present, no research exists to demonstrate whether organic foods are more effective in reducing cancer risk than are similar foods produced by other farming methods.

• There is no evidence that residues of pesticides and herbicides at the low doses found in foods increase the risk of cancer.

• There is no evidence that phytochemicals taken as supplements are as beneficial as the vegetables, fruits, beans, and grains from which they are extracted.

• No evidence suggests that salt used in cooking or in flavoring foods affects cancer risk.

• There is a narrow margin between safe and toxic doses of selenium. The maximum dose in a supplement should not exceed 200 mcg per day. Seafood, meats, and grain products are good sources of selenium.

• There is no convincing data that soy supplements are beneficial in reducing cancer risk.

• Food is the best source of vitamins and minerals, not supplements. If a supplement is taken, the best choice is a balanced multivitamin/mineral supplement containing no more than 100 percent of the daily value of most nutrients, because high doses of some nutrients can have adverse effects.

• Tea has not been proven to reduce cancer risk in humans. The few studies in which vitamin C has been given as a supplement have not shown a reduced risk of cancer.

• Recent evidence demonstrates that trans-fats have adverse cardiovascular effects, such as raising blood cholesterol levels, but their relationship to cancer risk has not been determined.

• Drinking at least eight cups of liquid a day is usually recommended, and some studies indicate that even more may be beneficial.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 8:56 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: ALA/Prostate Confusion

[Guest guest]

This is implied in the description of the group (i.e. we use " we share state

of the art information). It's also mentioned in the " Philosophy " file (or

at least Pubmed is mentioned) . However if it's not clear, I'll amend these

to make it perfectly clear although the vast majority of us who post seem to

understand it.

It should be obvious to any who join and read the posts that we place a

premium on researched-backed info from mainstream sources.

This is what one of our regulars ( Russ) posted to someone recently,

who refused to post references, and it may apply to you as well:

" .................I have

to mention that finding references through PubMed or other online

sources is not all that physically taxing. Surely not more than

extensive typing, since once the reference is found it can be cut and

pasted.

This group places a high value on research based information. "

on 8/11/2004 11:48 AM, loganruns73 at loganruns73@... wrote:

> Where exactly are these rules located so I may peruse them? They

> were not in the introduction message when joining the forum.

>

> Logan

[Guest guest]

Rodney:

> Sorry for my lack of clarity. I am known around here, and have

been

> criticised for it, for trying to avoid fats in general whenever

> possible (avocadoes, peanuts are examples). For a long time my

diet

> was 10% to 15% calories from fat. It is now more like 15% to 20%

> calories from fat because I now am eating much more fish, and more

> nuts than I used to. BECAUSE of my low fat intake I want to make

I can't provide a reference for this as it's from memory, but

yesterday when I was researching EFA's, a statement was made that a

total fat intake below 20% had negative health effects (I don't

remember the effects). According to the KANWU study (PMID:

11317662), when total fat is past 37% of calories, insulin is

impaired (but not when dietary cod protein was eaten). This one is

interesting: Greater than 15g fat/meal negatively effects blood lipid

profiles (PMID: 9440372). The ideal range would seem to be 20%-30%.

> regarding green vegetables. As regards the latter I have never

been

> able to find a source that gives the kind of breakout of fat

content

> of vegetables that I would like to see. I.E. into OA, LA, ALA,

DHA,

> EPA, saturated, trans, etc.)

Try http://www.food-stats.com/

> None of us have time on our hands. I thought that since it was you

> who posted the benefits of LA, resveratrol, pumpkin seeds and saw

> palmetto you might be able to easily reference the serious sources

> you had found most compelling. Perhaps in part I made the request

Well, I've always found it easier to remember the substance having

efficacy rather than obscure references. So it takes a lot of time,

if not hours, to track down the exact references to copy and paste.

However, I just discovered that you can reference PubMed references

by ID (e.g. PMID: xxxxxx) so that will save a heck of a lot of time

in the future.

> because you quite often do make blanket statements about what I

> regard as obscure herbal remedies, notably only those produced by

> specified methods (usually not the supplement going by that name

> readily found in the drug store supplements aisle) from specific

> producers. Quite likely some of these things may turn out to be

Yes, as I've mentioned before, this is because 99% of what is sold in

health stores would be fortunate to have any efficacy at all for

numerous reasons. Many Americans will make blanket statements about

herbs being " ineffective " without realizing the efficacy is totally

dependent on the product being proved as high quality. This is a

very well-kept secret of the supplement industry and the vast

majority of companies simply don't care that someone who is

dying could be trying to cure their cancer or what-not with their

worthless products. They're not all true-believers up in the

executive suite (reminds me of Big Tobacco). In fact, there are

branded prescription drugs that are simply pharmaceutical-quality and

grade herbal extracts or isolates in disguise.

> highly beneficial. But I would like to check them out pretty

> carefully before thinking about swallowing them. If there are a

> couple of pubmed studies on them that would help a lot, of course.

You should be able to find the four I posted by searching for the

titles. In the future I will be just referencing the PMID's.

Logan

[Guest guest]

What was the brand/manufacturer of the saw palmetto, stinging nettle

and any other herbs you tried without success?

Did you get the BPH while on CRON?

Logan

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

> FWIW, saw palmetto, stinging nettle, soy protein isolate,

isoflavones, and several other things I've tried (I've got a box of

empty bottles of stuff that didn;t work for anything) do not work for

BPH. Flomax will work for a while. Proscar may act better than other

stuff, but I don't know yet. In the real world of therapy which you

are discussing, when you say to treat BPH, all is BS. Get the info

from a urologist. Rodney and I have posted such refs. If I want to

know about PCa, I will ask Dr Snuffy Myers, or the like - someone

actually involved in every day treatment of PCa.

[Guest guest]

Hi Logan:

Many thanks for that assistance.

Rodney.

> Rodney:

>

> > Sorry for my lack of clarity. I am known around here, and have

> been

> > criticised for it, for trying to avoid fats in general whenever

> > possible (avocadoes, peanuts are examples). For a long time my

> diet

> > was 10% to 15% calories from fat. It is now more like 15% to 20%

> > calories from fat because I now am eating much more fish, and

more

> > nuts than I used to. BECAUSE of my low fat intake I want to make

>

> I can't provide a reference for this as it's from memory, but

> yesterday when I was researching EFA's, a statement was made that a

> total fat intake below 20% had negative health effects (I don't

> remember the effects). According to the KANWU study (PMID:

> 11317662), when total fat is past 37% of calories, insulin is

> impaired (but not when dietary cod protein was eaten). This one is

> interesting: Greater than 15g fat/meal negatively effects blood

lipid

> profiles (PMID: 9440372). The ideal range would seem to be 20%-30%.

>

> > regarding green vegetables. As regards the latter I have never

> been

> > able to find a source that gives the kind of breakout of fat

> content

> > of vegetables that I would like to see. I.E. into OA, LA, ALA,

> DHA,

> > EPA, saturated, trans, etc.)

>

> Try http://www.food-stats.com/

>

> > None of us have time on our hands. I thought that since it was

you

> > who posted the benefits of LA, resveratrol, pumpkin seeds and saw

> > palmetto you might be able to easily reference the serious

sources

> > you had found most compelling. Perhaps in part I made the

request

>

> Well, I've always found it easier to remember the substance having

> efficacy rather than obscure references. So it takes a lot of

time,

> if not hours, to track down the exact references to copy and

paste.

> However, I just discovered that you can reference PubMed references

> by ID (e.g. PMID: xxxxxx) so that will save a heck of a lot of time

> in the future.

>

> > because you quite often do make blanket statements about what I

> > regard as obscure herbal remedies, notably only those produced by

> > specified methods (usually not the supplement going by that name

> > readily found in the drug store supplements aisle) from specific

> > producers. Quite likely some of these things may turn out to be

>

> Yes, as I've mentioned before, this is because 99% of what is sold

in

> health stores would be fortunate to have any efficacy at all for

> numerous reasons. Many Americans will make blanket statements

about

> herbs being " ineffective " without realizing the efficacy is totally

> dependent on the product being proved as high quality. This is a

> very well-kept secret of the supplement industry and the vast

> majority of companies simply don't care that someone who is

> dying could be trying to cure their cancer or what-not with their

> worthless products. They're not all true-believers up in the

> executive suite (reminds me of Big Tobacco). In fact, there are

> branded prescription drugs that are simply pharmaceutical-quality

and

> grade herbal extracts or isolates in disguise.

>

> > highly beneficial. But I would like to check them out pretty

> > carefully before thinking about swallowing them. If there are a

> > couple of pubmed studies on them that would help a lot, of

course.

>

> You should be able to find the four I posted by searching for the

> titles. In the future I will be just referencing the PMID's.

>

> Logan

[Guest guest]

Several diff mfgs, from puritans, wal-mart, and the brands were supported by the consumer thing back when. So what? How do I know what the hxxx is in any brand?

HERBALS DON"T GET IT FOR THERAPY, period. Too many uncertainties.

You've maybe seen the concoction on TV promoted for BPH. I invented that mix, and they "copied" it to sell it. It doesn't work. Nothing herbal works when medical treatments are required. Without evidence - tests in humans plus long term studies, my opinion will always be the same: Take them to try but don't expect them to work. And be careful they don't interact with prescription medications, and be sure they have no lead, and be sure the mfg hasn't spiked it with a prescription drug, and be sure the stuff is consistent in dosage, and be sure to use the right dosage.

Yes. Age 68, after doing a low fat lacto veg, low sodium diet for 3 yrs.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: loganruns73

Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 11:24 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: ALA/Prostate Confusion

What was the brand/manufacturer of the saw palmetto, stinging nettle and any other herbs you tried without success?Did you get the BPH while on CRON?Logan

[Guest guest]

This looks like a great site for searching a wide variety of foods, for

detailed info including macronutrients. We'll add it to our " links " .

Thanks to Logan for pointing it out.

on 8/11/2004 12:21 PM, loganruns73 at loganruns73@... wrote:

> profiles (PMID: 9440372). The ideal range would seem to be 20%-30%.

>

>> regarding green vegetables. As regards the latter I have never

> been

>> able to find a source that gives the kind of breakout of fat

> content

>> of vegetables that I would like to see. I.E. into OA, LA, ALA,

> DHA,

>> EPA, saturated, trans, etc.)

>

> Try http://www.food-stats.com/

>

[Guest guest]

The cause(s) of prostate cancer may not be directly related to

diet. No matter how much soy protein isolated you eat (or don't

eat

it) or ALA you avoid if your immune system is compromised you are at

higher risk.

Oncogene advance online publication 19 July 2004;

doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1207920

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/dynapage.taf?

file=/onc/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/1207920a.html

http://snipurl.com/8cro

Quotation from head researcher:

" We are not saying that BK virus causes prostate cancer, but our

results do suggest that the virus plays a role in the transition

from normal to uncontrolled growth of prostate cells. " –

Imperial

My understanding is that the BK is a common polyomavirus

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyomavirus) that lays dormant in the

urinary tract.) The researchers theorize that the BK virus infects

cells in the prostate and transforms them into atrophic lesions

through TAg expression (TAg are proteins essential for viral

replication). These atrophic lesions contained high levels of

proteins expressed by the p53 tumor suppressor gene, which would

normally be good. However, the gene can't do its job because the

TAg proteins prevented the tumor suppressor from entering the cell's

nucleus, where it normally signals the cell to stop dividing and

die. TAg also stimulates the prostate cell to divide.

The abstract:

Detection and expression of human BK virus sequences in neoplastic

prostate tissues

Original Paper

Detection and expression of human BK virus sequences in neoplastic

prostate tissues

Dweepanita Das1, Rajal B Shah2,3 and J Imperiale1,3

1Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Michigan

Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0942, USA

2Departments of Pathology and Urology, University of Michigan

Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0942, USA

3Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Michigan Medical School,

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0942, USA

Correspondence to: MJ Imperiale, Department of Microbiology and

Immunology, University of Michigan Medical School, 1500 E. Medical

Center Dr. 6304 Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0942, USA. E-

mail: imperial@...

Received 28 February 2004; revised 25 May 2004; accepted 9 June

2004; published online 19 July 2004

Abstract

BK virus (BKV) is ubiquitous in the human population and establishes

a lifelong, subclinical persistent infection in the urinary tract.

When the immune system is compromised, it can cause severe disease

in the kidney and bladder. Detection of BKV sequences in urinary

tract neoplasms has led to the postulate that this virus may induce

human oncogenesis through the function of its large tumor antigen

(TAg). In this study, examination of prostate tumor tissue sections

using in situ hybridization shows the presence of BKV sequences in

atrophic epithelium. Solution polymerase chain reaction on DNA

extracted from the tissues and sequence analysis of the products

reveal the presence of BKV regulatory and early region sequences. In

addition, immunohistochemical analysis using monoclonal antibodies

specific to TAg or p53 shows the expression of TAg in some of the

samples and p53 staining that can be correlated to TAg expression.

Although the normal cellular localization of TAg and p53 is nuclear,

double immunofluorescence labeling with anti-p53 and TAg antibodies

indicates colocalization of p53 and TAg to the cytoplasm in the

glandular epithelial cells of the sections. Although BKV DNA was

found in benign and atrophic lesions, TAg and p53 coexpression was

observed only in atrophic lesions.

Keywords

polyomavirus BK; large T antigen; p53; postatrophic hyperplasia;

proliferative inflammatory atrophy; in situ hybridization;

immunohistochemistry; immunofluorescence; high-grade prostate

intraepithelial neoplasia

> From the available research, it seems prostate problems are

> correlated with chronic inflammation and malnutrition. BPH seems

to

> me more likely to be chronic inflammation and BPC to be from

> malnutrition, and the former does not equivocally imply the latter.

>

> In diets high in ALA, most of the delta-5 desatures will be used

in

> the Omega-3 pathway, leaving little available to convert DGLA into

AA

> in the Omega-6 pathway. So, it doesn't make too much sense to me

> that ALA is the problem, unless the delta-5 desaturase is somehow

> being co-opted by the Omega-6 pathway for AA.

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

It is always easier to post:

Das D, Shah RB, Imperiale MJ.

Detection and expression of human BK virus sequences in neoplastic

prostate

tissues.

Oncogene. 2004 Jul 19 [Epub ahead of print]

PMID: 15258563 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=15258563

http://tinyurl.com/53aly

Cheers, Al Pater.

> > From the available research, it seems prostate problems are

> > correlated with chronic inflammation and malnutrition. BPH seems

> to

> > me more likely to be chronic inflammation and BPC to be from

> > malnutrition, and the former does not equivocally imply the

latter.

> >

> > In diets high in ALA, most of the delta-5 desatures will be used

> in

> > the Omega-3 pathway, leaving little available to convert DGLA

into

> AA

> > in the Omega-6 pathway. So, it doesn't make too much sense to me

> > that ALA is the problem, unless the delta-5 desaturase is somehow

> > being co-opted by the Omega-6 pathway for AA.

[Guest guest]

Probably was not the secoisolariciresinol diglycoside (lignan). Say

that three times fast!

http://www.gettingwell.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/sec_0

297.shtml

http://snipurl.com/8kpi

" SDG has estrogenic and antioxidant activities. It may also have

antiestrogenic, anticarcinogenic, antiatherogenic and antidiabetic

activities. "

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/phytochemicals/lignans/

Prostate Cancer

Although dietary lignans are the principal source of phytoestrogens

in the typical Western diet, relationships between dietary lignan

intake and prostate cancer risk have not been well-studied. Two

prospective case-control studies examined the relationship between

serum enterolactone levels, a marker of lignan intake, and the

subsequent development of prostate cancer in Scandinavian men (37,

38). In both studies, initial serum enterolactone levels in men who

were diagnosed with prostate cancer 6-14 years later were not

significantly different from serum enterolactone levels in matched

control groups of men who did not develop prostate cancer. In a

retrospective case-control study, recalled dietary lignan intake did

not differ between U.S. men diagnosed with prostate cancer and a

matched control group (39). At present, limited data from

observational studies do not support a relationship between dietary

lignan intake and prostate cancer risk.

37. Kilkkinen A, Virtamo J, Virtanen MJ, Adlercreutz H, Albanes D,

Pietinen P. Serum enterolactone concentration is not associated with

prostate cancer risk in a nested case-control study. Cancer

Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003;12(11 Pt 1):1209-1212. (PubMed)

38. Stattin P, Adlercreutz H, Tenkanen L, et al. Circulating

enterolactone and prostate cancer risk: a Nordic nested case-control

study. Int J Cancer. 2002;99(1):124-129. (PubMed)

Info on flaxseed:

http://www.sbrc.ca/ncarm/flaxseed.htm

On the topic of phyto-oestrogens and prostatic cancer/tumors:

" Although phyto-oestrogens have not yet been used in long-term

trials to evaluate their ability to reduce the risk of prostate

carcinoma, the evidence thus far suggests that they have a

protective effect against the growth of prostate tumours. "

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=15115228

http://snipurl.com/8g5w

> Interestingly, flax seed is high in a particular phytoestrogen,

> lignan, which is thought to inhibit estrogen production, behavior

> quite different than acting as a receptor blocker. Maybe it is

>the lignan and not the ALA that is the culprit.[..?]