Re: No Correlation of ALA with BPH/PC

[Guest guest]

All medical data is statistical not scientific ("irrefutable facts").

A person doing a study reports what he concludes form analyzing the data.

EG, a young doctor said that MANY people shot in the head survive. He was asked; "How many DOA's do you see?" He replied: "another doctor handles the death certificates".

IOW, the cases being reviewed in each article are not the total set. That's why they can disagree.

Here they are for the first time telling me about the ALA in the prostate tissue. FWIW, I've never seen the biochem that causes the PCa. It's just another association. Until they establish the biochem, it will always be questionable.

Various PCa doctors have in their practice observed associations. Some think it's important to note those due to the lack of knowledge about what causes cancer.

Regards.

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

From: loganruns73

Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 12:19 PM

Subject: [ ] No Correlation of ALA with BPH/PC

We need to be careful about interpretative opinions given out by researchers of studies as if they were irrefutable facts. Castelli made exactly this mistake recently, but I didn't feel like arguing the point at the time. But it's enough to say that even the researchers themselves are not immune to decades of propaganda and false assumptions!LoganLack of correlation between plasma and prostate tissue alpha-linolenic acid levels.Attar-Bashi NM, Frydenberg M, Li D, Sinclair AJ.Food Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2004;13(Suppl):S78.Background - Several epidemiological studies have reported a positive association between plasma alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) levels and the incidence of prostate cancer; however other studies have not supported this association, as recently reviewed. Objective - The aim of this study was to determine if there was a correlation between the plasma and prostate tissue levels of ALA and/or other n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA). Design - Plasma and prostate tissue were collected from patients undergoing prostate surgery, and prior to surgery completed a brief dietary questionnaire on the intake of dietary n-3 PUFA. Twenty-eight patients participated in the study, of which 20 were diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and 8 with prostate cancer (PC). Outcome - The main lipids in the prostate tissue were phospholipids (PL) and sterols. The results showed that there was no significant correlation between plasma PL ALA and prostate tissue PL ALA concentrations (or proportions). There were, however, positive correlations between the proportions (not concentrations) of plasma and prostate tissue for EPA, DHA and total n-3 PUFA in the PL fraction. There was no significant difference in plasma and prostate tissue ALA and n-3 PUFA levels between the BPH patients and the PC patients for either the PL and triacylglycerol (TAG) fractions. Plasma ALA concentrations were significantly higher than the prostate tissue ALA levels for each subject. Conclusions - These pilot data do not show a significant association between plasma and prostate ALA in humans.

[Guest guest]

Also, these are important refs in that article.

du Toit, P. J., van Aswegen, C. H. and du Plessis, D. J.: The effect of essential fatty acids on growth and urokinase-type plasminogen activator production in human prostate DU-145 cells. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids, 55: 173, 1996

Motaung, E., Prinsloo, S. E., van Aswegen, C. H., du Toit, P. J., Becker, P. J. and du Plessis, D. J.: Cytotoxicity of combined essential fatty acids on a human prostate cancer cell line. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids, 61: 331, 1999

Regards.

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

From: loganruns73

Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 12:19 PM

Subject: [ ] No Correlation of ALA with BPH/PC

We need to be careful about interpretative opinions given out by researchers of studies as if they were irrefutable facts. Castelli made exactly this mistake recently, but I didn't feel like arguing the point at the time. But it's enough to say that even the researchers themselves are not immune to decades of propaganda and false assumptions!LoganLack of correlation between plasma and prostate tissue alpha-linolenic acid levels.Attar-Bashi NM, Frydenberg M, Li D, Sinclair AJ.Food Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2004;13(Suppl):S78.Background - Several epidemiological studies have reported a positive association between plasma alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) levels and the incidence of prostate cancer; however other studies have not supported this association, as recently reviewed. Objective - The aim of this study was to determine if there was a correlation between the plasma and prostate tissue levels of ALA and/or other n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA). Design - Plasma and prostate tissue were collected from patients undergoing prostate surgery, and prior to surgery completed a brief dietary questionnaire on the intake of dietary n-3 PUFA. Twenty-eight patients participated in the study, of which 20 were diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and 8 with prostate cancer (PC). Outcome - The main lipids in the prostate tissue were phospholipids (PL) and sterols. The results showed that there was no significant correlation between plasma PL ALA and prostate tissue PL ALA concentrations (or proportions). There were, however, positive correlations between the proportions (not concentrations) of plasma and prostate tissue for EPA, DHA and total n-3 PUFA in the PL fraction. There was no significant difference in plasma and prostate tissue ALA and n-3 PUFA levels between the BPH patients and the PC patients for either the PL and triacylglycerol (TAG) fractions. Plasma ALA concentrations were significantly higher than the prostate tissue ALA levels for each subject. Conclusions - These pilot data do not show a significant association between plasma and prostate ALA in humans.

[Guest guest]

Hi Logan:

LOL. In the subject line of your post you say: " No Correlation of

ALA with BPH/PC " . Of course the content of what you posted

underneath that subject line said nothing of the kind. What is more,

the study you posted covered the grand number of 28 individuals!

IT SAID: There is no correlation between the amount of ALA in serum

with that in prostate tissue (in 28 subjects).

There are many studies now, some of them having MANY tens of

thousands of subjects, which show that men who consume large amounts

of ALA, or have high blood levels of it, have considerably increased

incidence of prostate cancer.

There are doubtless many ways people with prostate cancer might not

have elevated levels of ALA in the prostate. It is highly unlikely

ALA itself is the carcinogen. Most likely the ALA/Prostate cancer

connection exists because the carcinogen is DERIVED FROM ALA, or

because ALA acts as a catalyst in production of the carcinogen. One

explanation that immediately comes to mind is that ALA is converted

to the carcinogen outside the prostate (perhaps in the liver?) and

arrives in the prostate after conversion. Another is that ALA

arrives in the prostate and is then converted into the carcinogen

after arrival - which would be an especially good way to explain a

depleted level of prostate tissue ALA. ly I don't care. As

long as large, serious, carefully controlled studies show that men

who eat the most ALA have the most prostate cancer - and those who

eat the least much less of it - I will reduce my intake of ALA, where

possible.

Whatever. It is a free country, so you are free to munch away on

your flax seeds, much relieved at having seen a 28 subject study that

barely even addresses the issue of cause, and I am free to avoid them

like the plague ......... unless of course you can provide evidence

that there are health risks for those on CR who minimize their ALA

consumption. Can you?

BTW, can you refresh my memory about the mistake you say Castelli

recently made? The only mistake I am aware of relating to Castelli

was by someone who quoted one-fifth of what he had said out of

context, and omitted the much more relevant remaining four-fifths.

Rodney.

> We need to be careful about interpretative opinions given out by

> researchers of studies as if they were irrefutable facts. Castelli

> made exactly this mistake recently, but I didn't feel like arguing

> the point at the time. But it's enough to say that even the

> researchers themselves are not immune to decades of propaganda and

> false assumptions!

>

> Logan

>

>

> Lack of correlation between plasma and prostate tissue alpha-

> linolenic acid levels.

>

> Attar-Bashi NM, Frydenberg M, Li D, Sinclair AJ.

>

> Food Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

>

> Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2004;13(Suppl):S78.

>

> Background - Several epidemiological studies have reported a

positive

> association between plasma alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) levels and

the

> incidence of prostate cancer; however other studies have not

> supported this association, as recently reviewed. Objective - The

aim

> of this study was to determine if there was a correlation between

the

> plasma and prostate tissue levels of ALA and/or other n-3

> polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA). Design - Plasma and prostate

> tissue were collected from patients undergoing prostate surgery,

and

> prior to surgery completed a brief dietary questionnaire on the

> intake of dietary n-3 PUFA. Twenty-eight patients participated in

the

> study, of which 20 were diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia

> (BPH) and 8 with prostate cancer (PC). Outcome - The main lipids in

> the prostate tissue were phospholipids (PL) and sterols. The

results

> showed that there was no significant correlation between plasma PL

> ALA and prostate tissue PL ALA concentrations (or proportions).

There

> were, however, positive correlations between the proportions (not

> concentrations) of plasma and prostate tissue for EPA, DHA and

total

> n-3 PUFA in the PL fraction. There was no significant difference in

> plasma and prostate tissue ALA and n-3 PUFA levels between the BPH

> patients and the PC patients for either the PL and triacylglycerol

> (TAG) fractions. Plasma ALA concentrations were significantly

higher

> than the prostate tissue ALA levels for each subject. Conclusions -

> These pilot data do not show a significant association between

plasma

> and prostate ALA in humans.

[Guest guest]

Good points.

The interesting thing about Attar's article is that the references

don't support the discussion. That makes the article flawed, IMO.

This is the first time I've read the full article and it's ref's be

inconsistent. We'll have to be careful drawing conclusions from

abstracts alone.

And the refs were 1996, 1998.

I once told a librarian (2001) to throw out all the prostate cancer

books published before 1998. OLD info just doesn't die.

Regards.

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

wrote:

> Hi Logan:

>

> IT SAID: There is no correlation between the amount of ALA in

serum

> with that in prostate tissue (in 28 subjects).

>

>

> There are doubtless many ways people with prostate cancer might not

> have elevated levels of ALA in the prostate. It is highly unlikely

> ALA itself is the carcinogen. Most likely the ALA/Prostate cancer

> connection exists because the carcinogen is DERIVED FROM ALA, or

> because ALA acts as a catalyst in production of the carcinogen.

One

> explanation that immediately comes to mind is that ALA is converted

> to the carcinogen outside the prostate (perhaps in the liver?) and

> arrives in the prostate after conversion. Another is that ALA

> arrives in the prostate and is then converted into the carcinogen

> after arrival - which would be an especially good way to explain a

> depleted level of prostate tissue ALA. ly I don't care. As

> long as large, serious, carefully controlled studies show that men

> who eat the most ALA have the most prostate cancer - and those who

> eat the least much less of it - I will reduce my intake of ALA,

where

> possible.

>

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

> LOL. In the subject line of your post you say: " No Correlation of

> ALA with BPH/PC " . Of course the content of what you posted

> underneath that subject line said nothing of the kind. What is

> more, the study you posted covered the grand number of 28

> individuals!

The reason for the study was: " Several epidemiological studies have

reported a positive association between plasma alpha-linolenic acid

(ALA) levels and the incidence of prostate cancer; however other

studies have not supported this association, as recently reviewed. "

The included tissue biopsies of BPH was a side benefit. I thought my

summarized headline more eye-catching than their headline.

> There are many studies now, some of them having MANY tens of

> thousands of subjects, which show that men who consume large

> amounts of ALA, or have high blood levels of it, have considerably

> increased incidence of prostate cancer.

The strength of the study I posted, besides being the latest I could

find, was that it was NOT an epidemiological study.

> depleted level of prostate tissue ALA. ly I don't care. As

That sounds like a preference to be biased? But it is your

perogative if you want to demonize an entire EFA because of what may

be spurious correlations on the surface.

> that there are health risks for those on CR who minimize their ALA

> consumption. Can you?

By the same token, can you provide any evidence that non-damaged ALA

has any correlation with prostate cancer or BPH? In fact, both EFA's

are highly suspectible to damage by heat, oxygen and light. Any

study using damaged LA or ALA because of the ignorance of the

researchers or just because damaged EFA ingestion is commonly

widespread to show correlation for some disease state is virtually a

self-fulfilling prophecy!

> BTW, can you refresh my memory about the mistake you say Castelli

> recently made? The only mistake I am aware of relating to Castelli

> was by someone who quoted one-fifth of what he had said out of

> context, and omitted the much more relevant remaining four-fifths.

It's not relevant nor germane for me to discuss it with anyone but

Castelli himself.

Logan

[Guest guest]

Hi Logan:

> I thought my

> summarized headline more eye-catching than their headline.

Have you considered accuracy as a criterion for suitable subject

lines?

> > depleted level of prostate tissue ALA. ly I don't care.

>

> That sounds like a preference to be biased?

Yes, I base my biases, wherever possible, on the results of well

designed epidemiological studies. The longer they have run and the

larger, the better.

> > that there are health risks for those on CR who minimize their

ALA

> > consumption. Can you?

> By the same token, can you provide any evidence that non-damaged

ALA

> has any correlation with prostate cancer or BPH?

We now have what looks like serious evidence that ALA in normal usage

causes both prostate and lung cancers - two of the very most common

cancers. You, apparently, want to ignore that big picture and

speculate (hope) that maybe there is some minor wrinkle (although you

clearly do not know what it is) that may, eventually, invalidate the

big picture findings. Of course such a wrinkle may, possibly, be

found. Perhaps smoking causes cancer only when the tobacco is

harvested on Thursday. But I wouldn't bank on it.

Also worth noting from the study is that : " Condensates from heated

linolenic acid, but not linoleic or erucic acid, were highly

mutagenic. "

Linolenic acid appears to have some unique very nasty properties.

You are more than welcome to ignore this information. But it is the

kind of stuff that causes me to change my behaviour.

> In fact, both EFA's [LA and ALA]

> are highly suspectible to damage by heat, oxygen and light.

But only ALA (i.e. not LA, or EA) becomes " highly mutagenic " .

> Any study using damaged LA or ALA because of the ignorance of

> the researchers ............

Is there some good reason you know of why we should believe that you

are the authority on these matters, while most of the scientists who

are doing the research, the conclusions of which you do not like, are

all just ignorant?

Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

I remember reading posts from several members who wrote that they use

flaxseeds/meal or oil. There was also a series of posts about the

benefits of walnuts. But from what you are saying, it seems that it

is a bad idea to have flaxseed in the diet (flaxseed oil has 53% ALA).

Other oils containing ALA: Canola oil 10%, Soybean oil 7%, Walnut oil

5%.

If the health concerns are genuine, some diet modification is in order

(at least for the men).

Tony

>>>

From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

Date: Mon Sep 20, 2004 9:35 pm

Subject: Re: No Correlation of ALA with BPH/PC

We now have what looks like serious evidence that ALA in normal usage

causes both prostate and lung cancers - two of the very most common

cancers.

Also worth noting from the study is that : " Condensates from heated

linolenic acid, but not linoleic or erucic acid, were highly

mutagenic. "

Linolenic acid appears to have some unique very nasty properties.

You are more than welcome to ignore this information. But it is the

kind of stuff that causes me to change my behaviour.

But only ALA (i.e. not LA, or EA) becomes " highly mutagenic " .

>>>

[Guest guest]

Hi Citpeks:

This is the reason I use safflower oil much of the time (and olive

oil and butter only when essential for the recipe). From the data I

have seen, safflower oil contains the least amount of ALA of any of

the oils I am aware of. It also contains the largest amount of

linoleic acid, which I believe truly *IS* an essential fat. I have

still not found persuasive evidence that ALA is essential beyond its

ability to be partially converted to DHA and EPA.

Rodney.

> Rodney,

>

> I remember reading posts from several members who wrote that they

use

> flaxseeds/meal or oil. There was also a series of posts about the

> benefits of walnuts. But from what you are saying, it seems that it

> is a bad idea to have flaxseed in the diet (flaxseed oil has 53%

ALA).

> Other oils containing ALA: Canola oil 10%, Soybean oil 7%, Walnut

oil

> 5%.

>

> If the health concerns are genuine, some diet modification is in

order

> (at least for the men).

>

> Tony

>

>

> >>>

> From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

> Date: Mon Sep 20, 2004 9:35 pm

> Subject: Re: No Correlation of ALA with BPH/PC

>

> We now have what looks like serious evidence that ALA in normal

usage

> causes both prostate and lung cancers - two of the very most common

> cancers.

> Also worth noting from the study is that : " Condensates from heated

> linolenic acid, but not linoleic or erucic acid, were highly

> mutagenic. "

> Linolenic acid appears to have some unique very nasty properties.

> You are more than welcome to ignore this information. But it is the

> kind of stuff that causes me to change my behaviour.

> But only ALA (i.e. not LA, or EA) becomes " highly mutagenic " .

> >>>