Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Re: Fish reduced violence, increased prostate cancer

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Hi Al:

How interesting. Prostate cancer incidence in Japan is so much lower

than in western countries, and most have always assumed that the

protective factor for japanese men was something in their food.

Yet this study says there are no apparent protective factors in their

food, and one major food risk factor - the food I eat almost daily,

FISH !!!)

So, if these data are correct (and it was a prospective study run

over many years so they presumably are correct) then perhaps the high

prostate cancer incidence in north America is caused by something bad

(perhaps a food) eaten in north America, but not in Japan.

Hmmmmm. Which one, I wonder?

Anyone know of a study that identifies the principal differences

between the japanese and american food intakes by type? What are the

items we eat that the japanese do not?

Or ............. is it simply that caloric intake in Japan is

significantly less than in north America, and the reduced cancer

incidence simply reflects the well documented (in mice) 75% reduction

in cancer incidence in restricted mice?

Rodney.

--- In , " old542000 " <apater@m...>

wrote:

> Cancer Causes Control. 2004 Nov;15(9):911-20.

> A prospective study of diet and prostate cancer in Japanese men.

> NE, Sauvaget C, Roddam AW, Appleby P,

> Nagano J, Suzuki G, Key TJ, Koyama K.

> PMID: 15577293 [PubMed - in process]

>

> ... men who consumed fish more than four times per week had a 54

> increased

> risk of developing prostate cancer compared with men who ate fish

> less than

> twice per week (RR=1.54; 95 CI, 1.03-2.31). ...

>

> Cheers, Alan Pater

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we ruled out latitude, but not fat intake.

IMO, excess food intake drives a lot of things. There's a big discussion about whether CDC overstated obesity as a risk factor. From what I have read everywhere, I put together the flow (relationships, not necessarily cause):

Over eating > obesity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>HTN > heart disease > heart disease > stroke > breast cancer > kidney disease > kidney disease > non alcoholic liver disease > Diabetes type 2

> colon cancer

Maybe >prostate cancer

Maybe a bigger question is can we reverse the effects, improve the risk, by reducing to normal weight (or below). People who quit smoking improve their risk but that's not food.

Also, I'm not sure the caloric intake per pound of weight is lower in Japan.

Regards.

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

From: Rodney

Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 2:30 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Fish reduced violence, increased prostate cancer

Hi Al:How interesting. Prostate cancer incidence in Japan is so much lower than in western countries, and most have always assumed that the protective factor for japanese men was something in their food.Yet this study says there are no apparent protective factors in their food, and one major food risk factor - the food I eat almost daily, FISH !!!)So, if these data are correct (and it was a prospective study run over many years so they presumably are correct) then perhaps the high prostate cancer incidence in north America is caused by something bad (perhaps a food) eaten in north America, but not in Japan.Hmmmmm. Which one, I wonder?Anyone know of a study that identifies the principal differences between the japanese and american food intakes by type? What are the items we eat that the japanese do not?Or ............. is it simply that caloric intake in Japan is significantly less than in north America, and the reduced cancer incidence simply reflects the well documented (in mice) 75% reduction in cancer incidence in restricted mice? Rodney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi JW:

I agree. I am sure it isn't. But CR works, presumably, because of

lower caloric intake. Not because of lower intake per pound of body

weight. The latter, certainly in the case of mice and presumably in

humans, simply isn't the case.

CR works because of lower caloric intake which, empirically, appears

to be associated with higher caloric intake per pound of weight.

But I rather doubt it is the higher caloric intake per pound that is

important, rather than simply the reduced overall intake,

irrespective of weight. I sometimes wonder if Tony believes that

intake per pound IS the important factor.

Rodney.

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

wrote:

> Also, I'm not sure the caloric intake per pound of weight is lower

in Japan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi folks:

It may also be worth adding that while the study suggests that eating

fish promotes prostate cancer, the japanese have the world's highest

fish consumption and an incredibly LOW rate of prostate cancer.

Now this must be telling us something really quite interesting. So

if anyone can figure out what, please let us know!!!

Rodney.

>

> > Cancer Causes Control. 2004 Nov;15(9):911-20.

> > A prospective study of diet and prostate cancer in Japanese

men.

> > NE, Sauvaget C, Roddam AW, Appleby P,

> > Nagano J, Suzuki G, Key TJ, Koyama K.

> > PMID: 15577293 [PubMed - in process]

> >

> > ... men who consumed fish more than four times per week had a

54

> > increased

> > risk of developing prostate cancer compared with men who ate fish

> > less than

> > twice per week (RR=1.54; 95 CI, 1.03-2.31). ...

> >

> > Cheers, Alan Pater

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I see your point. I hadn't paid too much attention to it, but Alan, and Dean certainly eat more than I do and I weigh more. I always thought it was because Alan and Dean ate more protein calories and using protein for energy wastes calories.

If your suggestion is correct, they have greater risk of PCa?

Also, if I eat more calories at a higher weight, I don't need to lose down to their weight and eat more calories? A j-curve in the calories versus weight?

Good news maybe. Again pointing to a moderate BMI.

Regards.

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

From: Rodney

Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 3:25 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Fish reduced violence, increased prostate cancer

Hi JW:I agree. I am sure it isn't. But CR works, presumably, because of lower caloric intake. Not because of lower intake per pound of body weight. The latter, certainly in the case of mice and presumably in humans, simply isn't the case. CR works because of lower caloric intake which, empirically, appears to be associated with higher caloric intake per pound of weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...