@@fastrivers812 Because I do not provide the diet that works does not make this research any.more relevant. This study only proved that this diet does not work, not that no diet will.
This is California thinking! Comparing your vegetable diet against the Standard American Diet (SAD) shows no benefit. May I suggest you try a carnevore no carb diet against a SAD? But, that might be illegal in California! Note: 90% of what I learned in California was wrong!
In Africa the prostate cancer rate is low, same with Asian countries. I read that men come here and after 20 - 30 years their prostate cancer rates spikes. Studies on diet are always questionable, you never know what people are eating when they are out of your sight. As someone who had prostate cancer and has read a million articles on the disease, the only thing that has made sense to me is chronic Vitamin D deficiency. I had prostate cancer, eighteen years ago.
Thank you. My husband is on his prostate cancer journey. I am very interested in his nutrition. His doctors speak of "moderation" eating & he enjoys that. Since I am his wife, lover and caregiver, I feel my positive attitude during procedures, treatments & when home is the key with his wellbeing & medical staff's attitude toward him.
There is a lot of evidence now that cutting out eggs, dairy and meat has a reducing effect on PSA levels. Maybe this would have been a better trial although it would be more difficult to get participants.
Probably, because it appears, that they didn't make significant diet interventions. It appears that this study just looked at 'increasing' intake of vegetables, but they did not eliminate fat sources. I am highly skeptical of the findings here being definitive in any way (even though the presenter tries to make a conclusion that plant-based diet interventions didn't work).
12:40 "In fact vitamine E increased the risk of agressive prostate cancer." 13:40 "Vitamines will not prevent prostate cancer. No evidence that diet will alter prostate cancer." So 12:40 isn't true?
Not surprised at the end results of the study in question or the conclusion that insured!! To conclude other less expensive (or less intrusive) interventions, which naturally existed in nature, such as a healthy diet (or uncontaminated food) yield positive results and were beautiful in the fight against prostate cancer would have been catastrophic to the "Bottom lines" of the medical and pharmaceutical industries!!! But, through it all, there was an acknowledgments of psychosocial benefits as per how participants verbalizing positive feelings or self-esteem following the change in diet, which in time should speak to an improvement in quality (or the perceived quality) of life 🧬!!
I don’t feel that consuming 5-7 one half cup servings of vegetables a week without it replacing something such as meat, fat, or sugar, to be significant. I could have guessed that before they started the trial and would have suggested using those resources somewhere else.
Sometimes it feels like these studies are only done to prove that there is no solution. You had the participants change their diet, but you said absolutely nothing about reducing sugar and carbs intake which we all know what have a very significant different outcome. Eating more vegetables is great, but how about targeting the actual foods that would help decrease cancer cells.
So if you can't see the data, or there is none, then diet doesn't mean anything in regards to slowing or reducing prostate cancer. Somehow that doesn't seem correct. If someone discovered gasoline and decided it could change our world of transportation, but instead someone said there is no data to support that, then the concept must be tossed aside.
No mention of carbohydrate intake or time/ frequency and quantity restrictions in eating......reduced.. increased? Maybe all were eating more vegetables.....and more healthy cake and juice...and more meat? Hard to know who did what?
![[Sub Thai] APT. - ROSÉ & Bruno Mars](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bYjhzP8x_uc/mqdefault.jpg)
You did not prove that diet does not affect prostate cancer progression. You proved that YOUR diet does not affect prostate cancer progression.
@@fastrivers812 Because I do not provide the diet that works does not make this research any.more relevant. This study only proved that this diet does not work, not that no diet will.
This is California thinking! Comparing your vegetable diet against the Standard American Diet (SAD) shows no benefit. May I suggest you try a carnevore no carb diet against a SAD? But, that might be illegal in California! Note: 90% of what I learned in California was wrong!
In Africa the prostate cancer rate is low, same with Asian countries. I read that men come here and after 20 - 30 years their prostate cancer rates spikes. Studies on diet are always questionable, you never know what people are eating when they are out of your sight. As someone who had prostate cancer and has read a million articles on the disease, the only thing that has made sense to me is chronic Vitamin D deficiency. I had prostate cancer, eighteen years ago.
What treatments did you receive for that?
Take at least 10,000 to 15,000 vitamin D3 and
K2 daily and get blood test to see where you are Bruce Hollis PHD. Has on you tube the studies of this
@@davidwelburn Surgery.
@@williamwaters4506 Sorry to hear you had to have surgery, William.
Yes, there seem to be a correlation with Vitamin D deficiency
Thank you. My husband is on his prostate cancer journey. I am very interested in his nutrition. His doctors speak of "moderation" eating & he enjoys that. Since I am his wife, lover and caregiver, I feel my positive attitude during procedures, treatments & when home is the key with his wellbeing & medical staff's attitude toward him.
There is a lot of evidence now that cutting out eggs, dairy and meat has a reducing effect on PSA levels. Maybe this would have been a better trial although it would be more difficult to get participants.
Why did the results of your study differ from the Dean Ornish Harvard study of pursuing a plant based diet to combat prostate cancer.
Probably, because it appears, that they didn't make significant diet interventions. It appears that this study just looked at 'increasing' intake of vegetables, but they did not eliminate fat sources. I am highly skeptical of the findings here being definitive in any way (even though the presenter tries to make a conclusion that plant-based diet interventions didn't work).
I was thinking the same thing.
12:40 "In fact vitamine E increased the risk of agressive prostate cancer." 13:40 "Vitamines will not prevent prostate cancer. No evidence that diet will alter prostate cancer." So 12:40 isn't true?
when you say vit E without specifying which one (synthetic vs natural) you embarrass the medical school you gradated
What about the carbs?
The fat consumption is not very different in both groups... This study doesn't seem conclusive
Not surprised at the end results of the study in question or the conclusion that insured!! To conclude other less expensive (or less intrusive) interventions, which naturally existed in nature, such as a healthy diet (or uncontaminated food) yield positive results and were beautiful in the fight against prostate cancer would have been catastrophic to the "Bottom lines" of the medical and pharmaceutical industries!!! But, through it all, there was an acknowledgments of psychosocial benefits as per how participants verbalizing positive feelings or self-esteem following the change in diet, which in time should speak to an improvement in quality (or the perceived quality) of life 🧬!!
I don’t feel that consuming 5-7 one half cup servings of vegetables a week without it replacing something such as meat, fat, or sugar, to be significant. I could have guessed that before they started the trial and would have suggested using those resources somewhere else.
meat dairy and egg industry will promote you
Was a vegan diet tried?
Sometimes it feels like these studies are only done to prove that there is no solution. You had the participants change their diet, but you said absolutely nothing about reducing sugar and carbs intake which we all know what have a very significant different outcome. Eating more vegetables is great, but how about targeting the actual foods that would help decrease cancer cells.
So if you can't see the data, or there is none, then diet doesn't mean anything in regards to slowing or reducing prostate cancer. Somehow that doesn't seem correct. If someone discovered gasoline and decided it could change our world of transportation, but instead someone said there is no data to support that, then the concept must be tossed aside.
Very interesting study. Sad to see no real effect but respect the work and effort they did
You need to abandon auger the biggest carcinogen
Maybe they should have eaten more healthy fats.
No mention of carbohydrate intake or time/ frequency and quantity restrictions in eating......reduced.. increased? Maybe all were eating more vegetables.....and more healthy cake and juice...and more meat? Hard to know who did what?
Your were a skeptic to begin with.
...
So, you wouldn't expect a doctor to design a study about effects of diet, when they know nothing about nutrition to begin with. 😅😂
Low Diet Is The Best Key
So beer and pizza, then?
Hehehe