Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Saturated Fat and Prostate Health

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    i'm sorry,but most here are missing the issue due to a variety of reasons,principally uneducated web based "knowledge". i had an very elevated PSA over a year ago and a negative digital exam. testing over the next 18 months showed falling levels and continued negative exams. will check a time or two in the next year and follow physical exams,etc. i have a very learned,reasonable and conservative urologist. find one ASAP! last visit he told me that he could gone on for two hours about factors affecting PSA levels: diet,exercise,surgery,meds,trauma,divorce,finances ,stress,etc,etc,etc . it is a fairly crude but usefull screening test with limitations. i am an RN of 39 years experience and not a slave to conventional medicine's opinions. but,prostate cancer diagnosis,treatment and management are fairly well established in america and continue to be upgraded and followed pretty closely. we all know conventional western medicine sucks re: diet,exercise,nutrition,weight loss,etc. sorry,but cancer management,diagnosis and treatment;especially common types like prostate cancer and hyperplasia are well handled by both community and academic based conventional docs.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Paleo Man View Post
      You carry the rock! I'll arrange the safari to hunt African Cape Buffalo! One species weighing up to 2000 lbs. that demonstrates that not all the megafauna are extinct.

      "Known as one of the "big five" or "Black Death" in Africa, the African Buffalo is widely regarded as a very dangerous animal, as it gores and kills several people every year. Buffalo are sometimes reported to kill more people in Africa than any other animal, although the same claim is sometimes made of Hippopotamuses, or Crocodiles. Buffalo are notorious among big game hunters as very dangerous animals, with wounded animals reported to ambush and attack pursuers."

      Erasmus has total fat composition stats for Cape Buffalo: 3% fat, protein to fat ratio 5/1

      He also has total fat stats for wild venison: 3-5%

      It is not surprising that venison, found in colder climates, has a higher average fat content (3-5%) than African Wart Hog (1.3%), Eland (2%), or Cape Buffalo (3%). I wouldn't expect significant subcutaneous fat in animals in equatorial Africa; they don't need fat for insulation from cold or as storage to see them through a long winter. It would be included in the fat contents listed.

      How much fat do I eat? I don't know. I just eat lots of lean grassfed beef. My favorite is grassfed longhorn, very lean and great flavor. Much like wild venison, so I'd assume around 4% fat content, hopefully a fair component of Omega 3 and some CLA. Plus poultry, wild fish, oysters, scallops, sardines, shrimp, eggs, lots and lots of vegetables and greens, some fruit, nuts, some fresh olive oil, and a square of dark chocolate now and then. I just eat those things when I am hungry, as much as I feel like. I try to ensure fair quantities of Omega 3 from animal/fish sources and if I feel I am not getting enough, I take fresh fish oil capsules as well.
      Haha how Hemingway-esqe! I will only go if you provide a very stylish safari outfit.....complete with a fabulous white hat, of course

      Kidding aside, that Cape Buffalo sounds lke one mean motha. No one ever said hunting and killing large animals was a cake walk.......Grok had took a lot of risks in his day, and none of his misjudgements coul dbe rectified by advanced medicine either. Im grateful my meat is gore-free

      Obviously, you probably have much more knowledge of paleo than I do. I'm mainly here for health and longevity reasons, and have been learning a lot about the paleolithic from others here, and through my own casual resaerch. I understand that no one will have the answers 100% right....a lot of our hypothesis of how early humans ate and lived are just that...hypothesis (some better guesses than others!)

      I can totally see how early man could have only hunted lean meat and had a diet significantly low in saturated fat. This is what the paleo demi-gods think mainly, like Cordain and co., and thats totally legit - they are educated people making very educated guesses. But what I dont understand is why some people will not admit that it is just as plausible for lots of early humans to have pursued, succesfully, larger animals with more fat and consumed more fat on the whole. I think its perfectly sane to assume that hunting methods were organised and advanced enough to take down multiple animals at once, and neolithic hunting methods echo this possibility (north american indians also liked to drive herds of animals off cliffs, like the camel-hunters in Tierra del Fuego) I just think it is perfectly plausible for more fat to have been in the diet, and to say that this is 100% not the case is closing your mind to the fact that there were probably several different diets being consumed in the world at that time, ranging from the very lean to the very very fatty (seal and whale eaters!) Now, I happen to think that a diet higher in saturated fat, and void of all other negative neolithic agents is healthier in the long run for humans, but thats just my opinion. Did the majority of groks eat this way? well, we dont know and thats what we're debating. But I am not saying that your views are nescesarily wrong either. I just want to say that there is no proof that early man DIDNT consume lots of fat. And even if there were, I would still think that eating more saturated fat is OK because I am not committed to doing everything just as Grok did it. We should always keep our minds open to the enormous range of possibilities.
      Last edited by lmyers04; 07-29-2010, 07:53 AM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by lmyers04 View Post
        Haha how Hemingway-esqe! I will only go if you provide a very stylish safari outfit.....complete with a fabulous white hat, of course

        Kidding aside, that Cape Buffalo sounds lke one mean motha. No one ever said hunting and killing large animals was a cake walk.......Grok had took a lot of risks in his day, and none of his misjudgements coul dbe rectified by advanced medicine either. Im grateful my meat is gore-free

        Obviously, you probably have much more knowledge of paleo than I do. I'm mainly here for health and longevity reasons, and have been learning a lot about the paleolithic from others here, and through my own casual resaerch. I understand that no one will have the answers 100% right....a lot of our hypothesis of how early humans ate and lived are just that...hypothesis (some better guesses than others!)

        I can totally see how early man could have only hunted lean meat and had a diet significantly low in saturated fat. This is what the paleo demi-gods think mainly, like Cordain and co., and thats totally legit - they are educated people making very educated guesses. But what I dont understand is why some people will not admit that it is just as plausible for lots of early humans to have pursued, succesfully, larger animals with more fat and consumed more fat on the whole. I think its perfectly sane to assume that hunting methods were organised and advanced enough to take down multiple animals at once, and neolithic hunting methods echo this possibility (north american indians also liked to drive herds of animals off cliffs, like the camel-hunters in Tierra del Fuego) I just think it is perfectly plausible for more fat to have been in the diet, and to say that this is 100% not the case is closing your mind to the fact that there were probably several different diets being consumed in the world at that time, ranging from the very lean to the very very fatty (seal and whale eaters!) Now, I happen to think that a diet higher in saturated fat, and void of all other negative neolithic agents is healthier in the long run for humans, but thats just my opinion. Did the majority of groks eat this way? well, we dont know and thats what we're debating. But I am not saying that your views are nescesarily wrong either. I just want to say that there is no proof that early man DIDNT consume lots of fat. And even if there were, I would still think that eating more saturated fat is OK because I am not committed to doing everything just as Grok did it. We should always keep our minds open to the enormous range of possibilities.
        Good points. Basically, I'm just trying to locate the best "dots" that I can and then connect them as best I can.

        One of the "dots" is that we humans don't have any significant "fur" or body hair to keep us warm. Pretty unique. Even compared to other primates. That suggests to me that we spent the bulk of our evolutionary development time where it was so warm that we did not need fur for warmth.

        Most animals that live in warm places tend to have very low levels of body fat. Since we don't have fur, I assume that we probably co-existed with and often ate animals with low body fat.

        Late in human evolution we developed technology that enabled us to spread geographically and to kill big game more efficiently. We learned to tan hides and make clothing, allowing us to inhabit cold regions. Using weapons like Clovis points allowed us to kill megafauna, maybe to the point of extinction. But we did not evolve much during this time. For example, we did not evolve enough body hair or fur for warmth.

        Connecting the dots, I suspect that our technology allowed us to go cold places and kill big northern animals with more fat, but without much adaptation on the part of our bodies. I think this may be why Cordain's Eskimo mummies had major atherosclerosis, even at about age 30, and significant osteoporosis. But I'm not sure exactly what parts of those Eskimos' diets produced the problems noted, I just have suspicions, and think it may have to do with too little plant matter and to much monotony relative to fatty northern meats and seafood.

        The good thing is that we all have testing available to us now, and relatively inexpensively, and we can see how we are doing on our chosen protocols if we want to. With CRP and insulin testing through labs, in addition to the usual lipid profiles. Very inexpensive urine dipstick pH testing from strips pHion, pHionbalance.com or other sources. And even coronary artery electron beam calcium scanning if someone is as curious and crazy as I am.

        One of my concerns arises from this. In Cordain's work, native hunter-gatherers tested, including Yamamamo and Eskimos, all had total cholesterol levels of around 120 and stable blood pressure levels even through old age ranging around 105/60. Few modern people I know, even committed Primal folks, are anywhere near these low levels. Some Primal folks say that even super total high cholesterol levels are no problem, even 250 or 300. And many have hypertension and we take it for granted that blood pressure will rise with age. Somehow it seems that there is a disconnect of some sort here. Which is why I keep looking back. And why I keep thinking about things like CRP levels.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Paleo Man View Post
          Good points. Basically, I'm just trying to locate the best "dots" that I can and then connect them as best I can.

          One of the "dots" is that we humans don't have any significant "fur" or body hair to keep us warm. Pretty unique. Even compared to other primates. That suggests to me that we spent the bulk of our evolutionary development time where it was so warm that we did not need fur for warmth.

          Most animals that live in warm places tend to have very low levels of body fat. Since we don't have fur, I assume that we probably co-existed with and often ate animals with low body fat.

          Late in human evolution we developed technology that enabled us to spread geographically and to kill big game more efficiently. We learned to tan hides and make clothing, allowing us to inhabit cold regions. Using weapons like Clovis points allowed us to kill megafauna, maybe to the point of extinction. But we did not evolve much during this time. For example, we did not evolve enough body hair or fur for warmth.

          Connecting the dots, I suspect that our technology allowed us to go cold places and kill big northern animals with more fat, but without much adaptation on the part of our bodies. I think this may be why Cordain's Eskimo mummies had major atherosclerosis, even at about age 30, and significant osteoporosis. But I'm not sure exactly what parts of those Eskimos' diets produced the problems noted, I just have suspicions, and think it may have to do with too little plant matter and to much monotony relative to fatty northern meats and seafood.

          The good thing is that we all have testing available to us now, and relatively inexpensively, and we can see how we are doing on our chosen protocols if we want to. With CRP and insulin testing through labs, in addition to the usual lipid profiles. Very inexpensive urine dipstick pH testing from strips pHion, pHionbalance.com or other sources. And even coronary artery electron beam calcium scanning if someone is as curious and crazy as I am.

          One of my concerns arises from this. In Cordain's work, native hunter-gatherers tested, including Yamamamo and Eskimos, all had total cholesterol levels of around 120 and stable blood pressure levels even through old age ranging around 105/60. Few modern people I know, even committed Primal folks, are anywhere near these low levels. Some Primal folks say that even super total high cholesterol levels are no problem, even 250 or 300. And many have hypertension and we take it for granted that blood pressure will rise with age. Somehow it seems that there is a disconnect of some sort here. Which is why I keep looking back. And why I keep thinking about things like CRP levels.
          TBH those are reasonable arguments. I think lmyers04 is right in regards to the great differences you can find in paleo diets, and it is one of the reasons humans were able to take over the planet. We are very adaptive and can survive eating weird and wonderful foods from so many different sources.

          You may not have to look behind to find out why blood pressure, cholesterol etc is higher than hunter gatherers. One of the main things that could have an affect on this could be stress from our modern environment like pollution for example. But who knows.
          "My mom made two dishes: Take it or Leave it." -- Stephen Wright, comedian

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Athena View Post
            AdrianP is getting owned.

            http://www.nutraingredients.com/Rese...te-cancer-link <--- explains why soy is horrible (especially for men)

            Im not a doctor. But my doctor is quite happy with my results with eating 65% daily cals from fat for 7 months.

            My blood pressure has gone down, my cholestrol ratios are perfect and I no longer have allergies.

            *figurative online middle finger*
            Point me to a post where I recommend men eat massive amounts of soy, or even any soy.

            Second, talking about getting owned, the post that you linked to actually says the OPPOSITE of the point you are trying to make. In the trials using a Soy extract, mens' PSA levels actually WENT DOWN. To put it to you in idiot terms, "Low PSA good, High PSA bad." So, taking Soy actually had a positive effect on these men.

            So, congratulations on making a total fool out of yourself.

            Maybe you need to go back to the Weston A Price Nutjob Foundation and get some proper talking points from them.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by AdrianP View Post
              Point me to a post where I recommend men eat massive amounts of soy, or even any soy.

              Second, talking about getting owned, the post that you linked to actually says the OPPOSITE of the point you are trying to make. In the trials using a Soy extract, mens' PSA levels actually WENT DOWN. To put it to you in idiot terms, "Low PSA good, High PSA bad." So, taking Soy actually had a positive effect on these men.

              So, congratulations on making a total fool out of yourself.

              Maybe you need to go back to the Weston A Price Nutjob Foundation and get some proper talking points from them.
              adrianp youre so bitchy sometimes.



              And, if you would read the study carefully, and not just the first paragraph, you will see that among the patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer, all but one of them had increases in PSA levels:


              "In the study, 62 men with biopsy-proven prostate cancer and elevated PSA levels were given 5 grams a day of genistein concentrated polysaccharide for six months. Sixteen of the men were on watchful waiting for their disease. The remaining 46 had undergone surgery, radiation or hormone therapy.
              Of those 46 men, one had no change in his PSA level during the study; the rest all had increases in PSA.

              So PSA decreases were only seen in the "watchful-waiting" patients, that is, patients who have no advanced form of the disease. There were only 16 patients tested in this group! Among the 16 men on watchful waiting, three stopped therapy due to diarrhoea(yay soy!).

              "Of the 13 who completed the study, only eight saw a drop in their PSA level, with the decreases in PSA ranging from 3 per cent to 61 per cent."

              So, out of 62, 8 had PSA decreases, 1 had no change, and 45 had PSA increases, and 3 quit the study due to diarrhea. AND the PSA decreases all happened in patients who are in the "watchful waiting" part of their disease, not in patients who have more advanced stages of the disease, or who have had treatment or surgery.

              Looks like Athena's link does show that PSA levels are raised when soy is supplemented. But to know that, you actually gotta read the article and not just the first paragraph......
              Last edited by lmyers04; 08-02-2010, 08:39 AM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by lmyers04 View Post
                adrianp youre so bitchy sometimes.

                And, if you would read the study carefully, and not just the first paragraph, you will see that among the patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer, all but one of them had increases in PSA levels:

                Looks like Athena's link does show that PSA levels are raised when soy is supplemented. But to know that, you actually gotta read the article and not just the first paragraph......
                Maybe all that saturated fat you are eating is clogging your brain. Or maybe you were never really good at comprehension. There were TWO sets of patients.

                The 46 that you refer to were those that had already undergone treatment, therapy, hormones etc. The soy supplement did not have any effect on them:

                In the study, 62 men with biopsy-proven prostate cancer and elevated PSA levels were given 5 grams a day of genistein concentrated polysaccharide for six months. Sixteen of the men were on watchful waiting for their disease. The remaining 46 had undergone surgery, radiation or hormone therapy.
                Yes, there was no effect on this group. And it is quite common for those that have had prostate surgery to see increases in PSA even after the treatment. The effect cannot be attributed to soy supplementation alone. Rather than causing their psa to rise, the more accurate conclusion is that the soy could not stop their PSA from rising. A subtle difference that might go over your head.

                But, the group of 16 that had NO PREVIOUS TREATMENT at all did seem to get some benefits from the soy.

                Among the 16 men on watchful waiting, three stopped therapy due to diarrhoea. Of the 13 who completed the study, eight saw a drop in their PSA level, with the decreases in PSA ranging from 3 per cent to 61 per cent.
                So, in fact Athena's link proved the complete opposite point to the one that she was trying to make. And she made a total fool out of herself. As have you, by trying to support her indefensible argument.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by AdrianP View Post
                  Maybe all that saturated fat you are eating is clogging your brain. Or maybe you were never really good at comprehension. There were TWO sets of patients.

                  The 46 that you refer to were those that had already undergone treatment, therapy, hormones etc. The soy supplement did not have any effect on them:



                  Yes, there was no effect on this group. And it is quite common for those that have had prostate surgery to see increases in PSA even after the treatment. The effect cannot be attributed to soy supplementation alone. Rather than causing their psa to rise, the more accurate conclusion is that the soy could not stop their PSA from rising. A subtle difference that might go over your head.

                  But, the group of 16 that had NO PREVIOUS TREATMENT at all did seem to get some benefits from the soy.



                  So, in fact Athena's link proved the complete opposite point to the one that she was trying to make. And she made a total fool out of herself. As have you, by trying to support her indefensible argument.

                  haha we have made fools of ourselves because we say soy is dangerous to consume? Yea, ok.

                  so 8 people out of 62 proves that soy helps? are you derranged? And the 45 people that had PSA increases on the soy supplement is still the most interesting part of the study. Of course their elevated PSA levels are partly due to the fact that they are prostate cancer patients. for lack of a better term...........duh. However, their PSA levels rose even higher with the soy supp. While we cannot pinpoint if this was solely due to the introduced supplement, seeing PSA increases after in introduced supplement, even in biopsy-proven patients, is still fairly intresting to me, and im not sure why you ignore this part of the study...
                  Last edited by lmyers04; 08-02-2010, 03:07 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Iodine Cures Proven for the Prostate with testimonials, Dr. Research:
                    http://tinyurl.com/Iodine-Cures-Prostate

                    Grizz

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Unless you are climbing trees and chasing down wild bison for food, I would think that a diet very high in fat is not optimum.
                      A couple of rather scientific sources have a different point of view on that. I recommend reading 'The Perfect health Diet' from the Jaminets on this topic. They also explain that ancient hunter gatheres might have moved a little less what would be our intuitiv guess like lots of moving and walking but not so much sprinting, climbing and hunting all the time.

                      The book has a rather scientific approach and the authors are trying to back up what they say all the time. Their conclusion a healthy diet is high fat + lots of vegetables and they give excellent reasoning for their claims.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X