How to tell if your husband is at risk for prostate cancer

Knowing your risk for disease can help you take steps to lower your chance of getting ill.

This post is on Healthwise

February 26, 2015 | Craig Cooper

Knowing your risk for disease can help you take steps to lower your chance of getting ill. With men, they often avoid worrying about their health until they already have a problem. Women are better at prevention, which is why it is important to know if your husband is at risk for prostate cancer so you can help him lower his risk factors.

Prostate cancer has many risk factors. Some, like genetic factors, are beyond your control; others you can influence. But no matter what your husband’s risk factors are, if he follows a prostate-friendly lifestyle, gets early screenings and gets early intervention if necessary, it can make a big difference in preventing and/or beating this disease. The following signs can tell you if your husband is at risk for prostate cancer.

Obesity

Is your husband overweight? Obesity is a big risk factor for prostate cancer, and one you can do something about. Help your husband exercise, follow the Prostate Diet, and lose weight.

Diet

If your husband is a lover of fried foods and meat, especially processed and cured meats like bacon or well-done meat, you may want to encourage him to cut back on these foods. Several studies indicate that consuming these foods can increase risk of cancer, including prostate cancer. Instead look at following a Mediterranean diet, which focuses on fish, nuts, seeds, heart-healthy oils and vegetables. Knowing what foods to avoid for prostate health as well as the best diet for prostate health can help you shop and prepare better meals for a lifetime of better habits and enjoying your husband’s good health.

African-American

If your husband is black, he is at a higher risk of getting prostate cancer than other American men. In fact African-American men have twice the risk of prostate cancer in their early 50s and are twice as likely to die from prostate cancer. What is interesting is that black men living in Africa do not have as high a risk factor, so something about the American diet, stress, or environment is contributing.

Heredity

Does your husband’s father, uncles or brothers have prostate cancer? Some types of prostate cancer are genetic, and the tumors may be more aggressive, so it is important to get a PSA test and prostate exam early and regularly.

Balding

Is your husband balding? Not trying to add insult to injury, but a study indicates that one of the weird risks for prostate cancer is that bald men have a 69 percent greater risk for prostate cancer than men without hair loss. Researchers speculate that this related to testosterone levels.

Height

Is your husband over 6 feet tall? In the U.S. and the UK, taller men have a higher risk for prostate cancer than shorter men.

Living in northern climates

If you live in the north, your husband’s risk of prostate cancer is higher than men who live south of 40 degrees latitude. Make sure your husband is getting plenty of vitamin D, to make up for the lack of sunlight exposure. Vitamin D is important for prostate health and male aging.

Prostatitis

If your husband has suffered with chronic prostatitis, he may be at risk for prostate cancer. A 2010 study found that men with a history of prostatitis have a 30 percent increased risk of prostate cancer. That is why employing a multimodal approach to manage this condition and reduce inflammation is important. While there is not a causal link between prostatitis and prostate cancer, the same factors in diet, exercise and stress can increase the risk for both prostatitis and prostate cancer, so it is important to take steps to achieve better prostate health.

Sedentary lifestyle

Is your husband a bit of a couch potato? It is time to get moving. Exercise is important for all aspects of prostate health, and studies on prostate cancer and exercise show that exercise, even walking at least 90 minutes per week, can help men live longer and lower risk for prevent prostate cancer. Men who exercise even more enjoy better benefits. Getting at least three hours per week of vigorous physical activity is associated with a 61 percent lower risk of death from prostate cancer when compared with men who exercise less than one hour per week at vigorous activity, and a 49 percent lower risk of dying from any cause.

To help your husband prevent prostate cancer, encourage him to get moving, manage his stress, eat better and perhaps drink green tea or take a supplement. If he is at a higher risk factor for prostate cancer due to his race or family history, encourage him to talk to his doctor and get screened earlier than other men. You may need to schedule that first appointment for him. He may not be excited to go to the doctor, but getting that first baseline reading is important, and he will appreciate the good care from his loving wife.

http://easyhealthoptions.com/tell-husband-risk-prostate-cancer/

Go to Healthwise for more articles

Does High Testosterone Cause Prostate Cancer?

For over 70 years, doctors, oncologists, and researchers all knew one thing about prostate cancer: High testosterone is dangerous and causes prostate cancer … and low testosterone reduces your risk.

This post is on Healthwise

This belief has a tenacious hold on the medical profession. Doctors have treated hundreds of thousands – maybe millions – of men in accordance with the theory. It just happens to be dead wrong. Here’s the truth. .

Because of this “conventional wisdom,” a man with a balding head (a symptom related to high testosterone) might find himself getting checked for prostate cancer more intensely than men with a full head of hair.

Meanwhile, both doctors and their male patients with “low T” have been told to avoid testosterone-raising treatments like the plague because it would be like throwing gasoline on a fire.

But several studies from the past few years have debunked this entire school of thought. Somehow the media missed the story, and so have quite a few doctors.

Whether they know it or not, the myth is officially busted—and now, men and their doctors can take advantage of the truth about testosterone and prostate cancer to live longer, healthier, cancer-free lives.

You see, raising your testosterone levels can improve your quality of life in a major way. It would be a shame if it caused prostate cancer, too!

Nobel-winning work
based on bad science?

To set the stage, let’s start with a quick biology and history lesson.

You might know that androgens are precursor hormones that create testosterone (T) and the more active form of T, dihydrotestosterone (DHT).

In 1941, Charles Huggins and Clarence Hodges reported that testosterone “activated” prostate cancer. This led to the belief that surgical castration, resulting in hypogonadism (or “low T”) caused prostate cancer tumors to shrink or go away entirely — even in metastatic prostate cancer.¹

In other words, they believed low T both prevents prostate cancer and treats it successfully if it’s already present. They also believed the opposite was true: The more testosterone the patient has, the more prostate cancer will grow.

They won the Nobel Prize for this “androgen hypothesis,” and every medical school student since has been taught that testosterone is fuel for a cancerous fire.

But according to Dr. Abraham Morgentaler, associate clinical professor of urology at Harvard Medical School and founder of Men’s Health Boston, the Nobel-winning work was sloppy, oversimplified, and based on outdated tests that have since been abandoned. Perhaps worse, the researchers ignored data that didn’t fit their hypothesis.²

Worst of all, he says, “They based their conclusions on … only two men treated with T injections for no more than 18 days, one of whom was already castrated. Their results are uninterpretable.”²

But … surely there have been more studies that’ve confirmed their results since 1941, right? When one man out of seven is diagnosed with prostate cancer … and one in 36 dies because of it, it’s important to get the science right.³

You might think so, but here’s what Dr. Morgentaler found. . .

Series of studies knocks down
70 years of blind belief

Dr. Morgentaler says he and his team first realized there was something wrong with the androgen hypothesis when 11 of his 77 low T patients — a condition that should have been protective against prostate cancer (PCa) — were turning up with cancer anyway.

He followed up this study with 345 more of his low T patients—and again, 15% of the men had cancer. He even noted, “The greatest risk was in the most severely testosterone deficient.”²

Dr. Morgentaler went on to do a worldwide literature review, seeking answers from both recent and older journals, questioning whether the androgen hypothesis had been confirmed. “I was stunned to discover there was no compelling evidence that high T was risky for PCa,” he said.

“The androgen hypothesis was proposed and accepted before knowledge of hormone receptors, PSA, and prior to reliable measures of testosterone.”² (PSA stands for prostate specific antigen—it’s a protein biomarker found in tissue biopsies and blood that indicates higher probability cancer is present.)

Dr. Morgentaler’s critique makes sense. If high testosterone does cause prostate cancer growth, why is it so rare for a man in his 40s to get the disease, when his natural testosterone level is still high? The vast majority of diagnoses are in older men who have low T. (Testosterone levels peak in the early 20’s and decline with age).

It seems that “common wisdom” has been working against common sense for decades. It’s young guys who should be getting prostate cancer if the theory is correct.

Dr. Morgentaler explains it thus: “The persistence of the androgen hypothesis despite strong contradictory evidence teaches us how difficult it is to abandon ideas learned during our training, even in this age of evidence-based medicine.”²

The new “saturation model”
proved by 8,000+ men

Uro-oncology researchers have a new theory: the saturation model. It states that prostate cells have a limited number of testosterone receptors … and even men with “low T” have enough testosterone in their blood to “saturate” these receptors at any given time. So, it wouldn’t matter if testosterone was higher than the number of receptors available.

For sake of example, let’s say a prostate cell has ten testosterone receptors. (This is a totally made up number.) Whether there are ten or 1,000 testosterone hormone molecules in the blood, it makes no difference. The prostate cell can only take ten.

Dr. Morgentaler says a recent clinical trial from Duke University is cold, hard proof—and puts the final nail in the coffin of the “high T equals high cancer risk” or androgen hypothesis.

Dr. Roberto L. Muller’s REDUCE trial set out to discover whether the drug dutasteride reduces prostate cancer by preventing testosterone from converting into DHT, thus reducing blood serum levels of active T.

Out of 8,122 previously cancer-free men, 4,073 received a placebo. It’s the placebo side of the study that’s relevant to this discussion, because the testosterone levels of these men AND their rates of prostate cancer were monitored for four years.

Muller reported that in the placebo participants, “androgen levels were generally unrelated to PCa detection. PCa detection was similar among men with low compared with normal baseline testosterone levels. Our findings of the lowest testosterone levels being associated with the lowest PCa risk, with no further changes with higher testosterone, support a saturation model, but must be confirmed.”⁴

In other words, higher testosterone didn’t make a difference in prostate cancer growth.

One caveat to the saturation model…

For the sake of being thorough, however, there is one special circumstance the research presented.

Prostate cancer cells have many times the number of receptors that healthy cells do—and they love testosterone and use it to grow.

But let me explain.

Let’s say a cancer cell has 50 receptors, compared with a healthy cell’s ten. (Again, an arbitrary number.) If a man goes from near-zero testosterone, which is what pharmaceutical or surgical castration does, and then gets an influx of testosterone, that influx will cause the cancer to grow.

This is exactly what the Nobel winners in the 1940s saw. Remember, one man had been previously castrated and the scientists gave him testosterone, making cancer cells flourish.

I can’t emphasize this enough: even men with “low T” don’t come close to the castration levels that would cause a similar spike in cancer cells following a sudden influx of testosterone.

As Dr. Morgentaler concluded, “The biopsy results are in. The failure to find increased PCa rates associated with higher serum androgens based on biopsies in a large at-risk population removes the last possible hope to those who wish to hold on to a disproved theoretical notion from a pre-modern era.”²

It also makes me wonder if every conventional medical belief from the “pre-modern era” shouldn’t be revisited and turned inside out for the truth.

Regardless, the androgen hypothesis is officially out of business—and men going from low T to healthy levels of testosterone can stop worrying about inflaming prostate cancer. You can safely reverse the symptoms of testosterone deficiency.

And you might experience an amazing resurgence of youth and energy if you do. If you want to know more, I suggest you read our Special Report Maximum Manhood, which will help you make a fully informed decision on the best way to raise your testosterone level.

The author of Maximum Manhood interviewed a number of top experts – including Dr. Morgentaler. He was already exploding the myth that high T puts you at risk of prostate cancer three years ago when we published this report.Click here to learn more.

New breakthroughs in prostate treatment

While we’re on the topic, a very interesting Italian treatment for enlarged prostate was recently published in the online journal, The Prostate.

Despite being non-cancerous, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) still impacts a man’s quality of life and requires treatment. Now, Dr. Rafaella Leoci’s new non-surgical, non-hormonal treatments might soon be a great option for men suffering with BPH. The treatments require only five minutes, twice a day.

Her June 2014 study in male dogs — which get similar BPH to male humans — showed using pulsed electromagnetic field therapy, or PEMF, helped reduce the size of the prostate by over 57%. The energy comes from a handheld device, no bigger than a remote control, and seems to increase blood flow to the prostate gland, reducing inflammation and overall size.

As far as I know, there are no negative side effects to this electromagnetic therapy and it doesn’t involve damaging radiation. Dr. Leoci also noted the PEMF treatment did not affect the dog’s reproductive ability, libido, or testosterone levels.

If further studies can prove the PEMF treatment truly reduces inflammation, it could turn out to be a non-invasive treatment not only for BPH but for prostate cancer as well.⁵

Though more research is needed to take this treatment into a larger cohort of dogs … and then studied for safety in human men … it’s treatments like these that make me hopeful for a future of all-natural, non-pharmaceutical, and even non-surgical treatments for cancer.

Kindest regards,

Lee Euler, Publisher

http://www.cancerdefeated.com/does-high-testosterone-cause-prostate-cancer/2998/

Go to Healthwise for more articles

The energy drinks with TWENTY teaspoons of sugar

Youngsters believe the drinks may give them an edge on the sports field

• Others feel that the caffeinated beverages help them in the classroom
• But 20 teaspoons of sugar is three times adult maximum for an entire day

This post is on Healthwise

By SEAN POULTER, CONSUMER AFFAIRS EDITOR FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 00:34 GMT, 26 February 2015 | UPDATED: 08:47 GMT, 26 February 2015

Energy drinks popular with teenagers could contain up to 20 teaspoons of sugar, warn health campaigners

They have called for a ban on the sale of the products to under-16s.

The drinks, which also have high levels of caffeine, have become part of the daily diet of many teenagers, particularly boys.

But they are being blamed for feeding a crisis of obesity and bad behaviour in schools.

+2

Sweets for my sweet: A survey of 197 energy drinks found that 78 per cent would receive a ‘red’ label for high sugar content. Around half contained the same amount or more sugar than Coca Cola

Campaigners Action on Sugar warned the drinks – such as Rockstar, Monster and Red Devil – are fuelling a taste for sugar that feeds through into the wider diet.

A survey of 197 such drinks found more than three quarters would receive a ‘red’ label for high sugar using Food Standards Agency guidelines.

Concerns about sugar consumption, which has been condemned as the ‘new tobacco’, are reaching many older consumers who are trying to change their eating habits. Despite this, sales of energy drinks are booming among youngsters and supermarkets are trying to cash in on the trend by creating cheap own label versions.

Youngsters believe the drinks might give them an edge on the sports field or even boost their performance in the classroom. 

But some schools are so concerned about the drinks' impact on behaviour, with youngsters becoming loud and unable to concentrate, that they have banned them from their premises.

However, Action on Sugar says the harm is so serious that the government should take immediate action to implement a legal ban on sales to under 16s.

A survey of 197 energy drinks found that 78 per cent would receive a ‘red’ label for high sugar content. Around half contained the same amount or more sugar than Coca Cola.

Sickly: Rockstar energy drinks were among the
worst offenders, with one flavour containing the
equivalent of 20 teaspoons of sugar per 500ml can

The Rockstar Juiced Energy + Juice Mango Orange Passion Fruit Flavour has a similarly high 15.2g/100ml.Among the worst offenders was the Rockstar Punched Energy + Guava Tropical Flavour with 15.6g of sugar per 100ml. That means just one 500ml can contains the equivalent of 20 teaspoons of sugar.

The highest sugar content was the 15.9g per 100ml found in Sainsbury’s Orange Energy Drink, which is sold in 1 litre bottles. Someone drinking 500ml would be consuming more than 20 teaspoons of sugar.

Others with particularly high levels were Red Devil Energy Drink at 15g/100ml and some Lucozade Energy drinks at 14g/100ml.

Consumption of 20 teaspoons of sugar is three times the recommended maximum for an adult from this type of processed food or drink for an entire day.

The researchers discovered that some of the drinks contain more caffeine than two cups of coffee, however some fail to properly spell out the level on the label.

A 170ml of coffee contains approximately 71mg of caffeine, which is less than half the 160mg found in the two Rockstar products identified for a high sugar content.

There was also 160mg of caffeine in 500ml cans of Monster Energy and Monster Khaos Energy. A 473ml can on Red Bull had 151mg, while 500ml can of Mountain Dew Energy came in at 90mg

Graham MacGregor, Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine at Queen Mary University of London and chairman of Action on Sugar, said: ‘Children are being deceived into drinking large cans of this stuff, thinking they are going to improve their performance at school, during sports, or even on a night out. 

‘In reality all they are doing is increasing their risk of developing obesity or type 2 diabetes which will have lifelong implications on their health. 

'Type 2 diabetes is a leading cause of blindness, limb amputation and kidney dialysis – hardly the image of a healthy, active person.’

Nutritionist at the group, Kawther Hashem, said: ‘The level of sugars in a typical can is disgraceful and we need to protect children and teenagers from drinking these products.

‘Sugar-free options are available from some manufacturers but be aware these still contain high levels of caffeine or other stimulants, so are not a ‘healthy’ option.’

SUGAR PACKED ENERGY DRINKS: HOW THEY COMPARE

Energy drink / 500ml serving	Calories	Sugar / g	Sugar / tsp
Sainsbury's Orange Energy Drink	335	80	20
Rockstar Punched Energy + Guava Tropical Guava Flavour	335	78	20
Rockstar Juiced Energy + Juice Mango Orange Passion Fruit Flavour	330	76	19
Rockstar Punched Energy + Punch Fruit Punch Flavour	320	76	19
Red Devil Energy Drink	320	75	19
Lucozade Energy Pink Lemonade	285	70	18
Lucozade Energy Caribbean Crush	285	70	18
Rockstar Super Sours Energy Drink Bubbleburst	295	69	17
Lucozade Energy Blackcurrant	335	66.5	17
Mountain Dew Energy	240	65	16
Source: Action on Sugar. Can/serving sizes vary. Figures based on 500ml serving

HOW MUCH CAFFEINE IS EACH CAN PACKING? 

Energy drink / can	Caffeine content / mg
Rockstar Punched Energy + Guava Tropical Guava Flavour (500ml)	160
Rockstar Juiced Energy + Juice Mango Orange Passion Fruit Flavour (500ml)	160
Monster Energy (500ml)	160
Monster Khaos Energy + Juice (500ml)	160
Red Bull Energy Drink (473ml)	151
Mountain Dew Energy (500ml)	90
Cup of coffee (170ml)	71

New research published today by retail analysts Mintel found half the population – 46 per cent – are monitoring sugar consumption. More than one in four – 26 per cent – said they have changed their diets.

Mintel analyst, Emma Clifford, said: ‘The dangers related to consuming too much sugar became the major food issue of 2014. Consumers are expecting the food industry to respond which shows that there are plenty of opportunities for companies to really make themselves stand out on this front.’

The soft drinks industry operates a voluntary code which requires a warning on labels that energy drinks are not suitable for children and should not be promoted or marketed to those under 16. 

Morrisons introduced a trial ban on sales to the under 16s in some stores 2013, however this was dropped at the end of last year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2969367/The-energy-drinks-TWENTY-teaspoons-sugar-Campaigners-call-ban-sales-16s-amid-fears-triggering-obesity-unruly-behaviour.html

Go to Healthwise for more articles

Could going Paleo give you cancer?

In the past several years, the Paleolithic diet (or “caveman” diet) has become a huge diet trend.

You’ve probably heard about it—and possibly even tried it for yourself. Quite a few doctors encourage it because it includes only foods we were designed to eat.

This post is on Healthwise

26 February 2015

Newsletter #477
Lee Euler, Editor

In brief, the theory is that humans were hunter-gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years, but we’ve been farmers chowing down on grains (i.e. calorie-dense carbohydrates) for only 12,000 years. Our bodies haven’t adapted to the change.

At first glance, avoiding all processed foods while increasing your intake of plants, proteins, and healthy fats appears to have no downside. But it turns out there may be a downside after all – and quite a big one.

The Paleo diet’s effects – losing weight, increasing antioxidant intake, and reducing systemic inflammation from processed foods and sugars – are all proven health benefits … and well-known ways to reduce cancer risk.

But recent studies from the University of California-San Diego have found that one key part of the Paleo diet … and the American diet in general … could be causing cancer.

Quick review of Paleo basics

The Paleo diet is based on the foods that would have been available to “cavemen” historically, including unprocessed, organic foods like fish, meat, eggs, nuts, fruit and vegetables.

The eating plan generally cuts out dairy products, grains, legumes, excess sugar and vegetable oils, with a few exceptions.

Basically, it’s a plant-based, high protein, clean fat diet.

Of the relatively few nutritional objections I’ve heard about the Paleo diet — the lack of carbohydrates, primarily — the emphasis on consuming red meat seems most concerning. As readers of this newsletter know, I think the fewer carbs you eat the better. But you have to eat something, and if you never touch a carb, red meat tends to be what you do eat.

A history of cancer

There is plenty of evidence that red meat — i.e. beef, pork, and lamb — increases your risk for cancer, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and the sum total of deaths from all causes.

23 separate studies spanning 1986 to 2014, from populations around the world, show that red meat consumption has a positive correlation with breast, prostate, and GI tract cancers. Be aware that the GI tract category includes cancers of the esophagus, stomach, bladder, pancreas, colon and rectum. High red meat consumption even correlates with a higher risk of head and neck cancers.¹

The World Cancer Research Foundation report actually listed eating red meat in the top 10 risk factors associated with cancer worldwide. And, there is a low rate of cancer in populations that eat little to no red meat.²

Researchers tell us that red meat is an inflammatory food, but until recently they didn’t know exactly why it was causing such a problem.

Thanks to a team from University of California-San Diego, we may now have a clue why red meat causes inflammation … and therefore, cancer.

My own private theory (unbacked by studies) has been that corn-fed beef raised with hormones and antibiotics is the source of the higher cancer rates, and that organic beef may not be carcinogenic. The UC-San Diego findings cast some doubt on my idea.

The “alien sugar” hiding in your body

Researchers from UC-San Diego have been working with sialic acids — sugars found in most mammalian cells that play a fundamental role in cell communication.³

These aren’t like table sugar. Think biomolecular structure, not the white stuff that sweetens your coffee. There are four major classes of molecules: sugars, proteins, nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), and lipids (fats). Sugars are also called carbohydrates and saccharides.⁴

What’s caught their attention more specifically is the predominant sialic acid in most mammal’s cells, called N-glycolylneuraminic acid … or Neu5gc.

The weird part is that humans don’t produce this substance — we get it only from “red meat” animals, like cows, sheep, and pigs.

And – this is important – these sialic-acid-type sugars don’t lead to the usual problems associated with carbs – high blood sugar, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, etc. The reason they pose a danger is that they are foreign bodies that provoke an immune-system reaction, i.e. inflammation.

Despite its “species-specific” nature, the “red meat sugar” Neu5gc has been found circulating in almost all human blood, in our tissues, and densely packed in certain cancers.

Because it is a “non-human sugar,” our bodies have developed and are constantly generating antibodies to identify and remove the foreign substances. This causes systemic inflammation known as xenosialitis.³

The UC-San Diego researchers used a mouse model to not only prove that Neu5gc is bioavailable from red meat sources, but to prove it is a cause of systematic inflammation.

Long-term exposure caused a five-fold increase in tumor growth.⁵

“The final proof in humans will be much harder to come by,” said UCSD’s Dr. Varki of their results. “But, this may also help explain potential connections of red meat consumption to other diseases exacerbated by chronic inflammation, such as atherosclerosis and type 2 diabetes.”⁶

To be honest, I wasn’t aware of a link between diabetes and red meat consumption. But it’s possible, if red meat promotes inflammation.

We need to take this new research with a grain of salt. The findings have not yet been extrapolated to humans … and to do so may prove too difficult, and possibly unethical. This one study doesn’t settle the matter.

But I have to admit it has unsettled me, and I’m reexamining my belief that organic red meats are safe. I find it hard to ignore the evidence they found … as well as the overwhelming epidemiological evidence that red meat increases cancer and all-cause mortality.

I mostly eat chicken. But having lately gone on a very-low-carb eating plan, I’ve allowed myself to indulge in organic beef and pork more often. As I said, you have to eat something, and doing totally without carbs puts you on the spot to figure out what.

Carbs grown on farms are the easiest, cheapest and most abundantly available foods on earth. There is a reason the human population vastly increased and the first towns and cities came into being after the development of agriculture: there was more food.

The role of resistant starch

If you can’t imagine giving up red meat entirely, there may be hope …

One study found that even when doubling the recommended intake of red meat, eating 40 grams of resistant starches daily — such as bananas, beans, chickpeas, lentils, and whole grains — reduced colorectal-cancer-promoting proteins back down to baseline.

The Australian researchers believe the effect is thanks to butyrate, a beneficial short-chain fatty acid produced in the large intestine where resistant starches are fermented. Butyrate is known to promote the growth of healthy cells in the colon, while inhibiting tumor cells.⁷

However, the only “Paleo friendly” resistant starch the authors mentioned are bananas. (Personally, I see nothing wrong with eating beans, chickpeas, and lentils, but that choice is up to you.)

The bottom line

I believe following a Paleolithic diet is beneficial in many, many ways—and most people would do well to build their diets on whole, organic, plant-based nutrition with clean protein and healthy fats.

But the possible inflammatory characteristics of red meat, combined with lack of high-fiber starches that could combat inflammation and tumor growth, is reason for worry.

Until we have definitive, long-term studies on the antioxidant (and thus anti-inflammatory) properties of the fruit, vegetables and fats in the Paleo diet … and how they work in combination to mitigate oxidation and inflammation in the body … you may want to take a “better safe than sorry” approach.

Focus your protein-intake on organic white meat, such as chicken and turkey … increase your visits to the fresh fish and seafood counter (the fish low on the food chain, not the carnivorous fish that are high in mercury) … and snack on known body-healthy proteins like nuts and seeds.

You can also supplement with a clean protein powder. Look for whey

concentrate powder with no sugar or artificial sweeteners — whey isolate is overly processed and deficient in nutrients.⁸

If you’re going to eat red meat, the American Heart Association recommends limiting it to 6 ounces per day. And you should also consider a Paleo-friendly side of resistant starches like bananas or lentils.

From what I’ve seen, I’m thinking of limiting my red meat intake to one meal a week, at most.

Kindest regards,

Lee Euler, Publisher

http://www.cancerdefeated.com/could-going-paleo-give-you-cancer/3092/

Go to Healthwise for more articles

Cancer Drug Once Bought for $7 Million May Now Fetch $18 Billion

(Bloomberg) -- An overlooked drug bought by a biotech company for a mere $6.6 million a decade ago could become one of the biggest selling cancer treatments ever.

This post is on Healthwise

Source: Getty Images

9:58 AM AWST 
February 26, 2015
by Robert Langreth Brendan Coffey

(Bloomberg) -- An overlooked drug bought by a biotech company for a mere $6.6 million a decade ago could become one of the biggest selling cancer treatments ever.

Those high expectations have its maker, Pharmacyclics Inc., considering selling itself in a deal that could be worth as much as $18 billion.

The Sunnyvale, California-based company has attracted interest from companies including Johnson & Johnson and Novartis AG, Bloomberg reported Wednesday. Cancer is one of the most lucrative areas of drug development, and Imbruvica is an easy-to-use pill that costs around $100,000 a year, avoids certain serious side effects of chemotherapy, and patients can stay on it for long periods of time.

The drug has also made a billionaire of Chief Executive Officer Robert W. Duggan. Duggan owns 13.5 million shares, or 18 percent, of Pharmacyclics. The stock constitutes the bulk of his $3.2 billion net worth, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. He amassed most of the shares at a cost of $42 million between 2004 and 2011, when he used his holdings to take a board seat and eventually control of the company.

The drug is projected to join the ranks of other top-selling oncology drugs, with $4.2 billion in estimated sales in 2019, according to an average of estimates by analysts.

Imbruvica “certainly has the potential of Gleevec-like revenue,” said Brian Druker, director of the Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health & Science University, referring to Novartis AG’s $4.75 billion drug for chronic myeloid leukemia. “It’s a big deal and the responses have been impressive” in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, one of its main uses.

A Bargain

While the drug is now approved for both mantle cell lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, at the time its promise wasn’t obvious, said Druker.

“There was no slam dunk there,” said Druker. “It was risk taking and vision and believing in something and getting into patients and seeing what happens.”

Gleevec, which Druker pioneered, attacks the main gene mutation that causes CML, or chronic myeloid leukemia. In CLL, it wasn’t clear that a pathway blocked by Imbruvica would prove crucial in slowing down tumors until it was tested in people, he said.

In one 391 patient study, Imbruvica significantly delayed progression of the disease and lowered the death rate by more than half in patients who had failed other therapies or relapsed.

‘Major Advances’

“It is one of the major advances in CLL treatment in the past couple of years,” said Jae Park, an adult leukemia doctor at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. “It is not a cure, but it is relatively easily tolerable.” That’s important because many cases of CLL occur in older patients, and some cases can progress very slowly.

Like Gleevec, the number of people on the drug has potential to grow greatly over time, as patients using the drug live longer and if it ends up replacing chemotherapy as an initial treatment for CLL, said Brian Skorney, an analyst at Robert W. Baird. The sales trajectory of Imbruvica “has really blown away every other oncology launch with the exception of Avastin,” made by Roche Holding AG, he said.

Pharmacyclics got the drug in 2006, when it bought a group of drugs for $2 million in cash, and 1 million shares. Duggan took control two years later, ousting then-CEO and co-founder Richard Miller and three other board members after an experimental cancer drug failed. Duggan ordered researchers to focus on a new series of experimental treatments, one of which became Imbruvica.

Investor History

A sale of Pharmacyclics would be in keeping Duggan’s investment history. The billionaire has invested in and then sold half a dozen businesses starting in the late 1960s, including Cookie Muncher’s Paradise, a bakery business that is now part of Panera Bread Co., and MAG International BV, an eastern European billboard company he sold in 2006 to JCDecaux SA.

Duggan is also a member of the Church of Scientology. He’s one of the organization’s largest donors, with gifts of at least $20 million, including some Pharmacyclics shares. Duggan confirmed membership in the organization in 2013 while declining to confirm his giving.

“I feel it is an honor and personal obligation to share my financial success with Scientology,” he wrote in a 2013 e-mail to Bloomberg News.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-26/cancer-drug-once-bought-for-7-million-may-now-fetch-18-billion

Go to Healthwise for more articles