The prostate is a male reproductive gland that produces the fluid that carries sperm during ejaculation. It surrounds the urethra, the tube through which urine passes out of the body.
An enlarged prostate means the gland has grown bigger. Prostate enlargement happens to almost all men as they get older. As the gland grows, it can press on the urethra and cause urination and bladder problems.
An enlarged prostate is often called benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) or benign prostatic hypertrophy. It is not cancer, and it does not raise your risk for prostate cancer.
We have completed a study using natural supplements to prevent prostate enlargement.
prostatestudyrevised
The U. S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has not reversed its non-recommendation of PSA testing despite the many voices raised in disagreement.
Doc Gumshoe weighted in on this topic back in May, 2013, and heres what I said then:
em>The Evidence Regarding PSA Testing and Prostate Cancer Treatment
First, lets look at the evidence marshaled by the USPSTF in their full report. The basis for their recommendation was that although screening based on PSA identifies additional prostate cancers, most trials found no statistically-significant effect on prostate cancer-specific mortality. The report cites two trials to answer the question whether PSA screening decreases prostate cancer mortality, both of these described as being of fair quality. One of these, conducted in the US, followed 76,693 men for 7 years and found no significant difference between men assigned to PSA screening and those assigned to usual care, meaning no screening. However, it turns out that of the men in the usual care group, 44% had had a PSA test before entering the trial, and 52% had a PSA test at some point during the trial. Thats what you would call a thoroughly tainted control group. So they were basically comparing men who were supposed to have had PSA tests with men who were not supposed to have PSA tests, but many or most of whom had PSA tests anyway.
The other trial, a multicenter European trial, found that PSA screening every 2 to 7 years was associated with a 20% relative risk reduction in a subgroup of 162,243 men aged 55 to 69 years.
Thats not nothing.
However, theres more. One of the participating centers, in Sweden, decided to publish their results separately. PSA screening every two years in a group of 20,000 men resulted in a decreased relative risk for prostate cancer mortality of 44% after 14 years of follow-up. Thats quite a lot more than nothing.
Since then, there is new information. A study using the U. S. National Cancer database found that one year after the USPSTF recommendation against routine PSA testing was issued in 2011, there was a large drop, 28%, in the diagnosis of prostate cancer, due without doubt to a decline in the number of men having PSA tests. The largest decline, 38%, was in the diagnosis of early, low-risk prostate cancer. But important declines were also found in the diagnosis of intermediate (28%) and high risk (23%) prostate cancers. These, by the way, are relative risk reductions the 23% decline would be from the number of men diagnosed with high risk prostate cancer prior to the USPSTF recommendation, and I do not have that number available, since the full study will not be published in the Journal of Urology until December.
Not diagnosing and treating! prostate cancer in those intermediate- and high-risk patients is tantamount, in my judgment, to condemning many of those men to an unnecessary and painful death.
And here are a few other data points from SEER: the five-year survival rate for men diagnosed with local and regional prostate cancer is close to 100%. But the five-year survival rate for men diagnosed with distant (i.e., high risk) prostate cancer is only 28.2%. Incidentally, the five-year survival rates for all forms of prostate cancer have increased dramatically since PSA testing was introduced in the mid 1980s from 66% in 1975 to 88.4% in 1990 to 99.7% in 2007.
Well see what happens if the USPSTF doesnt alter its recommendation. The lead author of the study, Dr Daniel Barocas, calls it throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I call it creating more work for the undertaker.
New research from The University of Texas at Austin identifies several natural compounds found in food, including turmeric, apple peels and red grapes, as key ingredients that could thwart the growth of prostate cancer, the most common cancer afflicting U.S. men and a key area of focus during Mens Health Month, which public health advocates celebrate in June, reports the University of Texas in Austin. Published online this week in Precision Oncology, the new paper uses a novel analytical approach to screen numerous plant-based chemicals instead of testing a single agent as many studies do, discovering specific combinations that shrink prostate cancer tumors.
Ursolic acid from apple peels
Curcumin from turmeric
Resveratrol from red grapes
The new research paper also demonstrates how the plant-based chemicals work together. Combining ursolic acid with either curcumin or resveratrol prevents cancer cells from gobbling something that they need to grow, glutamine. This is a neat solution: blocking the uptake of a nutrient needed by prostate cancer cells with nutrients that are commonly in the human diet.
Did you know that two-thirds of all men over 60 already have prostate cancer?
Are you shocked? The fact is, most men die with the condition not from it. This is because their bodies are able to hold the cancer in check.
Problems only develop when a man’s body loses control of his cancer (which is signaled by a rise in his PSA score).
Anything that prevents a rise in PSA is likely helping to control the growth of prostate cancer. And this is exactly what my “prostate protection program” is designed to do even in men who have already been diagnosed.
Fish Oil Lowers PSA Scores Dramatically!
In the study (published in the prestigious British Journal of Nutrition), researchers selected a group of men with PSA levels of less than 2.5. Some of the men were given a daily fish oil supplement, while others got a capsule of CoQ10 (100 mg). Still others received a placebo.
At the end of 12 weeks, the results were amazing. The fish oil had lowered the PSA levels dramatically (average decrease: 30%) and the CoQ10 worked even better (average decrease in PSA: 33%).
Furthermore, the longer the men took the fish oil and CoQ10, the lower their PSA score dropped. This means that the higher their blood levels of these nutrients climbed, the lower their PSA levels went.
Last year a government task force reversed five years of advice on whether men should have a prostate specific antigen (PAS) test to screen for prostate cancer. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force reversed itself, it said, and once again began advising men to be screened because new evidence indicated that routine PSA blood tests can slightly reduce some mens chances of dying from prostate cancer and that drastic treatment can sometimes be avoided with close monitoring when cancer is detected.
But new research published this week in one of the worlds most prestigious medical journals, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), debunks that argument. If orthodox medicine was actively working to muddle the issue of prostate health and the PAS test, it couldnt do a better job of throwing men into confusion on the subject than this.
The study by a team of researchers at the University of Bristol and University of Oxford found that PSA screening could only identify low-grade prostate diseases and failed to detect some aggressive and lethal prostate cancers.
As Medical News writes, researchers conducted the largest-ever prostate cancer trial over a decade, studying 400,000 men between ages 50 and 69. The trial compared 189,386 men who had a single PSA screening with 219,439 men who were not invited for screening.
After a decade of follow up, the total number of cases of prostate cancers reported in both the screening group and the control group were 8,054 (4.3 percent) and 7,853 (3.6 percent), respectively; however, the percentage men dying from prostate cancer in both the groups was 0.29 percent.
In other words, there was no difference in prostate cancer deaths between the tested and the untested group.
This has long been the consensus of those of us in the alternative medical community, and Ive been writing about it for years. Research has long placed substantial doubts about the validity and reliability of the PSA test. Even so, conventional doctors continue to use the test and rely on it to determine male prostate health.
Here is the point: The literature says a low PSA number of about four indicates a normal or healthy prostate, whereas higher numbers put prostate health in doubt and even suggests malignancy. A higher number, of course, calls for biopsy and may lead to prostate surgery.
Yet some men may have prostate malignancy with very low PSA numbers or no malignancy with very high PSA numbers.
This makes the whole test doubtful. I personally would not rely on the PSA test and would certainly refuse prostate surgery based on it or even biopsy at my age, 85.
Many men have been ruined because of prostate surgery. At the very least, all considerations of prostate surgery should be preceded by a detailed understanding of the pros and cons of relying on the PSA test.
Researchers participating in this latest trial agree.
The results highlight the multitude of issues the PSA test raises causing unnecessary anxiety and treatment by diagnosing prostate cancer in men who would never have been affected by it and failing to detect dangerous prostate cancers. Cancer Research UK is funding work that will allow us to follow the men for at least a further five years to see whether there is any longer-term benefit on reducing prostate cancer deaths, said Professor Richard Martin, lead author of the study.
Our large study has shed light on a highly debated issue. We found that offering a single PSA test to men with no symptoms of prostate cancer does not save lives after an average follow-up of 10 years, Martin said.
Integrative medicine specialists have told me to a man that a high PSA reading does not indicate cancer. Instead it indicates that something is going on to inflame the prostate. That something could indeed be cancer, but it is much more likely that a high reading is due to a recent infection or a completely benign enlargement of the prostate gland.
The literature claims that many or most men age 50 and older have dormant prostate cancer and that most never become active.
There are quite a few herbs and other plant extracts that help with prostate health, including pumpkin seeds, saw palmetto and stinging nettle. But the two most important things for your prostate are exercise and nutrition.
To prevent prostate enlargement and cancer, you should strive to be as active as possible. At least walk as much as possible. Walking often has the same health benefits as running, without the inflammatory side effects. A study last year performed in Sweden that suggested more intense exercise can cut your risk of prostate cancer in half. Further, the researchers discovered that exercising with vigor for 60 minutes inhibited the growth of existing cancer cells by over 30 percent.
I believe that prostate health is also based on diet plus whether one is a smoker or heavy drinker. Its obvious that unhealthy lifestyles will lead to unhealthy outcomes.
Zinc is your most basic prostate food, along with another essential mineral, selenium. They work together to maintain cellular health and are must-have for mens health because they reduce aromatase, and enzyme you want to reduce because it converts testosterone into estrogen, putting you on the path to reproductive cancers.
Spinach, beans, red meat, pumpkin seeds and oysters all have plenty of zinc in them, and for selenium, tuna and Brazil nuts should give you all you need.
Heres the thing about zinc that is not well known but important. It can interfere with the absorption of other minerals. Thats why you want to take zinc separately, preferably before you go to bed so that you have a whole night of sleep to absorb it, and before taking any other supplements during the day.
Experts have discovered strong evidence that there is a relationship between insulin-like growth factor and prostate cancer. This finding may make it possible for men to take steps to reduce their risk of developing prostate cancer by lowering their levels of this hormone if it is elevated.
What is insulin-like growth factor?
Insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) is a hormone that helps promote normal tissue and bone growth and development. It has a structure that is similar to that of insulin, and it works in synch with growth hormone to reproduce and regenerate cells.
Previous investigations have revealed that having levels of IGF-1 that are too low or too high are risk markers for a wide variety of health challenges. For example, low IGF-1 has been associated with metabolic syndrome, obesity, chronic inflammatory diseases (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, lupus), depression, and dementia, including Alzheimers disease.
High IGF-1, on the other hand, has been linked to acne and to a greater risk of developing and dying of cancer and cardiovascular disease, including heart disease and stroke.
Therefore, it appears it is important to strike a balance or normal level of IGF-1. The normal range for IGF-1 varies by gender and age and can be seen in this chart. You should discuss what is normal for you with your healthcare provider.
The relationship between insulin-like growth hormone and prostate cancer was examined by an international group of experts who conducted a meta-analysis that involved 19 studies and included 10,554 cases of prostate cancer and 13,618 controls. Data were collected on concentrations of five different IGFs. The reviewers reported that IGF-1 is highly likely to be involved in prostate cancer development.
Natural ways to lower IGF-1
For men who are interested in lowering their risk of prostate cancer, as well as other cancers and cardiovascular disease, there are several natural ways to reduce IGF-1 levels if they are elevated. For example:
Reduce protein intake. Numerous studies have shown that reducing protein intake will result in significantly lower IFG-1 levels. The secret, however, is that you need to reduce animal protein to reap this benefit. Thats because animal proteins, unlike those in plants, are rich in the amino acid methionine. Animal research has shown that when methionine intake is restricted, life span is lengthened. Therefore, it stands to reason that another way to lower IGF-1 levels would be to adopt the next suggestion:
Switch to plant protein. Plant protein contains a miniscule amount of methionine when compared with animal protein sources.
Get more glycine. The amino acid glycine helps lower IGF-1 by speeding up its clearance of methionine through the liver. You can take a glycine supplement like this one perhaps 2 to 3 grams dailyor you could consume plant proteins that have high levels of glycine, such as yeast and hemp protein powders (this is a highly rated one), and foods such as beans, cauliflower, cabbage, kale, and pumpkin.
Try intermittent fasting. Much of the evidence that intermittent fasting can lower IGF-1 is anecdotal, since few studies have been conducted. Restricting caloric intake for set time periods, such as eating normally for five days and then consuming just 600 or 700 calories for two days, reportedly lowers IGF-1 and other growth factors, which in turn allows the body to repair and heal itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrU1yrmNIqc