Diet and Nutrition

Rev A



Topics                                                                                                                          Paragraph

Introduction 1.1
Klein’s Theory of Diet and prostate Cancer 1.2
No Study Links Diet as cause of Prostate Cancer 1.3


Effect of Fish on causing Prostate Cancer 2.1, 2.2, 2.3
Effect of Fish on causing Metastatic Prostate Cancer 2.2
Fish Oil Effect on Prostate cancer growth 2.3
References (Fish) 3.0

Deep Fried Foods

Deep Fried Foods Effect on Prostate Cancer 1.1

Milk and Eggs

Milk’s Effect on Advanced Prostate Cancer 1.1
Whole Milk’s Effect on Prostate Cancer 1.3, 1.4, 1.5
Skim and Low Fat Milk’s Effect on Prostate Cancer 1.2
Eggs’ Effect on Prostate Cancer 1.6
The Milk Quandry 2.0
References, Milk and Eggs 3.0

Pills, Supplements, Vitamins, and Anti-Oxidants

Dangers and Recommendations to Stop using Vitamins 2.8 , 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12
Vitamin E may increase risk of Prostate Cancer 2.14
List of items people Used and Evaluated 2.1
Supplements, Anti-oxidants, Selenium and Vit C, D, E 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7
Supplements and Vitamins continued 2.10, 2.11, 2.12
One –A-Day Vitamin 2.15
Zinc and prostate Cancer 2.16
Nutritional Intervention 3.1
References, Pills, Supplements, Vitamins & Ant-oxidants 4.0

Red Meat

Red Meat link to Prostate Cancer 1.1
Red Meat link to Aggressive Prostate Cancer 1.2
Confusion Exists 2.1, 2.2
References, Red Meat 3.0

Tomatoes and Lycopene

Lycopene’s positive Effect on Prostate Cancer 1.1
Lycopene’s negative or no Effect on Prostate Cancer 1.2,1.3,1.4
References, Tomatoes and Lycopene 2.0


1.1- I entered the diet controversy in 2001 when I wrote my first published article stating that no food, supplement or pill had any effect on causing, or effecting the progression of PC. This was based on my conversations with about 1000 men with PC who had by that time attended the Boston Prostate Cancer Support Group that I facilitated since 1994. (Note 1)
One man I know was told by a doctor of miraculous drugs and pills that were curing men of PC in Europe, but after thousands of dollars, his cancer advanced and became worse.
On one occasion, I was at a meeting with three experienced PC specialists, and asked if any of them could name “any one of their patients who was improved, as a result of a diet or supplement without also being on medical treatment”?. They were surprised when none of them could think of at least one patient. These three doctors are at three state-of-the art research hospitals in three different cities.
Why do these very good clinicians and researchers believe in diet causing PC? The answer is that “this is the general consensus”, because there was nothing else that was different between the men in Japan and in the United states. If it is shown at a later date to be incorrect, they will probably reply by saying, ‘That was the thinking at that time”.

1.2 Klein’s Theory of Diet and prostate Cancer
The Klein Theory of how Diet became the cause of Prostate Cancer:
Many years ago, when students were in medical school, an instructor was asked what was the cause of PC? Wishing to appear knowledgeable, the instructor said DIET, and explained that all other factors had been eliminated.
Medical school is very hectic, and very few students have time to research everything they are taught, so it was accepted that someone had researched that diet was the culprit.
During a young doctor’s residency and internship, he is lucky to have time to get six hours of sleep in any 24 hour period, much less think about diet and PC.
Finally the young doctor graduates and is a full fledged Medical Doctor.
One day a newly diagnosed PC patient asks this young doctor what caused his cancer? “Doctor, I do not have a family history of PC why do I have it?” A doctor, especially a new doctor, must assert his medical position, and he answers in a very authoritative voice, “We believe our western diet is a major contributing factor.”
Years later when this young doctor is an instructor in a medical school, he will impart his years of education, experience and knowledge to tell his students, without hesitation “the facts”. And so the theory of the western high fat diet evolved and became “fact.”
Simultaneously, many astute business men heard about this, and started a huge campaign to advertise to sell foods, supplements, and pills that contain low fat, anti oxidants, good health, and hope.
Other doctors read about this, and thought, wow, it is true, and strengthened their belief in this “fact”. Today, everyone knows that a high fat diet is really the culprit——–The end.? Please read on.

1.3 No Study Links Diet as cause of Prostate Cancer
No Studies positively links prostate cancer to Diet. People with an illness want to help themselves, so after reading dozens of articles about diet and PC, they switch to a VEGE and / or Mediterranean diet, and some try a sushi and macro-biotic diet.
On a few occasions, in my Boston Prostate Cancer Support Group (PCSG,) we have had Nutritionist and dietitians say there is no association between diet and PC.
In 2009 Dr William DeWolf, stated that at a plenary session of the American Urological Association  (AUA), in April 2009, the doctors reported that that there is no association between diet and PC.
Many doctors are reluctant to admit that there is uncertainty about a medical issue, and go along with the generally accepted theory. Only great people will buck the crowd and hypothesis a new concept, and face the scrutiny of their peers.
For example, Dr. Judah Folkman came out with his theory of Angiogenesis, that cancers require a blood supply to grow and thrive. Other doctors ridiculed and derided him.” What does a navy Surgeon know about cancers?” they proclaimed. But he was absolutely correct. Albert Einstein, also thought “out of the box”, and was ignored, scorned, and doubted for years by the scientific profession. We do not know who the doubters were, but we know who Einstein and Folkman were.
The moral of this, is unless you have verifiable proof /theory, do not go along with the consensus. Listen to other opinions.
To this very day, there is no recognized Journal of Nutrition, Oncology, Medicine, or Urology that has accepted any article saying that a specific food or a diet is the cause of, or affects the progression of PC. Pomegranate Juice is still being investigated and hopefully will be found to be beneficial. In 2010 the FDA has barred the pomegranate juice industry from advertising any beneficial aspect of the juice until the ongoing study has proved it to be helpful.
I became convinced that the scientific and medical professions know very little about diet as far as PC is concerned. I have repeatedly said at “my” support group, that diet, supplements, and pills have no direct bearing on PC. A healthy body has a better chance to fight a cold, the flu, or a cancer. Diet will not cure PC, and probably any other cancer.
Thousands of books and articles on diet and PC are written every year. Rarely do they reference a study or facts. A study of 25 men is a joke, and is the equivalent of one point on a chart. Many physicians and researchers strongly suspect that food in some manner affects or effects PC. The cause of PC may indeed be some food or vitamin, however what the specific nutrient (s), vitamin(s), compound(s) might be, is unknown. Some people believe that dairy products, red meat and fats are involved. Some researchers believe fruits and vegetables prevent or affect the progress of the cancer. To repeat, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENTED STUDY in any recognized journal, to support any of these theories and suppositions. “There are indications, but no hard facts”. There are very small epidemiological studies that seem to indicate “something”, but they usually say, “Further study is necessary” which means they do not know the truth at this time.
If there is such an article, it is qualified by words like “may cause”, or “might result in”, or “appears to”. These mean, the author(s) do not know, but that does not stop them, or the book sellers. It is wishful thinking, but allows the author to write without telling an untruth, and at the same time not impart any important information.
Return to Index

This portion considers fish as a possible factor for developing prostate cancer, and / or causing a more aggressive prostate cancer. It contains the following segments:

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Fish and Fish oils have long been associated with helping men avoid prostate cancer or reducing the severity of the cancer. The following articles discuss this relationship.

2.0 Discussion
2.1 Effect of Fish on causing Prostate Cancer
In a joint study by the Division of Urology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada, the Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA. , A meta-analysis of fish intake and prostate cancer, focusing on the incidence of prostate cancer and prostate cancer-specific mortality was conducted and included subgroup analyses based on race, fish type, method of fish preparation, and high-grade and high-stage cancer. The results showed There was no association between fish consumption and a significant reduction in prostate cancer incidence [12 case-control studies and 12 cohort studies including thousands of men]. Our analyses provide no strong evidence of a protective association of fish consumption with prostate cancer incidence but showed a significant 63% reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality. (Ref R275)

2.2 Effect of Fish on causing Metastatic Prostate Cancer
In another release of the study in Reference R275, it detailed that Seventeen of the studies were case-control, meaning they compared eating patterns among people with prostate cancer (“cases”) and matched controls without the disease. The remaining 14 studies were cohort studies, which followed men over time and compared diets of those who developed prostate cancer to the diets of the men who remained free from the disease. Given that the studies included in their analysis used a number of different measurements of fish intake, the researcher said, it’s impossible to say how much fish one would need to eat in order to get a protective effect. “All we can say is eating more fish can have some benefit. How many servings of fish or how many grams needed a day, unfortunately we cannot say.” Overall, the team found no link between eating lots of fish and men’s risk of developing prostate cancer. But they did find that men who ate more fish were 44 percent less likely to develop metastatic prostate cancer. The anti-inflammatory effect of fish oils could help fight cancer progression, he and his colleagues suggest in their report. Several previous studies have indicated that the omega-3 fatty acids in oily fish and fish oil supplements may slow cancer progression by reducing inflammation and by a variety of other mechanisms. The current study did not include fish oil supplements in its analysis. Because the analysis only describes whether the subjects ate fish and how much, this study cannot determine for sure whether some other aspect of the heavy fish eaters’ lifestyles may account for some of the benefits observed. (Ref:R279)

2.3 Fish Oil Effect on Prostate cancer growth.
Prostate Cancer Risk May Be Lower in Fish Eaters.
Researchers from McGill University in Montreal, reported results of a study in the Canadian Urological Association Journal (2008;2:510-515) that Men in the highest quintile of fish consumption had a 46% reduced risk of prostate cancer compared with men in the lowest quintile, after adjusting for age, ethnicity, and other potential confounders. (R60).
Prostate Cancer Growth Slowed by Fish Oil Supplements.
The rate at which prostate cancer grows can be slowed by a low-fat diet and fish oil supplements, researchers suggest. U.S. researchers made the discovery after testing prostate tissue samples taken from men with the disease. They found that just four to six weeks on the diet was enough to reduce the growth of cancer cells. The same effect was not seen in men who remained on a regular diet with no fish oil supplements. Lead study author Professor William Aronson, from the University of California at Los Angeles, told the DailyMail: “The finding that the low-fat, fish oil diet reduced the number of rapidly dividing cells in the prostate cancer tissue is important because the rate at which the cells are dividing can be predictive of future cancer progression. (R468) Posted on October 26, 2011.
Return to Index

3.0 References (Fish)
R60-November 2008 Issue of Renal And Urology News and Canadian Urological Association Journal(2008;2:510-515)
R 275 Reference: Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Sep 15. PubMed Abstract PMID: 20844069
R279 SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, published online September 15, 2010

Deep Fried Foods
This portion considers Deep Fried Foods as a possible factor for developing prostate cancer, and / or causing a more aggressive prostate cancer.

1.1 Deep Fried Foods Effect on Prostate Cancer
Study finds regularly eating deep-fried food is associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer. and is linked to more aggressive disease.
SEATTLE – Jan. 28, 2013 – Regular consumption of deep-fried foods such as French fries, fried chicken and doughnuts is associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer, and the effect appears to be slightly stronger with regard to more aggressive forms of the disease, according to a study by investigators at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.
Researchers at the Hutchinson Center’s Public Health Sciences Division, have published their findings online in The Prostate.
While previous studies have suggested that eating foods made with high-heat cooking methods, such as grilled meats, may increase the risk of prostate cancer, this is the first study to examine the addition of deep frying to the equation. From French fries to doughnuts: Eating more than once a week may raise risk.
Specifically, they found that men who reported eating French fries, fried chicken, fried fish and/or doughnuts at least once a week were at an increased risk of prostate cancer as compared to men who said they ate such foods less than once a month.
In particular, men who ate one or more of these foods at least weekly had an increased risk of prostate cancer that ranged from 30 to 37 percent. Weekly consumption of these foods was associated also with a slightly greater risk of more aggressive prostate cancer. The researchers controlled for factors such as age, race, family history of prostate cancer, body-mass index and PSA screening history when calculating the association between eating deep-fried foods and prostate cancer risk. Deep frying may trigger formation of carcinogens in food.
The project was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. To obtain a copy of The Prostate paper, “Consumption of Deep-Fried Foods and Risk of Prostate Cancer,” visit (R718)
Return to Index

Milk and Eggs
This portion considers milk and eggs as possible factors for developing prostate cancer , and/ or causing a more aggressive prostate cancer.
1.0 Discussion

1.1 Milk’s Effect on Advanced Prostate Cancer.
Drinking milk in early life linked to advanced prostate cancer A study released in the Jan 2012 issue of American Journal of Epidemiology suggests that drinking too much milk in early life may drastically increase risk of advanced prostate cancer. The current study found men having high intake of milk in adolescence were 3 times as likely as those who only drank infrequently, to develop advanced prostate cancer.
For the study, J. E. Torfadottir of University of Iceland in Reykjavik, Iceland and colleagues analysed data from 8,894 men. The men were followed for43 years. 2,268 men reported their milk intake in early, mid, and current life.
During a mean follow-up period of 24.3 years, a total of 1,123 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 371 men were diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer, which was defined as the disease in stage 3 or higher or prostate cancer death.
Those men who consumed more milk in their early life, were at 29 percent more likely to be diagnosed with prostate. In men born before 1920, and living in areas where more milk was consumed, were 64 percent more likely to be diagnosed with PC.
The potential cancer promoting effect of milk was more significant among men who drank milk daily in their early life. Drinking milk everyday in adolescence, compared to less frequently than daily, was correlated with a 3.2 fold risk of developing advanced prostate cancer. But drinking milk in midlife or currently did not seem to increase the risk.
The researchers concluded “These data suggest that frequent milk intake in adolescence increases risk of advanced prostate cancer by three times.” (Ref: R605)

1.2 Skim and Low Fat Milk’s Effect on Prostate Cancer
Milk-Two studies published in the American Journal of Epidemiology showed a positive correlation between low-fat and nonfat milk consumption and the risk of prostate cancer.
One study looked at questionnaires by 82,483 men in the Multiethnic Cohort Study, 4,404 of whom developed prostate cancer over a mean follow-up of eight years. Whether in the form of food or supplements, there was no association between calcium and vitamin D intake and prostate cancer risk. However, consuming 1 cup or more per day of low-fat or nonfat milk showed a positive association for developing prostate cancer, while whole milk consumption showed a decreased risk for total prostate cancer (includes non-advanced, advanced, and fatal cases).
The other study assessed food frequency questionnaires among 293,888 participants of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-AARP Diet and Health Study, 10,180 of whom were total prostate cancer cases. Skim milk consumption at two or more servings per day was positively associated with an increased risk of advanced prostate cancer. (Ref: R111)

1.3 Whole Milk’s Effect on Prostate Cancer.
Men with prostate cancer should not drink whole milk.
A study led by A. Pettersson from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, and colleagues found men with the highest intake of whole milk which has high levels of milk fat, were more than 100 percent more likely to develop prostate cancer compared with those in the lowest intake.
Drinking milk has been associated with risk of developing prostate cancer. But it remains unknown how milk and dairy consumption would affect risk of metastases and prostate cancer death in men with prostate cancer.
In the study cohort, 3,918 men were diagnosed over a 20 year period. During the follow-up.A multivariate analysis shows that total milk and dairy intakes after diagnosis were not correlated with a higher risk of lethal prostate cancer, metastases or prostate cancer death.
However, men in the highest quintile of whole milk intake were 2.15 times as likely as those in the lowest quintile of whole milk intake to experience disease progression. Those who ate the highest amounts of low-fat fairy products were found 38 percent less likely to to have progression.
The researchers concluded “With the exception of whole milk, our results suggest that milk and dairy intake after a prostate cancer diagnosis is not associated with an increased risk of lethal prostate cancer.” (Ref: R679)

1.4 Milk -In a study that appeared in the October 8, 2007 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology, Lead researcher Dr. Song-Yi Park, from the Cancer Epidemiology Program, Cancer Research Center of Hawaii at the Honolulu-based University of Hawaii, examined data from the Multiethnic Cohort Study which took place from 1993-2002 featuring 82,483 men who were 45 years old and older at the beginning of the study. The results showed a 12 percent DECREASE in the risk of developing prostate cancer for those who drank whole milk. Conversely, there was a 16 percent INCREASE in the risk of developing prostate cancer for those who drank 2% or skim milk. (Ref: R34)

1.5 Whole milk intake is associated with prostate cancer-specific mortality.
Previous studies have associated higher milk intake with greater prostate cancer (PCa) incidence, but little data are available concerning milk types and the relation between milk intake and risk of fatal PCa.
We investigated the association between intake of dairy products and the incidence and survival of PCa during a 28-y follow-up. We conducted a cohort study in the Physicians’ Health Study (n = 21,660) and a survival analysis among the incident PCa cases (n = 2806). Information on dairy product consumption was collected at baseline. PCa cases and deaths (n = 305) were confirmed during follow-up. The intake of total dairy products was associated with increased PCa incidence Skim/low-fat milk intake was positively associated with risk of low-grade, early stage, and screen-detected cancers, whereas whole milk intake was associated only with fatal PCa In the survival analysis, whole milk intake remained associated with risk of progression to fatal disease after diagnosis. In this prospective cohort, higher intake of skim/low-fat milk was associated with a greater risk of non-aggressive PCa. Most importantly, only whole milk was consistently associated with higher incidence of fatal PCa in the entire cohort and higher PCa-specific mortality among cases. These findings add further evidence to suggest the potential role of dairy products in the development and prognosis of PCa.potential role of dairy products in the development and prognosis of PCa. (Ref: R710)

1.6 Eggs’ Effect on Prostate Cancer
Three Eggs a week up cancer risk.
In a study, conducted at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, researchers found no significant links between the amount of meat eaten and tumours – but a higher number of cancer deaths were evident among those who admitted consuming lots of eggs.
The researchers found that men who consume more than two and a half eggs on a weekly basis were up to 81 per cent more likely to be killed by the disease, the Daily Mail reported.
Experts have warned that eating three eggs a week could significantly increase a man’s chance of dying from prostate cancer.
(Ref R447) 29th September 2011, conducted at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.
Return to Index

2.0 The Milk Quandry
2.1 The reader will note that:
A- Reference R111 states that Whole Milk shows a decreased association with PC (4400 men)
B- Reference R710 states that Whole milk shows a fatal association with PC (2800 men)
C- Reference R34 states that Whole Milk shows a decreased association with PC (? Men with PC)
D- Reference R679 state that whole milk shows a highest association with PC (3900 men)
This should tell you how good Epidemiological studies are. Even taken with a grain of salt, these studies are of little value because conditions usually are not controlled.

3.0 References, Milk and Eggs
R34- This study is in the October 8, 2007 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology.
R111- American Journal of Epidemiology and also National Institutes of Health (NIH)-AARP Diet and Health StudyPosted Jan 9, 2008
R605- Aug 15, 2012 (
R679 Nov 30, 2012
R710 Reference: J Nutr. 2012 Dec 19. Epub ahead of print. PubMed Abstract PMID: 23256145
January 24, 2013
Return to Index

Pills, Supplements, Vitamins, and Anti Oxidants
This portion considers whether Pills, supplements, vitamins, and / or vitamins may be a possible factor for developing prostate cancer, or causing a more aggressive prostate cancer, or causing prostate cancer

1.0 Introduction
1.1 This section discusses a topic that most people are interested in, especially after being diagnosed with a serious illness. Most Pills, Supplements, Vitamins, and Anti Oxidants are relatively inexpensive, so people are very willing to help cure them. As the reader will discover, most of these will not do what you hoped for.

2.0 Discussion

2.1 List of items people Used and Evaluated
Pills and Supplements.
What foods to eat and what foods to avoid. At best it may be good for your heart, and at worst it could be bad for you, as many of the supplements have turned out to be.
In the past 15 years the following items were recommended to men with PC to take individually or in certain combinations to help them:
Flax Seeds, Flaxseed Oil, PC Specs, Selenium, Vitamin D, Vitamin E, Calcium, Lycopene, Tomatoes, Zinc All of these have been found to be dangerous in certain dosages, or of no value, but thousands of doctors and companies were advertising these products. The research was done after years of promoting their use. The research should have been done before they were, approved, not after they were determined to be harmful, or of no benefit to the man. These are in addition to the prescribed drugs.
On September 10, 2010 at 4:35 PM EST, on television, there was an advertisement to use a company’s spices, because “they contained anti oxidants”. No illness was mentioned. Anyone who has any cancer is supposed to know the value of taking anti- oxidants.

2.2 Supplements, Anti-oxidants, Selenium and Vit C, D, E
The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT), which is the largest cancer prevention trial ever conducted, randomized more than 35,000 men aged 50 or older to receive either 200 mcg of selenium, 400 IU of vitamin E, a combination of both, or a placebo. After an average of four to seven years, men taking the supplements were no less likely to have prostate cancer than those taking the placebo. Thus, the study was stopped early.
In the Physicians’ Health Study (PHS) II, nearly 15,000 male physicians were randomized to receive 400 IU of vitamin E every other day, 500 mg of vitamin C every day, or a placebo. After an average follow up of eight years, nearly 2,000 men had been diagnosed with cancer. About half of those diagnoses were for prostate cancer. The researchers found that a diagnosis of prostate cancer or cancer in general was just as common among people taking vitamin E or C as it was among those taking a placebo.
The Johns Hopkins Hospital in August 2010 reported that The complete findings from both studies were published in JAMA — The Journal of the American Medical Association. The John Hopkins advice was do not take antioxidant supplements in hopes of preventing prostate cancer. However, a multivitamin may be appropriate for some people when taken under the direction of their primary care physician.

2.3 Anti-Oxidants Selenium and Vitamin E and C, did not prevent PC. In addition, those on selenium were more likely to develop diabetes. (R282) (Johns Hopkins reported and reported in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

2.4 Anti Oxidants.
At the February 2008 meeting of the Boston Prostate Cancer Support Group, it was reported that an ongoing SELECT Study involving a very large data base, tested men to determine if anti-oxidants would help them. The men were classified by genetic subtypes.
The results as of then indicated that 25% of the men were helped by anti-oxidants, and for 75% it either did not help or made them worse. These results showed that specific genetic groups were helped by receiving anti-oxidants, and the other genetic groups were not. The research is ongoing. Therefore the person’s genetic make-up was the determining factor -Stan

2.5 Vitamin E May Hike Risk of Prostate Cancer
Men receiving vitamin E supplements in a large randomized trial showed a slight but statistically significant increase in prostate cancer diagnoses after 10 years of follow-up, researchers said. Breaking news from Medpage October 11, 2011 R458

In an Interview in August 2010 Newsweek, Dr Marc Garnick (from The BIDMC), said, Do not take any supplements except vitamin D. I tell all my patients to throw away essentially every supplement they swear by. It is amazing to me that incredibly intelligent individuals flock to supplements; I see it at the boathouse where I row on a regular basis. I think some folks believe that they can make up for a poor diet (with limited fruits and vegetables) by taking vitamins. But studies have generally not shown them to be helpful for disease prevention.
I do think calcium supplements and vitamin D are likely to be useful for women at risk for osteoporosis, especially if they don’t get enough from their diet. But overall, if people eat a healthy diet, they really shouldn’t need supplements.” (R219 & R268 ) “I tell my patients that no supplement is without risk and that unless there are compelling reasons to ingest these items, a good diet is probably sufficient”. Presentation at LMA PCSG

2.7 Supplements may negatively affect drug treatment. Physicians caring for patients with prostate cancer undergoing watchful waiting, hormone therapy, and/or chemotherapy should consider the possible acceleration of tumor growth and/or metastasis and the development of drug resistance associated with supplement ingestion. We describe several pathways of metabolic and epigenetic interactions that could affect the observed changes in serum levels of prostate-specific antigen. (R409)
Return to Index

2.8 Dangers and Recommendations to Stop using Vitamins
Vitamins and Pills
In an effort to make up for any dietary lapses, many men choose to take a multivitamin. These multivitamins are designed to supplement a man’s nutritional needs since most people do not ingest all of the vitamins they need on a daily basis for optimal health. Of course the men that do take a multivitamin do so because they believe that it is good for them. However, a report in the May 16, 2007 Journal of the National Cancer suggest that there is a negative relationship between taking a multivitamin and prostate cancer.
As of right now, a current theory that has evolved from the study is that multivitamins actually had little do with causing a prostate tumor to grow, however, once a tumor did appear the heavy multivitamin usage only served to increase the speed at which the tumor grew, thereby causing a man to develop advanced stage cancer. Another interesting point to note is that this is not the first study to indicate a link between vitamin usage and prostate cancer. (R 93A)
Scientists found no link between localized prostate cancer and the ingestion of multivitamins, but did find that those who took a multivitamin more than seven times a week were more inclined to develop advanced prostate cancer.
The theory is the multivitamin did not cause the PC, but heavy use of the pills increased the speed of progression thereby becoming an advanced PC
The March 2008, Harvard Men’s Health Watch recommends men not take a multivitamin because of recent studies linking multivitamins to PC and colon polyps. (A 338)

Harvard Men’s Health Watch has endorsed multivitamins supplements, reasoning that even if they don’t help, they won’t hurt. However, the March 2008 issue of the newsletter states that a reappraisal of that advice is in order. Harvard Men’s Health Watch notes that some recent studies have linked multivitamin use to prostate cancer. In light of this research, they suggests that the average man give up the multivitamin, at least until scientists solve the puzzle of folic acid and cancer. Ref R421 PR Newswire, February 27, 2008

2.10 Supplements and Vitamins continued
Vitamins C and E.
In a large, long-term trial, called the Physicians’ Health Study II, researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School studied whether taking vitamin E or vitamin C could reduce the risk of prostate cancer. Nearly 15,000 male doctors participated in the trial. After an average of 8 years, neither vitamin E nor vitamin C seemed to lower the risk of prostate cancer. However, taking the supplements also did not appear to cause any harm. (R222)
In 2001, researchers from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) launched the massive SELECT study (short for Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial) to find out whether taking selenium and vitamin E supplements could protect men from prostate cancer. In October 2008, researchers halted the trial after early analysis showed the supplements weren’t working, and in fact, in some cases, may have been doing more harm than good.
The SELECT Study revealed that men who were taking only vitamin E actually had a slightly higher risk of developing prostate cancer. And men taking only selenium seemed to have a slightly higher risk of developing diabetes. This increased risk was not statistically significant in either case. That means the findings could be due to chance; they don’t prove the supplements raise prostate cancer and diabetes risk. Still, researchers called the findings “concerning.” The results of both studies were published in the January 7, 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. (R222).

2.11 Vitamin D.
Research performed by investigators from the National Cancer Institute, the University of Washington, and the University of Alabama, (R 219) was part of a larger study known as the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Study. Unfortunately, the results of this study were somewhat disappointing in view of previously published studies showing that high levels of Vitamin D in the blood appeared to be associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer. In this study, higher levels of Vitamin D in the blood did not appear to have any protective effect, whatsoever, against developing prostate cancer. In fact, on the contrary, among those patients diagnosed with prostate cancer during this clinical research trial, higher levels of Vitamin D in the blood appeared to be mildly associated with more aggressive cancers. findings of this study suggests that very high levels of Vitamin D in the blood of patients already diagnosed with prostate cancer might be associated with more aggressive tumors, the correlation between blood levels of Vitamin D and tumor aggressiveness was not uniform. “In our study, we didn’t see any protective effect of vitamin D in relation to prostate cancer risk,” Jiyoung Ahn of the U.S. National Cancer Institute, one of the researchers, said in a telephone interview. (R219A).

2.12 Calcium, Vitamin D Supplements May Pose Risks for Men With Prostate Cancer.
Although they’re standard treatment for men with prostate cancer who are taking hormonal therapy,(ADT), calcium and vitamin D supplements may do more harm than good, according to a study. at Wake Forest Baptist.
The men who undergo ADT are at risk for osteoporosis, but the supplements do not prevent this bone loss, and the researchers pointed out that increased dietary calcium is associated with a greater risk for aggressive prostate cancer and heart disease.
The study’s lead author, Gary Schwartz, a prostate cancer epidemiologist said “The problem is that there is evidence that calcium supplements negatively impacted , the very disease that we are trying to treat.”
In the study, the researchers reviewed results of 12 clinical trials involving almost 2,400 men with prostate cancer. Even with recommended daily doses of calcium and vitamin D men lost bone density.
“The wake-up call of these findings,” concluded study co-author, Mridul Datta Datta, “is that the presumption of benefit from calcium and vitamin D supplements that have been routinely recommended to these men must be rigorously evaluated.” (R600)
Return to Index

2.13 Vitamin E:
Vitamin supplements and cancer: arguing over bad news by Dr. Lorne Brandes 13 Dec 2008. I have discouraging news for the millions of people who daily consume vitamins and supplements in the belief (often fervent) that they can ward off a variety of ills such as heart disease, dementia and cancer.. The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention (SELECT) trial, launched five years ago and involving 35,000 men, was officially closed in late September 2008 when an analysis failed to show any benefit. (R219)

2.14 Vitamin E may increase risk of Prostate Cancer
Vitamine E – Men’s Health Advisor,Jan 2012. Dr Eric A Klein. Vit E has potential to increase risk of Prostate Cancer.
Vitamin E- Men who take have more PC- SELECT Trial Reported in JAMA (Journal of Amer Med. Assoc) See Coping magazine page 9, Nov /Dev 2011

2.15 One –A-Day Vitamin
A major pharmaceutical firm settles One-A-Day Claims Case.
A major European pharmaceutical firm on Tuesday settled complaints by three states that it had deceptively used the fear of prostate cancer to sell One A Day vitamins without proof the pills could prevent prostate cancer.
The settlement, announced by the states and the advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest, which had also sued, requires Bayer to support all such claims with “competent and reliable scientific evidence.” (R284) Further, the complaint said, Bayer knew or should have known that high doses of the products’ ingredients, particularly zinc and selenium, may actually have increased users’ risk of developing the disease. ( R339)

2.16 Zinc and prostate Cancer
ZINC: Researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, WA, questioned men about the frequency and duration of dietary-supplement use, specifically regarding four types of multivitamins (with and without minerals) and six individual nutritional supplements: vitamins A, C and E, and calcium, iron and zinc.
Men who took daily doses of vitamins C or vitamin E had a 23 percent lower risk of prostate cancer, while those who took zinc daily decreased their risk by 45 percent.
The results for the zinc supplements, which were unexpected, are consistent with earlier clinical studies that find much lower concentrations of zinc in cancerous prostate tissue compared to healthy prostate tissue. Zinc may play some role in regulating healthy prostate growth. (R221)
Return to Index


3.1 Nutritional Intervention
Dr. Wascher is an oncologic surgeon, professor of surgery, and the Director of the Division of Surgical Oncology at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center. Dr Wascher said, “There is precious little data on the effects of nutritional and other lifestyle interventions, if any, on actual prostate cancer tumors growing in living human beings. As I have often mentioned before, there have been hundreds of previous research studies that have observed positive responses to experimental treatments in laboratory cell cultures and in mice and rats, but these have subsequently failed to show any beneficial impact when applied to human subjects”. (Ref 49)
Stan’s Comments: One should note that much research is done on animals like mice for very good reasons. The fact that a drug may have a certain effect on these animals, is far from assuring that humans will respond in a likewise manner. For example, it is possible that what works on a mouse, may require a human to ingest, gallons of liquid, or dozens of pills daily, to obtain similar results.
The above dismal record of recommending food, pills, and supplements has not, and will, not stop people from peddling these items. Let the buyer beware, it’s more than your money that you may lose.
If you believe that you can start a diet to affect your PC after you have been diagnosed with it, I think you are fooling yourself. You are about 40 years too late. If you do not have PC, you could start an oriental diet, as it may help, and it is probably good for your heart, so why not do it? A wonderful thing you can do if you are concerned about your heirs, is to start your children, and grand children, on a heart healthy oriental diet.
The fact that vitamins and pills are not beneficial for PC, should not stop you from using them for other conditions, for general health, and if your doctor has prescribed them for you.
Return to Index

4.0 References, Pills, Supplements, Vitamins, and Anti-Oxidants
R93A-Journal of the National Cancer InstituteMay 16, 2007
R219-Reported study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2008
Westlaw Journal Pharmaceutical. This research study was part of a larger study known as the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Study.
R221- December 2008 issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.
R222-The results of both studies were published in the January 7, 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
R284-New York Times October 27, 2010
R339- Westlaw Journal Pharmaceutical
R409- Credits/Source: Journal of Medical Case Reports 2011, 5:413 Published on: 2011-08-25 in Google Report.
R421 PR Newswire, February 27, 2008 Harvard Men’s Health Watch March 2008
R600- July issue of The Oncologist, 2012
Return to Index

Red Meat
This portion considers whether red meat is a possible factor for developing prostate cancer, and / or causing a more aggressive prostate cancer.

1.0 Discussion

1.1 Red Meat link to Prostate Cancer
No red or processed meat link to prostate cancer.
Dietary intake of red meat or processed meat has no positive association with the occurrence of prostate cancer, according to a meta-analysis of 26 studies.
The review, published in Nutrition Journal, looked at data from 15 large scale prospective studies on red meat and 11 studies investigating processed meats and cancer risk – finding that consumption of red or processed meats overall have no association with prostate cancer. Nov. 8, 2010. (Ref R292)

1.2 Red Meat link to Aggressive Prostate Cancer
Eating meat increases aggressive prostate cancer risk.
Eating too much well done grilled or barbecued red meat may increase risk of aggressive prostate cancer, according to a study in PLoS One.
A study led by S. Punnen of University of California San Francisco in California, and colleagues showed higher intake of any ground beef or processed meats were positively associated with aggressive prostate cancer and eating high amounts of ground beef was associated with 130 percent increased risk for aggressive prostate cancer.
The authors found the source potentially responsible for the increase in the aggressive prostate cancer was grilled or barbecued meat and more well-done meat.
Individuals who had highest intake of well done or very well cooked ground beef were 104 percent or 51 percent more likely than those who did not eat ground beef to develop aggressive prostate cancer respectively, the authors found.
In contrast, consumption of rare/medium cooked ground beef was not correlated with aggressive prostate cancer, suggesting that meat preparation methods may be responsible for the increased risk for aggressive prostate cancer. (R607, R480, and R478)
Return to Index


2.1 Confusion Exists
Red Meat
How can the truth about the relationship between eating red meat and PC be known when there are different conclusions from the many mega studies, i.e., they looked at previous studies, and summed the conclusions. It is also possible that some of these mega-studies may have looked at the same studies. To illustrate this point look at references R292 which look at 15 large scale prospective studies on red meat, and 11 studies on processed meats, to conclude “there is no association with PC”. However, reference R120 which compiled 12 prior studies, of 8,400 men, determined a diet in meat, (and dairy products), MAY increase the PC risk by 40%.
Although the study may be reported in a reputable journal, it is the people doing and summarizing the study that is important. THE ANSWER HAS TO DO WITH HUMAN NATURE, i.e., the ETHICS of these people. What data is included? What data is excluded? Who is paying for the study? Where was the study done, and by whom, and who may benefit from the study results?
Some studies have a qualifier, stating a cattlemen’s association paid for the study, but rapidly added, “did not influence the study conclusion.”
For example, Dr. Song-Yi Park, from the Cancer Epidemiology Program, Cancer Research Center of Hawaii at the Honolulu-based University of Incidentally, published a study in the September 15, 2007 issue of the International Journal of Cancer that looked at the issue of prostate cancer and how meat consumption is not necessarily a contributor to it. Using data from a Multiethnic Cohort Study to see if the specific kind of fat made a difference in the prostate cancer risk, the researchers said the type of fat and meat consumed showed NO ASSOCIATION WITH OVERALL PROSTATE CANCER RISK or tumor development. (Ref R34).

2.2 In summation, we do not know who will develop PC and it is far from clear who will have an aggressive PC, and why things are as they are.
It appears that red meat consumption has some affect, so it is your decision what to eat, and in what quantities, and what to avoid.
There are strong correlations between heart disease and a fatty diet, so perhaps you should eat accordingly, and hope for the best, as far as PC is concerned.

3.0 References, Red Meat
R34- September 15, 2007 issue of the International Journal of Cancer.
R60-November 2008 Issue of Renal And Urology News and Canadian Urological Association Journal (2008;2:510-515)
R120- Sources include:;; Published 2/6/2009
R292- Published in Nutrition Journal, Nov.8, 2010
R607 Aug 17, 2012 ( Same as R478 and R480
R478-Nov 23, 2011 Healthcom
R480- Paper published on 23 November, 2011, in the online journal PLoS ONE.
Return to Index

Tomatoes and Lycopene
This portion considers whether tomatoes and or lycopene may be a possible factor for developing prostate cancer, and / or causing a more aggressive prostate cancer

1.0 Discussion

1.1 Lycopene’s positive Effect on Prostate Cancer
Positive results for lycopene
Investigators at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute at Wayne State University looked at the effects of both lycopene and soy isoflavones on patients with rising prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels—a sign that the cancer has progressed.* Patients in the study either took 15 milligrams of lycopene supplements twice a day, or a combination of 15 milligrams of lycopene and 40 milligrams of soy isoflavone twice daily.
Nearly all of the men who took lycopene supplements—35 out of 37 men—saw their PSA levels stabilize, indicating that the disease had slowed. (Ref 116B-1)

1.2 Lycopene’s negative or no Effect on Prostate Cancer
Dietary Lycopene does not reduce Prostate Cancer Risk.
A study by researchers with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center of Seattle, Washington investigated the association between (lycopene, -carotene, ß-carotene) and risk of prostate cancer. “The results suggest that lycopene or tomato-based regimens will not be effective for prostate cancer prevention.” (R116B).

1.3 Tomatoes fail as prostate cancer preventive.
A study suggests that eating lycopene-rich tomatoes offers no protection against prostate cancer, contrary to the findings of some past studies. In a written statement, Dr. Ulrike Peters of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle said.
It’s thought that antioxidants may help shield against cancer and heart disease by neutralizing harmful molecules known as oxygen free radicals. But studies to date on the role of lycopene in prostate cancer have been mixed; some suggest a protective effect, while others yield contradictory or inconclusive results. The study involved 28,243 men.
The study was published in the Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, May 2007. (Ref R116A).

1.4 Lycopene fails FDA’s scrutiny.
The Food and Drug Administration has said Lycopene’s health-boosting powers can’t be proved.
In a review published in the July 18, 2007 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, researchers at the FDA explain the agency’s 2005 decision not to allow beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt health claims for tomatoes.
The FDA looked at 64 studies of tomatoes and cancer, and 81 studies of lycopene and cancer, and found the majority didn’t make a convincing argument either way. None of the 81 lycopene studies were judged by the FDA to support the cancer prevention claims.
Tomato intake can’t be used to infer lycopene intake, because the amount in every tomato varies widely, depending on how the food has been stored, prepared and consumed. For starters, different strains of a vegetable or fruit produce different amounts of antioxidants. Lycopene, for example, is not present in green or yellow tomatoes. And if a tomato is cooked and mashed, lycopene is absorbed by the body more readily than if it’s eaten raw and whole. Absorption also improves when the chemical is consumed with fats.
How the tomatoes are grown may also matter. A study published June 23 in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry found that tomatoes grown using organic farming techniques produce more flavonoids, which have similar antioxidant properties to lycopene.
FDA concludes that there is little scientific evidence supporting a claim “that eating one-half to one cup of tomatoes and/or tomato sauce a week may reduce the risk of prostate cancer.”
The Los Angeles Times article also reported, that “Organic tomatoes have more lycopene than conventionally farmed tomatoes” and also “Lycopene may not be as healthful as we thought.” (Ref: R116C)
Return to Index

2.0 References, Tomatoes and Lycopene
R116 HealthDay Reporter Thursday, May 29, 2008
Ref 116B-May 1, 2007 issue of the journal, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research
R116B Document Title: The title of the journal article is” “Serum Lycopene, Other Carotenoids, and Prostate Cancer Risk: a Nested Case-Control Study in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial”
R116C- July 18, 2007 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute,
R250 University of Naples study reported Sept 12, 2010
Return to Index
Rev A April 25, 2013