Omega 3's linked to Prostate Cancer

Status
Not open for further replies.
^ Bogus ^ you can almost prove anything with a study.

I firmly believe the more foods that you eat in moderation that exist closest to its natural state (aka say no to processed foods) the better off you really are. Cereals, grains, fruits, some meats, nuts, honey...the more things you can eat as they exist in nature the better for you, of course in moderation it's always the key. It's not rocket science, its nature.

The human body is prone to health & weakness, as has been said there is no fountain of youth so each one of us will die and we can't escape it.

It helps to also not ignore the physical aspect of regularly exercising the prostate as good in prolonging its health.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Kestas
One doctor in Europe pointed out to me that they found smoking a cigarette every now and then will help stave off Alzheimers. Can you imagine that study broadcast in America?

Sleeper... Woody Allen wakes up 200 years in future, only to be told that everything doctors said 200 years ago was all wrong... (00:14-00:49 food, and fast forward to 3:44)

I gave up listening to studies and doctors after that tv "doctor" Oz gave death warnings about apple juice.
 
Originally Posted By: Mamala Bay
When you buy a can of sardines soak in safflower oil - soybean oil it defeats the purpose in omega3 intake. The omega6/omega3 ratio is blown.

Check labels in process food - seems like soybean, corn safflower oil is so common so you get the picture - high omega6.


Yes sir this is a key point. Not only is the imbalance between omega3 and omega6 prevalent in modern processed foods, but also an imbalance within the omega3 group itself. There are a few omega3 EFAs, including DHA (DocoHexaenoic Acid) and EPA (EicosaPentanoic Acid). Most commercial processed food preparations boasting omega3 usually have a high DHA ratio, if not only containing DHA. EPA is a little harder to come by, for some reason. Knowing industry all too well, DHA is probably obtained from the waste product of another process, perhaps soy. Anyhoo, even an imbalance of 3 and 6 has estrogenic effects.. wait what?

"Experimental evidence suggests that omega-6 (n-6) fatty acids have mammary tumor promoting effects whereas omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids inhibit tumor growth" (google for source)

Now having mentioned that, I'd like to talk about something since this is about prostate cancer. I have personal beliefs about these systems that are based on solid autodidaction and experience, so I'm not asking anyone to just trust me. One must validate and know for themself, anything that they believe. Disclaimers out, is anyone else seeing connections here. Soy was just mentioned- what a plant. It produces a good amount of phytoestrogens (whether naturally or via genetic modification, is unclear). Phytoestrgens are plant-based (phyto)estrogens; a hormone that does what hormones do best, trigger biological processes. With so much exposure to soy derived products in our dandy modern processed foods and other exogenous estrogenic compounds our male bodies are handling an unusual amount of estrogens! This is a fact. It's a horror show guys, man boobs, prostate hyperplasia; cancer, just making it really hard to pee sometimes, genetically triggering male pattern baldness, decimating sperm counts, "male" depression and just straight-up doughboy obesity. It really seems to be getting bad, in all honesty, ask around. And guys are not the type to even talk about this kind of thing. "Exogenous estrogenic compounds" are the focus here, not necessarily the soy or the phthalates on their own. Exogenous estrogens, IMO, have been also been pushing our girls earlier and earlier into puberty. Some men claim to have noticed this; I wouldn't know, I haven't looked.
whistle.gif
But while the 'perks' may be thrilling for them and their peers, exogenous estrogens wreak havoc on the female body as well. With effects ranging from mild persistent obesity to ovarian and breast cancer. I mean these are huge problems! Is no one really seeing any connections?


So, kind sir say you, from whence forth dost thine exogenous estrogenic compounds hither? Everywhere! Even in motor oil. Besides estrogen producing plants being made into a definitive food staple, we have -- everything else that was made since WW2; plastics/plasticizers, phenols, phthalates, heck even esters and polycyclic aromatics!! Is that ubiquitous enough for ya? Shampoos, conditioners, glad wrap, flip flops from China, gaskets, italian salad dressing, kfc, polyester, acrylate tooth filling material, diaper plastic, garbage bags, the liners of tin cans, new cars, lotion, progesterones in industrial milk, Tylenol (and other pill) enteric coatings. It goes on. Hormones are nothing to mess with; they need to occur at the right time, and in the right amount for one to develop and remain healthy. While there is some protective level of tolerance to abmornalities, the recent persistence of exposure to these chemicals is truly breaking people's health. And that's just exogenous estrogens!!


It's too bad the issue gets no talk. There is no convenient one-word term for what I'm just calling "exogenous estrogenic compounds", which I find strange, but then not considering how it implicates the extremely powerful and influential corporate entities we love and depend upon.

WWII (and the chemistry and technology borne from it) has truly impacted all life on Earth
 
Its probably not the fish oil that is the primary cause of the cancer rather it is the dietary affects of fatty foods the fish oil is trying to mitigate.
 
Research seems to indicate that a great deal of your susceptibility to cancer is genetic as well as related to your exposure to certain things.

Too many here assume that one thing cures us all or kills us all. That is simply not true, as there is tremendous genetic diversity in our species.
 
I'm pretty sure on this one:

Living is the #1 cause of death.

Use this info as you see fit.
Oh and be sure to buy my diet book, it is guaranteed to work if you follow the entire book, which is only a sentence long: "burn more calories than you consume".
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Research seems to indicate that a great deal of your susceptibility to cancer is genetic as well as related to your exposure to certain things.............. as there is tremendous genetic diversity in our species.


What is usually "genetic" is the diet and the thought patterns (for coping with stress) etc which is learnt and passed on from the previous generation.
 
Last edited:
The underlying issue with studies like this and many others is that the vast majority of individuals will just review the abstract and conclusion portions of the study, without looking at the hard data contained within it. This skewed data occurs in medical literature more often than you think, as there will always be a funding source and many times that source is questionable. Additionally, by reviewing the hard data in these studies and how it was collected may actually not support the conclusions the researchers reported.

This case is no different and one should always throw caution to the wind even within scientific circles because many times the study was simply not performed very well and not even have an honest attempt at finding the truth.

A review of this particular studies findings are dissected and proven false here --> http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/how-selected-bad-study-became-big-news
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top