Fifty Plus (50+) - Prostate cancer tip

Way, way off the usual subjects I know, but if you think you are, or have been told you are, a possible candidate for prostate cancer, you might want to read on. Two years ago my family doctor discovered what he suspected was a tumor on my prostate gland. Two visits and a biopsy later, a urologist confirmed that there was a malignancy about the size of a dime. Because I was 75, I was given the following choices: radiology, chemotherapy, or a relatively new treatment called cryosurgery. Radical prostatectomy was not an option because, as I was reminded, I'm older than dirt. Dr. Kwatra, the urologist, gently nudged me toward the cryogenic (freezing) procedure because of the excellent results he'd had in previous cases. And, man, am I glad he did! An overnight stay in the hospital and a week with a catheter, and it was over, gone forever. I was back on my bike in less than three weeks--still a little tender in the crotch, yes, but riding. Guess my point is, if you're avoiding being tested for prostate cancer because of all the scary things you've heard, or you are in denial for some other dumb reason, you are doing yourself a REALLY big disservice.

Guess my point is, if you're avoiding being tested for prostate cancer because of all the scary things you've heard, or you are in denial for some other dumb reason, you are doing yourself a REALLY big disservice.

Went to the Doctor due to some minor problems and he said "You are of that certain age so bend over". Bit of a shock but in hindsight not that bad. Radical Prostactomy 7 months later and just in time- due to pathology report on the Prostate.


So even if you do not think you have a problem- and you are over 50- At least get a PSA check done. My first PSA test was 16 and they get concerned if it is over 10 over here.

And on the riding- It did cause a lot of new saddles. Didn't get on the bike for 6 weeeks and I got of it very quick. That hurt and although new saddles did work- It took several years till it settled down

I had a high PSA, so had the biopsy (not fun!), but no cancer (or other bad things) were found, so I was back on the bike pretty much immediately.

The whole cancer screening process is overall not fun, but on the other hand, it beats the deathly alternatives.

Rick / OCRR

Um, thanks guys, I guess. I've been putting off making the appointment for a few months now, but made the call today:thumb:

Everyone in this group should get a PSA regularly. PSA was climbing and they did bioposy every year for 4 years finally found it when the PSA hit 11. Had the seeds two years ago, back to work a week later (could a went the next day I swear) PSA 2 years later 0.2 and droping. The Biopsy's were twice as bad as the seeds!!!

Like Stapfam, I had a radical in 2003. My family doctor felt the abnormal prostate through a digital exam. I had just had a urologist appointment and PSA 6 months earlier and every thing was fine but a repeat PSA showed that it had doubled. OF course, a sonogram and biopsy showed advanced cancer including one area of the highest magnitude. Radical surgery was the only option and was performed immediately. I was just short of 52 years old.

Moral of the story: get those freaking tests done and don't wait!

When my father in law, God rest his soul, was diagnosed last year the dr's atitudes were along the line of any one over 70 is going to get prostrate cancer, no if ands or maybes.

My family dr has been shoving (pun intended) the exam on me since my mid 40's for no good reason I might add, every year its the same story, exam conducted and the relatively small size of my prostrate commented on, but no matter I am still getting the exam...the alternative doesn't really make sense...

One of the points made over here is that most men die with Prostate cancer and not because of it. That is not an excuse to be one of the minority though. Get tested.

Completely off off topic

Location: 6 miles inland from the coast of Sussex, in the South East of England

So how close does that make you to Gatwick? I've flown in and out of Gatwick a few times, and we took our scouts camping near East Grinstead at the Blackland Farms guide camp back in '98 Of course we didn't get to explore as we would have liked but its beautiful country from the little bits I've seen.

Completely off off topic

Location: 6 miles inland from the coast of Sussex, in the South East of England

So how close does that make you to Gatwick? I've flown in and out of Gatwick a few times, and we took our scouts camping near East Grinstead at the Blackland Farms guide camp back in '98 Of course we didn't get to explore as we would have liked but its beautiful country from the little bits I've seen.

Only about 30 miles. And the Country side is flat around Gatwick- Get 15 miles away and the slopes start and only 25 miles away are the Downs. 100 miles of rolling hills that are a joy after you have done with them.

One of the points made over here is that most men die with Prostate cancer and not because of it. That is not an excuse to be one of the minority though. Get tested.

I agree wholeheartedly.

People have made comments to me and I'm sure to you that would seem to indicate that prostate cancer is no big deal and that all men get it eventually. You and I both know that that is total BS and that "young" men die from it every day and also that not all prostate cancers are alike. Some grow faster than others and some cause more devastation and some metastasize before they are caught.

People who downplay the seriousness of prostate cancer or claim that something else will kill you first have their head up their wazoo or at least in the sand. My cancer was serious enough that I was only allowed enough time before surgery (about 4 weeks) to give two units of blood for myself and/or get second opinions.

I assure every one here that Stapfam and I will beat this dead horse forever until every one gets checked so every man here better get with it! :)

I'm 49 1/2, and just had my first PSA run about a week ago. Haven't got the results back yet.

I have a PSA and digital exam every year, it's part of the yearly physical. So far...so good, no prostate problems.

Only about 30 miles. And the Country side is flat around Gatwick- Get 15 miles away and the slopes start and only 25 miles away are the Downs. 100 miles of rolling hills that are a joy after you have done with them.
Very cool! I live in the flatlands, though we do have the occasional rolling hill but nothing like what a lot of folks get to ride on. This part of Indiana was all swamp when the French first explored it and till the 1930's much of it was still swamp, then farmers filled most of it in. We don't have anything worth calling a hill. It would most likely do me in to ride the kind of terrain you do.

Hey stapfam! Your first pic, top left...is that a UFO??? :twitchy:

My PSA is above the "acceptable" level at 7.4. My doc has been monitoring it for about 5 years now. I've had three sets of biopsys performed. Each time the results were negative (whew!). After the third set, the doc said, "That's it, you've got a high PSA and that's all". We'll continue to watch it, but he said if it stays at this level, he's not going to be concerned.
Having lived through all the tests and thinking the last test was going to be positive, I can identify with those that are experiencing concern about this problem that many men have. The advice to obtain a PSA test and see a physician is the way to go.

My Dad had prostate cancer and had the radical surgery in his early 70's. He never completely recovered as it seemed to accelerate his Alzheimer's and Parkinson's after the surgery. He is one case that would have probably been better not having the radical surgery-but you just never know.

With the family history I get mine checked annually. So far so good.........but will not be surprised if it surfaces one day. I'm just not sure what option I'll choose after seeing my Dad's experience. My uncle did the seeds and he's fared a lot better.

I hope that some day they will come up with an effective and practical way to screen people for all of the many types of cancer, not just the most common. So many people discover their cancers by chance or only after it has progressed to the point it is much more difficult, if even possible, to treat effectively and without causing great discomfort and permanent damage to surrounding tissues and organs.

My throat cancer is a relatively rare form, especially for someone my age who does not smoke and drink heavily, but it accounts for 100% of the cancers I have contracted.

We've come a long way in detecting and treating cancer, but we have a long way to go still.

Hey stapfam! Your first pic, top left...is that a UFO??? :twitchy:

Only a hawk of some kind. Shows better in the Original and is probably a Harrier Hawk. Don't have many different birds of prey round here- But I went to the New Forest and saw their Buzzards. About the size of a Vulture and I did not like the way they kept circling round me.

To the point made here in several of the posts, article this month in Wired magazine about why the focus of the "War on Cancer" the US has been fighting for 20+years may have been directed on the wrong goal - treatment vs. early detection!

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/17-01/ff_cancer

I just had my yearly blood tests and check-up. PSA is low, but my prostate is somewhat enlarged - about normal for my age according to the doc. So what I want to know and what the doc doesn't/can't tell me, is what should I be doing to prevent it from enlarging further? Is it just genetics?

HI,
Most DR's forget that a PSA should never be done after a rectal Exam it can falsly elevate that PSA ... LAb rat I ve run a few..of those PSA's..
Another DR friend of mine was grossing on someones shredded prostrate and I asked him why do men have so much problems with the prostrate, and he said Its the nature of the beast, if you live long enough you will have prostrate cancer, its a conjested little gland that dosen't get enough exercise (more sex please hint, hint.. hehe) and seems to become easily infected with bacteria, and other nasties like human papaloma virus this may play a role too..
So I get mine done yearly so far so good and ,,PS I would opt for the Cryo procedure at any age.
Surgery can Play hell with a lot of nerves that area in the area of the prostrate it dont matter if the equipment works if you can't feel anything....:innocent:.
Doug

While you are getting the digital prostate exam don't forget the other big cancer that is almost always curable if caught in time: Colon Cancer.

Get the annual slide test and the periodic colon exam. Sure it is a bit uncomfortable to prepare for. But, the exam itself is done under sedation so there is no discomfort there.

Prostate and Colon Cancer exams save lives; let one of them be yours.

Had prostate cancer 3 years ago at age 72.
Checked out my options for treatment on the internet and settled on radioactive seed implants.
Good choice for me; it has cut down on sexual activity by about 50% but things are still functioning quite well!
Spouse had breast cancer 6 years ago . . . we joke that between us we have cancer covered from 'top to bottom.' Hey, got to keep your sense of humor.
Yes we still tandem about 100 miles a week.
Yup get yourself checked!

I just had my yearly blood tests and check-up. PSA is low, but my prostate is somewhat enlarged - about normal for my age according to the doc. So what I want to know and what the doc doesn't/can't tell me, is what should I be doing to prevent it from enlarging further? Is it just genetics?


As someone noted, prostates can get irritated quite easily. I had a PSA a few years ago after the exam found some "bumps" and some enlargement. The PSA was just over the normal range. The specialist did a biopsy which was negative, and suggested "saw palmetto" which is a plant extract. He sid it will not shrink a prostate as quickly as prescription meds, but for many people it works great.

A follow up after six months use found no bumps, no enlargement, PSA normal range. I am not one to take a bunch or "natural" remedies or supplements, but my experience with this one has been encouraging, and I continue to take saw palmetto. My PSA since then has remained well within "normal" range, no enlargement or bumps.

I did not get my initial PSA for years, as you know there is still much discussion about how useful it is. I am glad I did have the PSA. The first PSA may or may not be valuable, but if you have them routinely, it establishes your personal "baseline" which is very useful.

About 3 days ago, I had a chat with my doctor about being checked for prostate cancer. He surprised me by telling me that he could do it, but there was about a 98% to 99% chance that it wouldn't make any difference. That the risks from the treatment tend to be much greater than the cancer. Then I just found this article in the New York Times about studies that basically say that nearly all prostate cancers are extremely slow growing and those almost never kill you. That all of the side effects of the treatment are essentially endured for nothing. The fast growing ones usually don't respond to treatment.

Prostate Cancer Test Found to Save Few Lives
By GINA KOLATA

The PSA blood test, used to screen for prostate cancer, saves few lives and leads to risky and unnecessary treatments for large numbers of men, two large studies have found.

The findings, the first based on rigorous, randomized studies, confirm some longstanding concerns about the wisdom of widespread prostate cancer screening. Although the studies are continuing, results so far are considered significant and the most definitive to date.

The PSA test, which measures a protein released by prostate cells, does what it is supposed to do — indicates a cancer might be present, leading to biopsies to determine if there is a tumor. But it has been difficult to know whether finding prostate cancer early saves lives. Most of the cancers tend to grow very slowly and are never a threat and, with the faster-growing ones, even early diagnosis might be too late.

The studies — one in Europe and the other in the United States — are “some of the most important studies in the history of men’s health,” said Dr. Otis Brawley, the chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society.

In the European study, 48 men were told they had prostate cancer and needlessly treated for it for every man whose death was prevented within a decade after having had a PSA test.

Dr. Peter B. Bach, a physician and epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, says one way to think of the data is to suppose he has a PSA test today. It leads to a biopsy that reveals he has prostate cancer, and he is treated for it. There is a one in 50 chance that, in 2019 or later, he will be spared death from a cancer that would otherwise have killed him. And there is a 49 in 50 chance that he will have been treated unnecessarily for a cancer that was never a threat to his life.

Prostate cancer treatment can result in impotence and incontinence when surgery is used to destroy the prostate, and, at times, painful defecation or chronic diarrhea when the treatment is radiation.

As soon as the PSA test was introduced in 1987, it became a routine part of preventive health care for many men age 40 and older. Experts debated its value, but their views were largely based on less compelling data that often involved statistical modeling and inferences. Now, with the new data, cancer experts said men should carefully consider the possible risks and benefits of treatment before deciding to be screened. Some may decide not to be screened at all.

For years, the cancer society has urged men to be informed before deciding to have a PSA test. “Now we actually have something to inform them with,” Dr. Brawley said. “We’ve got numbers.”

The publication of data from the two new studies should change the discussion, said Dr. David F. Ransohoff, an internist and cancer epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina. “This is not relying on modeling anymore,” he said. “This is not some abstract, pointy-headed exercise. This is the real world, and this is real data.”

Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine at Dartmouth who studies cancer screening, also welcomed the new data. “We’ve been waiting years for this,” he said. “It’s a shame we didn’t have it 20 years ago.”

Both reports were published online Wednesday by The New England Journal of Medicine. One involved 182,000 men in seven European countries; the other, by the National Cancer Institute, involved nearly 77,000 men at 10 medical centers in the United States.

In both, participants were randomly assigned to be screened — or not — with the PSA test, whose initials stand for prostate-specific antigen. In each study, the two groups were followed for more than a decade while researchers counted deaths from prostate cancer, asking whether screening made a difference.

The European data involved a consortium of studies with different designs. Taken together, the studies found that screening was associated with a 20 percent relative reduction in the prostate cancer death rate. But the number of lives saved was small — seven fewer prostate cancer deaths for every 10,000 men screened and followed for nine years.

The American study, led by Dr. Gerald L. Andriole of Washington University, had a single design. It found no reduction in deaths from prostate cancer after most of the men had been followed for 10 years. Every man has been followed for at least seven years, said Dr. Barnett Kramer, a study co-author at the National Institutes of Health. By seven years, the death rate was 13 percent lower for the unscreened group.

The European study saw no benefit of screening in the first seven years of follow-up.

Screening is not only an issue in prostate cancer. If the European study is correct, mammography has about the same benefit as the PSA test, said Dr. Michael B. Barry, a prostate cancer researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital who wrote an editorial accompanying the papers. But prostate cancers often are less dangerous than breast cancers, so screening and subsequent therapy can result in more harm. With mammography, about 10 women receive a diagnosis and needless treatment for breast cancer to prevent one death. With both cancers, researchers say they badly need a way to distinguish tumors that would be deadly without treatment from those that would not.

When the American and European studies began, in the early 1990s, PSA testing was well under way in the United States, and many expected that the screening test would make the prostate cancer death rate plummet by 50 percent or more. Dr. Brawley was at the cancer institute then, though not directly involved with its prostate cancer screening study. But he saw the reactions.

Some urologists said the study was unethical, because some people would not be screened, and demanded it be shut down, he said. One group of black urologists encouraged black men not to participate because blacks have a greater risk of prostate cancer and it seemed obvious they should be screened.

Some thought that they would see fewer cancer deaths among screened men as quickly as five years. But it became clear that screening would not have a large, immediate effect — if it did, the studies would have been stopped and victory declared. Cancer researchers began turning to less rigorous sources of data, with some arguing that screening was preventing cancer deaths and others arguing it was not.

In the United States, many men and their doctors have made up their minds — most men over age 50 have already been screened, and each year more than 180,000 receive a diagnosis of prostate cancer. In Europe, said Dr. Fritz H. Schröder of Erasmus University, the lead author of the European study, most men are not screened. “The mentality of Europeans is different,” he said, and screening is not so highly promoted.

Both studies will continue to follow the men. It remains possible that the United States study will eventually find that screening can reduce the prostate cancer death rate, researchers say, or that both studies will conclude that there is no real reduction.

“I certainly think there’s information here that’s food for thought,” Dr. Brawley said.

The benefits of prostate cancer screening, he said, are “modest at best and with a greater downside than any other cancer we screen for.”

Get tested regularly. My annual test last summer led to a biopsy and 44 radiation treatments. I was off the bike for 3 months and now back up to 80-100 mi/wk. Even the radiation can make the prostate very sensitive to sitting on the saddle for hours. Not sure that I am going to be doing any more cross country rides very soon.
The study just posted is interesting. Much like all of the information available when trying to figure out what treatment is best for you. Lots of information available and most of it is contradictory. If anyone has THE answer please come on line and give it up.

"saves few lives"

"Most of the cancers tend to grow very slowly and are never a threat"

For some reason, I always assume that the above statements mean

Screening DOES save some lives, and SOME of the cancers grow fast, and then I always think I am in the group with the fast growing cancers whose life might be saved!!

Remember that the PSA test is only one data point to consider in combination with other tests and exams. My doc has warned about putting too much faith in them when they are either high or low. Just because you have a high reading it does not mean you need radical treatments for cancer. Now many articles say the same thing. That is not to say you shouldn't have the PSA test, you should, but realize it is not the end all and be all, just one element of your diagnosis and treatment.

For some reason, I always assume that the above statements mean

Screening DOES save some lives, and SOME of the cancers grow fast, and then I always think I am in the group with the fast growing cancers whose life might be saved!!

Correct. Not all prostate cancers are slow growing or trivial and people do die from prostate cancer.

I never dreamed that I would be recuperating from surgery on my 52nd birthday for an aggressive prostate cancer or recuperating from the effects of radiation and drugs on my 58th birthday for a recurrence of the same cancer.

The important point is one made by B-Dawg earlier in this thread. The studies, which I think are important, apply to groups, not to individuals. A treatment does not work for 70% or 30% or 10% of an individual - it works or it doesn't. The choice you make in treating or not treating must be made by an individual, not by a group. I am in the 30% five-year survival category with my colon cancer, but it's looking like 100% of me is going to make it. Screening and treatments are very individualized things.

Correct. Not all prostate cancers are slow growing or trivial and people do die from prostate cancer.

I never dreamed that I would be recuperating from surgery on my 52nd birthday for an aggressive prostate cancer or recuperating from the effects of radiation and drugs on my 58th birthday for a recurrence of the same cancer.

How are you doing?

"saves few lives"

"Most of the cancers tend to grow very slowly and are never a threat"

For some reason, I always assume that the above statements mean

Screening DOES save some lives, and SOME of the cancers grow fast, and then I always think I am in the group with the fast growing cancers whose life might be saved!!

I'm not strong on medical issues, so I'm going to pretend to me. However I try to careful in my remarks and consider the validity of the sources of my information. While I'm not a doctor, I am a pretty good researcher & analyst.

From what I've gathered so far, from multiple sources, is that nearly all of the prostate cancers that grow slowly are not a threat. And that most of the cancers that grow quickly, are unlikely (but not impossible) to be cured, even with treatment. The data is not robust enough to state this with great confidence, but it leans strongly in this direction.

If true, then while it is true that screening does save some lives, the numbers of lives saved by screening may be surprisingly low. To the point that many doctors in many countries are coming to the conclusion that screening isn't necessary.

It could present an interesting scenario for some of us. Let's say we have a positive test result. You are told that there is a 2% chance that you will die from this cancer at some point over the next 30 years. Do you opt for the treatment given the side effect risk? Or do you think, "Hey, I'm 55 and there has to be a 2% chance of me dying from a number of causes over the next 30 years. I'm willing to assume the risk."

I never dreamed that I would be recuperating from surgery on my 52nd birthday for an aggressive prostate cancer or recuperating from the effects of radiation and drugs on my 58th birthday for a recurrence of the same cancer.

I hate it when bad things with low probabilities happen to people that I know. Have experienced similar rotten luck on a couple of things myself.

If we are going to hit a low probability, why can't it be the lottery?

Wishing you a speedy recovery.

OK, to lighten things up a bit: A JOKE.

Old guy goes in for his prostate exam. Old wife comes along for the company but waits in the lobby. Dr asks old guy about urination, painful urination, volume of urination, frequency of urination, getting up at night to urinate, etc. Old guy says... "You know doc, last night I got up about 2am to go for a pee and when I got to the bathroom GOD HIMSELF turned on the light for me." Doctor says "How about that?" and finishes the exam.

Later doc talks alone to old guy's wife and says "You know your husband told me that he got up last night to urinate and claims that God turned on the bathroom light for him."

Old wife says "Dammit - he peed in the refrigerator again!"

I am a P Ca survivor. First indication that something was wrong was the HIGH PSA level of 16. After that it was down to scans and other tests to confirm that I had it- and that it was growing---Fast.

So Although the PSA test is not a true indicator that you have P Ca- it does act as an early indicator that a problem may exist and puts you on the road to getting it confirmed or not.

The only true indicator is a biopsy- and I would not like to have had one of those unless it was necessary. Luckily- that was only done after The PSA test- a Scan and a couple of other tests.

A fellow randonneur had his cancerous prostate removed in November 2007 and went on last year to ride a full brevet series (200, 300, 400, 600km) in season.

I have another friend who had surgery on his enlarged prostate last year. He was only off the bike for a month.

As a two time (oral) cancer survivor myself, I'm booked in for my biannual prostate exam, next week.

In addition to the periodic screening and steadily improving treatment options discussed above, there is evidently a fair bit each of us can do through diet, supplements, and exercise to improve our own respective odds of surviving or retarding prostate cancer. Saw palmetto has already been mentioned, and unless you have a nightshade allergy, it can't hurt to add more tomatoes to your diet. I take zinc and selenium supplements, as well. Replacing some of your animal protein sources with soy apparently helps, as well.

Back to treatment options, has anyone here gone under the "cyberknife," which is a highly focused radiation beam, for prostate cancer? Of course, the marketing hype makes it sound like the ideal treatment ...

How curable is prostate cancer?
As with all cancers, "cure" rates for prostate cancer describe the percentage of patients likely remaining disease-free for a specific time. In general, the earlier the cancer is caught, the more likely it is for the patient to remain disease-free.
Because approximately 90% of all prostate cancers are detected in the local and regional stages, the cure rate for prostate cancer is very high—nearly 100% of men diagnosed at this stage will be disease-free after five years. By contrast, in the 1970s, only 67% of men diagnosed with local or regional prostate cancer were disease-free after five years.

http://www.annieappleseedproject.org/proscangroup.html

http://prostate-help.org/

Here are a couple of the sites I used to make my decisions when my cancer appeared a few years ago. The oncologist I had was also a survior of the cancer. You have to make the choices. I recommend you don't do it on one study or article. The overwelming results of the research I did suggested that it would behove you to get tested and in most cases treated in one way or another even it it watch and wait, but at leaast be aware. The new HiFu looks promising also. I had the seeds and do not regret it there are some minor problems that continue but My PSA is down to .2 from 11 so it appears it is in control now.

How are you doing?

I'm half way through my 8 weeks of daily radiation (except weekends) and doing well except for some bowel trouble, a little nausea, fatigue and hot flashes from the anti-hormone shots. I'm still riding almost every day, albeit a little slower.

On the good side, the radiation cured a chronic fungus problem that I had on my bottom from 29 years of wearing sweaty shorts. :D

Because approximately 90% of all prostate cancers are detected in the local and regional stages, the cure rate for prostate cancer is very high—nearly 100% of men diagnosed at this stage will be disease-free after five years.

Nearly 100% is the key word here. My radical prostatectomy was May 1st, 2003 and I'm currently being treated for a recurrence of the same. My prognosis is excellent, though. :thumb:

Sadly, there's tons of money spent on detection and treatment research, but virtually none spent on PREVENTION.

For instance, some speculate that the rate of prostate cancer in India is so much lower than in the US because of our lifestyle and diet, and because in India they consume a lot of turmeric (it's the main ingredient in curry).

But there's virtually no research money available for studying prevention strategies, because nobody is going to make big money on prevention.

Check out the book "Anti-Cancer, a New Way of Life (http://www.amazon.com/Anticancer-New-Life-David-Servan-Schreiber/dp/0670020346)" for more on prevention strategies. The author is an MD who has dealt with 2 bouts of brain cancer, and has spent years looking into prevention. According to his research, the increasing rates of cancer in the US are almost all related to lifestyle and diet.

Sadly, there's tons of money spent on detection and treatment research, but virtually none spent on PREVENTION.

For instance, some speculate that the rate of prostate cancer in India is so much lower than in the US because of our lifestyle and diet, and because in India they consume a lot of turmeric (it's the main ingredient in curry).

But there's virtually no research money available for studying prevention strategies, because nobody is going to make big money on prevention.

Check out the book "Anti-Cancer, a New Way of Life (http://www.amazon.com/Anticancer-New-Life-David-Servan-Schreiber/dp/0670020346)" for more on prevention strategies. The author is an MD who has dealt with 2 bouts of brain cancer, and has spent years looking into prevention. According to his research, the increasing rates of cancer in the US are almost all related to lifestyle and diet.

Hey, SSP - you just wake up from a long winter's nap?

Haven't seen a post from you in ages, and now two in one day!

Hey, SSP - you just wake up from a long winter's nap?

Haven't seen a post from you in ages, and now two in one day!

Hey, Denver.

I've been doing more lurking than posting in the past few months because:

a) I'm working two jobs (my day job, and Shasta Software/CycliStats in the evenings).

b) I have a new girlfriend (I got back together with a neat gal I'd been going with a while back).

c) I'm training like crazy this year in hopes of doing well at the National Senior Games (http://www.nsga.com/DesktopDefault.aspx), in San Francisco, this August.

I've dedicated this year to truly living like an athlete, with all that implies. Very careful eating, weighing food, etc. Training up to 20 hours per week, following a very structured plan based on Friel. Racing as much as I can. Sleeping as much as I can for recovery. Etc., etc.

It's an interesting experiment - on the one hand, it's great as it plays into my love of the bike and somewhat obsessive personality. On the other hand, it can be a lonely ascetic lifestyle - I don't accept many offers for social engagements, and I rarely eat out. Thankfully, my girlfriend is a triathlete who completely understands that the need for training time takes precedence over most everything else.

It will be interesting to see how I feel about it all by the end of the season, because "living like an athlete" involves giving up quite a lot. And at times it can feel frivolous and/or pointless, given all the stuff going on in the world.

But for this year, I'm committed to it...and hopefully I'll be able to step onto the awards podium at Senior Nationals and bring home some bling. As one of the California athletes, I'm hoping to score some medals for the home team!

I'm half way through my 8 weeks of daily radiation (except weekends) and doing well except for some bowel trouble, a little nausea, fatigue and hot flashes from the anti-hormone shots. I'm still riding almost every day, albeit a little slower.

On the good side, the radiation cured a chronic fungus problem that I had on my bottom from 29 years of wearing sweaty shorts. :D

LOL, you have to love these toxic treatment benefits. I was mosquito proof for five months after my chemo.

Still on the bike after halfway through sounds great!

I had a PSA reading of 16. Doc sent me to the consultant who gave me an internal that showed no enlargement. Told me that his waiting list was been choked up by false PSAs. I had another PSA but this time took advice off website and abstained from tea,coffee, sex and bike riding for a week before the test as theses things were supposed to irritate the prostate. New reading 1.7. So who knows. My half brother [heavy smoker] has just had the radical. He had no symptons. It is not known in the family. The after affects of the biopsy and surgery are not pleasant, phyisically or mentally. One has to wonder whether if left alone the immune system will deal with it. In years to come will people look back and think what a barbaric way of dealing with something this surgical intervention is and whether it is a cure or better left alone? Much like blood letting in Tudor times. Problem is I just don't know and the medical fraternity seem as confused.
Jim

Sadly, there's tons of money spent on detection and treatment research, but virtually none spent on PREVENTION.

In my time spent researching cancer, the link between prostate cancer and high dairy intake (http://www.milksucks.com/prostate.asp) showed up often enough that I cut down on dairy products (rice milk is actually pretty good).

In my time spent researching cancer, the link between prostate cancer and high dairy intake (http://www.milksucks.com/prostate.asp) showed up often enough that I cut down on dairy products (rice milk is actually pretty good).

Yep. In fact, much of the American diet seems designed to promote cancer. It's one of the reasons we have such shockingly high rates of cancer in this country.

The World Cancer Research Fund estimates that at least 40 percent of cancers could be prevented with diet and physical activity alone. But we don't want to be told to "put down that burger", or "eat more veggies", or "get your butt off the couch".

An interview with Dr. David Servan-Schreiber (http://www.active.com/nutrition/Articles/The_Diet_Detective__Can_You_Really_Prevent_Cancer_.htm?act=EMC-Active&Vehicle=Nutrition&Date=3_19_09&Edition=1&Sections=Articles&Creative=The_Diet_Detective__Can_You_Really_Prevent_Cancer_&TextName=More&ArtText=Txt&Placement=1&Dy=Sat) (author of the Anticancer book I mentioned above) showed up this morning on the Active.com website. It's pretty good, and presents a quick overview of what he believes we can do to help reduce the rate of cancer.

I am sorry but Prostate Cancer- or any other form of cancer is not something you can prevent. You may assist it coming on by your lifestyle- but if you are going to get it- You are going to get it.

And as to Prostate Cancer not being a serious one-I met several sufferers when I was being diagnosed and recovering. If the Cancer stays within the Prostate- then no problem- But if it "Escapes" then the problem starts. Bone, liver and Kidneys are the main parts that become affected and in many cases it is all of them and that is when Prostate cancer becomes dangerous.

I had a Radical prostatectomy (Surgery) to overcome my problem. 5 years later and I was told how close I was to having the Cancer escape from the prostate. I was lucky in that My doctor was on the ball. Make your own luck by getting regularly tested.

I am sorry but Prostate Cancer- or any other form of cancer is not something you can prevent. You may assist it coming on by your lifestyle- but if you are going to get it- You are going to get it.

I do not think this is true. More and more evidence is leading to the conclusion that Western diets and lifestyles are directly responsible for many cancers. Genetics plays a role too, of course, but many cancers could be prevented if we were to alter the foods we eat, and how much exercise we get.

Per http://www.cancerproject.org/survival/cancer_facts/prostate.php:

"Who has a lower risk? Countries with more rice, soybean products, or green or yellow vegetables in the diet have far fewer prostate cancer deaths. It is not surprising that vegetarians have low rates of prostate cancer. Becoming a vegetarian in adulthood is helpful, but those who are raised as vegetarians have the lowest risk.

How does a Western diet cause cancer? Men who consume diets based on animal products tend to have higher levels of testosterone compared to men who eat plant-based diets. This increase may be due to overproduction of these hormones in the body. Also, fiber in the diet helps remove excess hormones with body wastes. Those who eat meats and dairy products miss out on a substantial amount of fiber, because animal products have no fiber at all. This hormonal boost can affect the prostate, and is likely the reason for increased cancer risk among those on meat-based diets."