The big fat reason why so much prostate cancer research is flawed

Men have long been ill-served when it comes to prostate cancer prevention and treatment.

Billions of dollars have been spent studying the causes of breast cancer (largely barking up the wrong trees and ignoring the real factors). But research on prostate cancer has been a pittance, almost like an afterthought.

The PSA cancer screening test — which is still relentlessly pushed onto men — has been totally discredited, yet is still in widespread use.

As a result, excessive screening has led to an aggressive increase in the number of diagnosed “fake cancers.” Meaning that, in reality, you could live a perfectly healthy life with a relatively harmless form of prostate cancer, as long as it’s closely monitored.

But instead, you might be subjected to aggressive treatment.

If you ask me, invasive biopsies and surgeries are overused, abused, and often unneeded. (If you’d like to read the study data to support this, I recommend referring back to my February 2018 Daily Dispatch titled, “Routine cancer screenings may cause unnecessary risks.” Simply type the article title into the search bar on www.DrMicozzi.com.)

Sadly, when it comes down to what exactly causes prostate cancer (as well as other prostate diseases) and how to prevent them, there has been more “fake news” than real news.

That includes a highly questionable new study that spawned a New York Times headline proclaiming that a “High-Fat Diet May Fuel Spread of Prostate Cancer.”1

And sadly, this is hardly the first time we’ve heard about misguided studies concluding diets containing any type of naturally-occurring fat contribute to prostate and other cancers.

Read on, and I’ll tell you why this medieval crusade against fats is just flat-out false. And I’ll also tell you what you really need to know to keep your prostate healthy.

The harmful, haunting effects of more than 70 years of faulty research

The theory that fats contribute to cancer may be wrong, but it’s certainly not new. During the 1980s, I remember poring over early scientific articles from the 1940s that indeed appear to show that fats contribute to cancer.

That old, outdated idea launched a thousand expensive, flawed, and failed studies that got us nowhere.

Case in point is a shameful study on fish oil and prostate cancer that I reported on in the October 2013 Insiders’ Cures (“What you REALLY need to know about fish, omega-3s, and prostate cancer risk”).

Back then, researchers tried to claim that omega-3s in fish oil (among the healthiest nutrients on the planet) supposedly increased the risk of prostate cancer. But among many other flaws in the study, the researchers paid no attention to the sources and quality of the fish oil. (I talk about this in detail on page 3.)

I suspect another reason for the researchers’ erroneous conclusion is that omega-3s are essential fatty acids. And the “experts” just can’t seem to wrap their heads around the idea that anything with the word “fat” is not automatically bad for your health — and can actually be quite helpful.

Why a deeply flawed study still makes the headlines

Take, for instance, the newest study I mentioned earlier “linking” fats and prostate cancer.2

Researchers gave 10 mice a variety of diets, and then analyzed the diets’ effects on two genes linked to cancer.

Some mice were fed a diet that was 60 percent fat, which would be unrealistically high for a human diet. Other mice received a 17 percent fat diet, which is extremely low. (While I’m no expert on mouse diets, the optimal human diet gets about 40 percent of its calories from fats).

It’s important to note that abnormal, artificial diets — like those given to the mice — are invariably associated with other huge dietary distortions, which influence every health factor the researchers were trying to study.

What’s more, the high-fat mouse diet also included several other non-fat ingredients which have been shown to promote cancer in other mouse studies. What a joke!

Finally, the mice were also given an “obesity drug” called fatostatin (I kid you not), which was created to stop the body from making fat, instead releasing the energy from the food you eat.

Perhaps the researchers were really just trying to study this new drug, and incidentally showed some kind of side effect on prostate cancer through fat metabolism? Maybe they were afraid their so-called obesity drug wouldn’t really work in humans (like other obesity drugs), so they went fishing for some other benefit?

Regardless, any study on 10 mice should not be rewriting history in the pages of the New York Times...

Here’s the real evidence about fats and cancer

The bottom line is that in actual humans, there has never been any conclusive evidence that dietary fat consumption, including saturated fats, is associated with prostate cancer — in fact, just the opposite.

The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study is likely one of the longest-term research studies addressing this topic. And after tracking more than 142,000 men for almost nine years, EPIC found no association between dietary fat (including saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fats) and the risk of prostate cancer.3

So why does the “fat causes cancer” myth continue to persist? I’m beginning to think it’s an attempt to deflect our attention away from sugar — the real problem behind metabolic diseases like cancer.

After all, sugar has a lobbying group and fat doesn’t. The “big sugar” bullies need something to pick on, so they pummel know-nothing government bureaucrats, mainstream medicine, and the “lamestream” media with the ridiculous message that fat is unhealthier than sugar.

It’s simply not true. As long as you take into account a couple of important caveats…

Know the difference between “good” and “bad” fats

While I’ve repeatedly advised that saturated fat isn’t the demon it’s been made out to be by the mainstream, there are two types of fats that should be on your radar — and off your plate.

Trans fats. These artificial fats are created by adding hydrogen to liquid vegetable oils in order to make them more solid. Also known as “partially hydrogenated oils,” trans fats are found in baked goods and other processed and packaged foods.

But fortunately, that’s coming to an end. As I reported back in 2015, the FDA gave food manufacturers a deadline of June 2018 to remove all trans fats from their products. (You can find this in my Daily Dispatch titled, “40 years of research reveals no health problems from saturated fats.”)

So this month we’re witnessing history, and the trans-fat nightmare should finally be over.

But remember, you still don’t want to be eating processed and packaged foods. Just because they don’t have trans fats doesn’t mean these abominations aren’t packed with other dangerous ingredients.

Omega-6s. Earlier, I discussed the omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil. There are also omega-6 fatty acids, which occur naturally in plant oils, nuts, and seeds. But they’re also a common ingredient in fast food and processed foods. So it’s no surprise that the modern American diet tends to be way too high in omega-6s.

A healthy ratio of omega-6s to omega-3s is 2:1 or even 1:1. But for many Americans, it’s more like 15:1 or 16:1. And that’s particularly bad for your prostate — not to mention your overall health.

Some research shows that higher omega-6 levels may stimulate prostate cancer cell growth, while higher omega-3s inhibit the growth. And one study showed that higher fish consumption (with omega-3s) was associated with a nearly two-thirds (63 percent) reduced risk of death from prostate cancer.4

My all-natural prostate health protocol

While you should avoid trans fats and watch your consumption of omega-6 fatty acids, other fats are perfectly healthy for your prostate — and every other part of your body.

For optimal prostate health, start with a balanced diet that’s made up of about 40 percent fats from nuts, seeds, vegetable oils, fish, seafood, meat, and dairy. I also recommend the following daily dietary supplements:

Fish oil. Choose a high-quality supplement with both EPA and DHA omega-3s. I now recommend 4 to 5 grams of fish oil per day (see page 2 for more about this new breakthrough).

Lycopene. In the mid-1980s, I was on the research team that first discovered the importance of this carotenoid in human nutrition and metabolism. Since then, studies have shown lycopene to be a powerhouse for prostate health and prevention of prostate cancer. I recommend 10 to 12 mg per day.

Vitamin D. I wrote recently about research showing that men with low levels of vitamin D in their blood had 2.6 times more risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer than men with high levels of D. I recommend 10,000 IU of vitamin D daily.

Vitamin E. This fat-soluble vitamin has been shown in studies to help protect against prostate cancer. I recommend 200 IU per day.

Selenium. There’s plenty of research showing that this mineral is essential for prostate health. I recommend 100 mcg daily.

Avoid prescription drugs. Finally, stay away from the popular but useless drugs prescribed inappropriately for “low-T.” As I’ve often reported, these drugs have not only been linked to increased incidence of heart attacks and strokes, but there’s also some research showing they may actually boost the risk of prostate cancer.

In the meantime, I’m currently pulling together all of the latest research for a new, comprehensive online learning protocol on prostate cancer.

I’ll keep you informed on my progress — and as always, you’ll be the first to know when this lifesaving protocol is ready for release! Be sure to stay tuned to my Daily Dispatch e-letter for the latest updates (simply sign up via my website, www.DrMicozzi.com).

Sources:

1“Associations of Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplement Use With Cardiovascular Disease Risks.” JAMA Cardiol. 2018;3(3):225-234.

2https://todayspractitioner.com/omega-3-fatty-acids/more-controversy-and-challenges-to-the-results-of-2018-jama-fish-oil-study/

3“Use of supplemental long-chain omega-3 fatty acids and risk for cardiac death: An updated meta-analysis and review of research gaps.” J Clin Lipidol. 2017 Sep – Oct;11(5):1152-1160.e2.


CLOSE
CLOSE