HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

Best cancer fighting foods

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
12
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 1/8/2016 10:04 PM (GMT -5)
Thought we could list studies to what foods fight cancer.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11142088

Pc is not mentioned here but i saw some other research where it was.

"However, the most striking feature was the protection purported by citrus peel consumption (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.45-0.95). Moreover, there was a dose-response relationship between higher citrus peel in the diet and degree of risk lowering. "
Posted 1/8/2016 10:51 PM (GMT -5)
How about flaxseed?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19064574

Somebody said...
RESULTS:

Men were on protocol an average of 30 days. Proliferation rates were significantly lower (P < 0.002) among men assigned to the flaxseed arms. Median Ki-67-positive cells/total nuclei ratios (x100) were 1.66 (flaxseed-supplemented diet) and 1.50 (flaxseed-supplemented, low-fat diet) versus 3.23 (control) and 2.56 (low-fat diet). No differences were observed between arms with regard to side effects, apoptosis, and most serologic endpoints; however, men on low-fat diets experienced significant decreases in serum cholesterol (P = 0.048).
CONCLUSIONS:

Findings suggest that flaxseed is safe and associated with biological alterations that may be protective for prostate cancer. Data also further support low-fat diets to manage serum cholesterol.

Posted 1/14/2016 10:34 AM (GMT -5)
I put all "alternative" stuff here.

I am not surprised if this is how it works. You can´t patent it then it´s a threat to the major medical companies. Have no idea if it´s a good idea to take DCA though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nTg53izwpE
Posted 1/14/2016 10:57 AM (GMT -5)
I recommend the book "Anticancer — A new way of life" by Dr. David Servan-Schreiber as an outstanding source to discover how to adopt an anticancer lifestyle, including understanding foods that fight and feed cancer.
Posted 1/14/2016 1:58 PM (GMT -5)
Just had my 1st dose of ground flax seed. I was relieved to find no bad taste. I poured it over a salad with dressing and basically could not tell it was there. I l also ate some straight from the container, no problem. I hope this turns out as good for health as some studies have indicated, because if so it will be a very easy food to add to salads, oat meal, cereal, smoothies or to just eat plain if needed.
Posted 1/14/2016 2:20 PM (GMT -5)

JackH said...
I recommend the book "Anticancer — A new way of life" by Dr. David Servan-Schreiber as an outstanding source to discover how to adopt an anticancer lifestyle, including understanding foods that fight and feed cancer.

I agree. Fantastic book, even for people who don't have cancer.

His diet may or may not be optimal, but his philosophy is right on.

The main thing is to push your fasting blood glucose (fbg) as low as you can safely get it. Cancer needs glucose to grow.
Posted 1/14/2016 2:30 PM (GMT -5)

richh said...

JackH said...
I recommend the book "Anticancer — A new way of life" by Dr. David Servan-Schreiber as an outstanding source to discover how to adopt an anticancer lifestyle, including understanding foods that fight and feed cancer.

I agree. Fantastic book, even for people who don't have cancer.

His diet may or may not be optimal, but his philosophy is right on.

The main thing is to push your fasting blood glucose (fbg) as low as you can safely get it. Cancer needs glucose to grow.

Just ordered this book.
Posted 1/14/2016 4:46 PM (GMT -5)
Here is one interesting study:
Prostate cancer and the influence of dietary factors and supplements: a systematic review

www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-11-30.pdf

Summary of current evidence on the relationship between dietary factors and supplements and risk of
prostate cancer:

1. Well-done meat is associated with increased risk of prostate cancer; consumption of red meat should be limited to <500 g per week.
2. High fat intake (mainly saturated fatty acids and linoleic acid) appears related to increased risk of prostate cancer.
3. Milk intake appears to be associated with increased risk of prostate cancer and its intake should be minimized.
4. Tomatoes and tomato-based products may be preventive in early prostate cancer.
5. Cruciferous vegetables may be beneficial but they currently cannot be advocated for prostate cancer prevention due to the paucity of
randomized trials.
6. Pomegranate may have a role in both prevention and delaying progression of prostate cancer, but available data are often conflicting.
7. Soy-containing products may be chemopreventive in prostate cancer but further studies are warranted to clarify their impact on PSA, testosterone,
and sex-hormone binding globulin levels in men with, or at risk of, prostate cancer.
8. Green tea appears a chemopreventive agent in prostate cancer, but there is inconclusive benefit in patients already with prostate cancer.
9. Selenium supplementation is not recommended in chemoprevention of prostate cancer and very high levels may indeed be pro-carcinogenic.
10. Vitamin A is not recommended as part of chemopreventive diet to prevent prostate cancer.
11. Supplementation with vitamin D is not advocated unless the patient is vitamin D deficient. High levels of vitamin D may be associated with a
worse prognosis.
12. There is no evidence regarding benefits of pre- or probiotics in prostate cancer
Posted 1/14/2016 6:38 PM (GMT -5)

Gemlin said...
Here is one interesting study:
Prostate cancer and the influence of dietary factors and supplements: a systematic review

www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-11-30.pdf

Summary of current evidence on the relationship between dietary factors and supplements and risk of
prostate cancer:

1. Well-done meat is associated with increased risk of prostate cancer; consumption of red meat should be limited to <500 g per week.
2. High fat intake (mainly saturated fatty acids and linoleic acid) appears related to increased risk of prostate cancer.
3. Milk intake appears to be associated with increased risk of prostate cancer and its intake should be minimized.
4. Tomatoes and tomato-based products may be preventive in early prostate cancer.
5. Cruciferous vegetables may be beneficial but they currently cannot be advocated for prostate cancer prevention due to the paucity of
randomized trials.
6. Pomegranate may have a role in both prevention and delaying progression of prostate cancer, but available data are often conflicting.
7. Soy-containing products may be chemopreventive in prostate cancer but further studies are warranted to clarify their impact on PSA, testosterone,
and sex-hormone binding globulin levels in men with, or at risk of, prostate cancer.
8. Green tea appears a chemopreventive agent in prostate cancer, but there is inconclusive benefit in patients already with prostate cancer.
9. Selenium supplementation is not recommended in chemoprevention of prostate cancer and very high levels may indeed be pro-carcinogenic.
10. Vitamin A is not recommended as part of chemopreventive diet to prevent prostate cancer.
11. Supplementation with vitamin D is not advocated unless the patient is vitamin D deficient. High levels of vitamin D may be associated with a
worse prognosis.
12. There is no evidence regarding benefits of pre- or probiotics in prostate cancer

Probably a pretty good summary at least of the thoughts of many folks, but I personally believe we just don't really know much about any of that. For example, look at #1 on the list re: well cooked meat above all, and red meat also. Then, going into the report itself, I see:

Somebody said...
Many large cohort studies of meat intake have taken place worldwide in the last 20 years with conflicting results. A meta-analysis by Alexanderet al. looked at pro-spective studies examining the association between red or processed meat and prostate cancer. Fifteen studies on red meat and 11 on processed meat were included but no association between them and prostate cancer
was found [11]. A previous meta-analysis published in 2009 on well-cooked meat and all cancer risk, looked at four studies that examined HCA intake and prostate
cancer and concluded there was a positive association with prostate cancer [6".

So, 26 studies show NO association and 4 studies show a positive association, but the verdict is: "1. Well-done meat is associated with increased risk of prostate cancer; consumption of red meat should be limited to <500 g per week."? Certainly seems debatable to me.

Then there is this:

Somebody said...
The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer
and Nutrition (EPIC)-Heidelberg cohort included a total
of 11,928 men aged 40–65 years and 13,612 women aged 35-65 years who were recruited between 1994 and 1998 from Heidelberg and its surrounding communities. Information on diet, lifestyle, and health was obtained at baseline by means of questionnaires and face-to-face
interviews. 337 incident cases of prostate cancer (123 advanced cases) were identified among 9,578 men with valid dietary information. Surprisingly there was no association between HCA intake and advanced prostate cancer or between high consumption of strongly browned meat

Notice they were surprised? The authors of a big Harvard study said the same thing when they ONLY found an association between chicken and eggs but ZERO association with red meat, even when processed. That is because it is certainly the well accepted/conventional wisdom that meat is the evil, and especially red or processed red meat, but the evidence seems to still be lacking. Which is why they are surprised. But it does not keep them from making point #1 to avoid well done and red meat. Don't get me wrong. They may well be right. In fact I have strongly been leaning towards a change to no or low meat. But just like saturated fat, fat in general and the amount of carbs we should eat, the evidence seems- at the most- conflicting. To me it still seems really hard to know. If I continue towards vegetarianism, it will be because I have decided to do a study of 1, just as I did some years ago with low carb approaches, and see what happens.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 1/14/2016 4:41:47 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 1/14/2016 8:28 PM (GMT -5)
I take 100 mg of Ginger Root and 1000 mg of Turmeric, along with dried fermented wheat.....prostate out 4 yrs ago, had 39 radiation treatments in Sept, will have blood test Monday for psa.....
Posted 1/14/2016 9:47 PM (GMT -5)
I can not resist, I must do one more! I am doing this because I suspect that bias has an effect on many of our studies, from whichever side the studies come from. In the previous post I pointed out how the authors concluded that red or well cooked meat should be avoided even though the data they supplied did not at all seem to show any sort of consistent association. I provided several quotes from their study that flat out said no association, as many or more than those showing association.

So what about that other bogey man, fat and that greatest of evils: saturated fat? Please note carefully what the 1st and 2nd paragraphs say, and how they are followed by a conclusion(3rd paragraph) that states exactly the opposite:

Somebody said...
Although small proof of concept studies have found there may be an inhibitory role for a low fat diet on prostate cancer cells, more recent epidemiological studies have not found this to be the case. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study included 142500 men and with a median follow up of 8.7 years, 2727 patients were found to have prostate cancer. They found no association between intake of dietary fat and prostate cancer incidence [28].

A recent prospective study analysed 4577 men with non-metastatic prostate cancer in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986–2010) and reported that replacing carbohydrates and animal fat with vegetable fat(heterogeneous mix of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats) may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality [29].

Conclusion: High fat intake (mainly saturated fatty
acids and linoleic acid) appears to be associated with an
increased risk of prostate cancer. The extent of this association may be difficult to interpret due to the heterogeneity in fat subtypes and grade of prostate cancer severity

OK, quick summary of these 3 paragraphs which followed each other in order:
1: In a huge European study, absolutely no correlation between dietary fat and PCa.
2: In the next study, replacing both carbs and animal fat (replace with veg fat) may reduce all cause mortality. No mention of PCa. So, was it the carbs or the animal fat? And it apparently did not help PCa?
3: Despite what both of those paragraphs say, the authors read that and conclude: "High fat intake (mainly saturated fatty acids and linoleic acid) appears to be associated with an
increased risk of prostate cancer", which leads to recommendation #2.

Based on what? It is not uncommon to see such contradictions between presented data and conclusions. And it is not uncommon to read of "surprised researchers". The only thing I can think of to account for this is when researchers begin a study with a strong bias or an agenda, minds already made up or worse. This not only leads to surprises(nothing wrong with that) but also refusing to acknowledge the data and giving recommendations that do not seem to be based on their own data. Though I might be wrong, that is just the impression I get.
Posted 1/15/2016 7:12 AM (GMT -5)
Have not found any study for pc and cs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21080962
Posted 1/15/2016 7:21 AM (GMT -5)
This rolls back to the one basic idea:

Eating a healthy, balanced diet (and note that the carb-heavy US dietary recommendations are NOT balanced) is always a good choice. The pathway to middle-aged cancer is probably set early in life by genetics, diet, and environment, and there is unlikely to be much we can do about it once we reach middle age.

Sometimes I think all our digging for diets, supplements, etc are really a form of denial. That if I just did (or had done earlier) enough of the right things, then I won't get cancer. Personally, I think cancer is wired into our genes and our immune systems. Some people just seem to have a 'better' cellular replication system than others, that makes fewer errors.
Posted 1/15/2016 9:39 AM (GMT -5)
Do you know if there are any published studies on these groups of people mentioned here?


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6522424

"
Mass spectrographic and isotope studies have shown that potassium, rubidium, and especially cesium are most efficiently taken up by cancer cells. This uptake was enhanced by Vitamins A and C as well as salts of zinc and selenium. The quantity of cesium taken up was sufficient to raise the cell to the 8 pH range. Where cell mitosis ceases and the life of the cell is short. Tests on mice fed cesium and rubidium showed marked shrinkage in the tumor masses within 2 weeks. In addition, the mice showed none of the side effects of cancer. Tests have been carried out on over 30 humans. In each case the tumor masses disappeared. Also all pains and effects associated with cancer disappeared within 12 to 36 hr; the more chemotherapy and morphine the patient had taken, the longer the withdrawal period. Studies of the food intake in areas where the incidences of cancer are very low showed that it met the requirements for the high pH therapy."
Posted 1/15/2016 12:04 PM (GMT -5)

BillyBob@388 said...
Just had my 1st dose of ground flax seed. I was relieved to find no bad taste. I poured it over a salad with dressing and basically could not tell it was there. I l also ate some straight from the container, no problem. I hope this turns out as good for health as some studies have indicated, because if so it will be a very easy food to add to salads, oat meal, cereal, smoothies or to just eat plain if needed.


Flax seed and quark/cottage cheese is what Johanna Budwig used for her cancer patients i read.
The combination is supposed to make flax water soluble resulting in reoxygenation.
Posted 1/15/2016 1:15 PM (GMT -5)

halbert said...
... there is unlikely to be much we can do about it once we reach middle age.




That's nihilistic, halbert. And at least in the world of prostate cancer the expert care givers don't share your viewpoint.

You should go back to Pratoman's Ornish thread and read what I posted about the prostate cancer study Ornish conducted along with Dr Peter Carroll.

As a result of the Ornish/Carroll study, nearly every leading PC care-giver either a) treating aggressive PC, or b) treating men on leading AS programs now includes diet, exercise and lifestyle changes in their patient prescriptions.


Here's a great passage from the book I previously recommended in this thread, "Anticancer - a new way of life" which seems to capture the viewpoint you expressed:

    I was diagnosed with brain cancer about 16 years ago. I received chemotherapy and went into remission, but the cancer came back and I endured two surgeries and 13 months of chemotherapy. I asked my oncologist if I ought to change my diet to avoid another recurrence. His answer was perfectly stereotypical: "Eat what you like. It won't make much difference."

    He was wrong.

    The extensive research published in the last decade alone proves that what you eat can have a profound effect on your protection against cancer. But my doctor's answer was hardly surprising. It's a little-known fact that nutrition is barely taught in med schools, where the solution to most problems is a drug. And doctors don't trust patients to make lifestyle changes. I recall a conversation with a fellow physician at a conference after I spoke on the importance of a healthy diet in fighting disease. "You may be right, David, but people don't want to change," he said. "They just want to take a pill and forget about it." I don't know whether he's right, but after all the study I've done, I know it isn't true for me.
Posted 1/15/2016 5:06 PM (GMT -5)
Nihilistic? That's a pretty strong word. I wouldn't say that. Cancer has been around as long as humans have. After all, the ancient Egyptian physicians knew what it was--and their advice to physicians who found solid, palpable masses in the abdomen of a sick patient who was wasting away was, "prepare the family for death".

Since cancer, by definition, is a disorder of cellular reproduction--and some would say that the real problem of cancerous cells is not that they never stop dividing, but they don't die off when they are supposed to (reference the title of the best selling book "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks"), then cancer is ultimately a genetic issue in the broadest sense of the word. Something is wrong with the DNA of the cancerous cells, or else they wouldn't do what they do.

We are just getting started on understand what DNA really is and how it works. Yes, we've had some insights for a long time, especially since the pioneering work of Gregor Mendel. However, getting a handle on it at the molecular level is very new. It's only been in the last 30 years or so that Biology has moved from being an almost purely observational science to one where real experimentation is possible. It is, truly, all about the gene and what goes wrong with it.

Environment has it's effects--and diet is part of environment. Darwin told us that the stressors of the environment bring about evolutionary change. However, in our modern world, we have manipulated the environment so dramatically in a very short time (geologically speaking), that our bodies haven't had time to adapt. In a few hundred generations, perhaps, cancer will no longer be an issue. For now, the big picture environmental issues are very real: chemical solvents like the aromatic hydrocarbons are known bad actors. I can't help but think that the pesticides and herbicides that make it possible for us to delay Malthus are ultimately bad for us. In my own personal life, I am convinced that I'm not allergic to pork, but to all the antibiotics they feed the hogs.

We live in a cancer causing world. Unfortunately, the alternative is going back to having a life expectancy of 40 or so and dying of smallpox or cholera.
Posted 1/15/2016 5:48 PM (GMT -5)
That's all very interesting (no, really, it is!), but my point was that while you may (in some cases) or may not (in all cases) be able to "cure" cancer by altering your diet, the evidence shown that you can—yes, even at this late stage in life—alter the biology of your cancer, and specifically prostate cancer. Again, see Ornish/Carroll.

To imply that at middle age it cannot change is, indeed, nihilistic.

Differences in diet and lifestyle are widely believed to account for much of the variability of prostate cancer. This is widely seen as the key reason that on a global basis today incidence of prostate cancer varies 60-fold.
Posted 1/15/2016 7:29 PM (GMT -5)
I ate pretty much the healthy mediterranean diet for most of my life and still ended up with PC. So now I've got PC, am working to treat it, am I supposed to double down on the same diet?
Posted 1/15/2016 9:39 PM (GMT -5)

We can do this said...
I ate pretty much the healthy mediterranean diet for most of my life and still ended up with PC. So now I've got PC, am working to treat it, am I supposed to double down on the same diet?

I'd say no, but you may want to continue with it as you continue exploring ways that diet may make things better or worse.

We are all, individually, anecdotes, studies of 1(N1). I admit that when I not only came down with PC, but a G9/SN+/pos margin, I was pretty disgusted with the entire naturalistic approach. Not so much from fear of PC (I don't think it ever occurred to me I would get PC) but rather from dealing with prostatitis from age 30( that's when I 1st got treatment, I probably had it much earlier) and later BPH, I took - from time to time- every known supposedly prostate friendly supplements. Many of which were also supposed to be helpful for PCa. (and they DID HELP with the prostatitis/BPH symptoms, got me off of endless antibiotics) And I not only get PCa, but got an extra-nasty strain. So my response was "all that crap must have been worthless or worse".

But as time has passed, I have somewhat rethought all of that. I was 65 when I had my RP, 67 today. My father died early 40s from stroke, my mother had hemorrhagic stroke/brain aneurism/cancer by age 60, surgeries saved her until she died of another cancer at 72. My older sister shockingly fell dead(no known health issues under treatment) while shopping at age 59.

As for me, I had smoked most of my 1st adult years until age 35, and rarely ate anything anyone would call a prostate healthy diet. Unless someday someone decides to call several multi-month bouts of low carb, high fat, plenty of protein eating prostate healthy due to the likely very low blood insulin levels, but not so far. Plus, I have read a few studies lately STRONGLY implicating eggs and chicken in PCa. Whether doing some version of Atkins style or not, I sure as heck ate a **** load of eggs and chicken, fried chicken at that, my entire life. And plenty of dairy and sweets(high blood insulin response to that no doubt)

So considering all of the above, how can I possibly claim that just because I personally got aggressive PCa, that means the supplements I have taken(or healthy food I did sometimes eat) did not help spare my life until detection? How can I know that if I had not taken what I hoped would help, that I wouldn't have come down with this PC at age 50 instead of 65? Or maybe have gotten an even worse case such as just killed my high school friend at age 63? Or that I would not have developed some sort of heart disease or stroke like my parents, and at an early age?

Well, IMO, I can not say any of those things. I don't know if the supplements I took gave me PC, or actually reduced my PC so that I was not diagnosed with mets and a PSA of 50 or 200+ rather than 10.9. And I can not say that everything I took was not simply neutral. All I can say is that I took a lot of supplements over the years and I got G9 PCa anyway. The 2 may not be related, or it may have hurt me, or it may have saved my life. Because as bad as it was, my diagnosis could have been way worse, and with family history I am probably lucky to be alive. Any # of diseases coud have been expected to take me out already.

So, I would not be convinced that just because you got PCa anyway, that your diet had not been helpful to you, or that you could not come up with an even healthier diet. After all, you had a G6 <5% involved. Can you really say that if you had eaten way less healthy, that you might not have been a G9 with mets? What do you think? Am I crazy? Is it possible your diet contributed to your - at least for some one with PCa- superb path reports?

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 1/16/2016 9:29:07 AM (GMT-7)

Posted 1/16/2016 3:01 AM (GMT -5)
Don´t know if this is true.

"Many foods and supplements have a wealth of proven health benefits, but not for everyone.
If you have an autoimmune condition, some of these compounds can make you much better or much worse depending on your Th1/Th2 dominance. You can talk with your doctor about running a lymphocyte panel to determine which dominance you have and then take the appropriate compounds to help push your immune system in the opposite direction.
But do not do this without the advice of a qualified medical professional! Pushing your system in the wrong direction can lead to further destruction of whatever tissue(s) your immune system might be attacking."
Posted 1/16/2016 8:22 AM (GMT -5)
Halbert,
You make a good argument that environmental effects cause cancer. Couldn't environmental effects also cure cancer?

Indeed, if you think about it aren't chemo therapy and radiation environmental effects (similar to the exposure to hydrocarbons) that are used to cure cancer?

Wouldn't a change in diet be considered an environmental effect? Didn't Darwin speculate that a change in diet caused a change in the bill of a bird he studied?

My point, what we humans eat does impact what we are.
Posted 1/16/2016 12:36 PM (GMT -5)

Arne52 said...
Have not found any study for pc and cs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21080962

But those results were pretty dramatic with breast cancer in something I have never heard of being used for this purpose. Hmmmm. I have read claims in the past that link some of the causes of breast cancer to some of the causes of PC(or at least various prostate problems), but I have no sources right now so who knows?

This study is also not PCa, but rather breast cancer against flax seed. But since I have already posted one study showing a potential benefit of flax seed in the treatment of PCa, and another study indicating little or no effect, I'm going to go ahead and post this one even though it's about breast cancer, FWIW and for general interest. Especially as it is simply adding a small amount of food for only about a month:
clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/11/10/3828.long

Somebody said...
Abstract

Purpose: Flaxseed, the richest source of mammalian lignan precursors, has previously been shown to reduce the growth of tumors in rats. This study examined, in a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial, the effects of dietary flaxseed on tumor biological markers and urinary lignan excretion in postmenopausal patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer.

Experimental Design: Patients were randomized to daily intake of either a 25 g flaxseed-containing muffin (n = 19) or a control (placebo) muffin (n = 13). At the time of diagnosis and again at definitive surgery, tumor tissue was analyzed for the rate of tumor cell proliferation (Ki-67 labeling index, primary end point), apoptosis, c-erbB2 expression, and estrogen and progesterone receptor levels. Twenty-four–hour urine samples were analyzed for lignans, and 3-day diet records were evaluated for macronutrient and caloric intake. Mean treatment times were 39 and 32 days in the placebo and flaxseed groups, respectively.

Results: Reductions in Ki-67 labeling index (34.2%; P = 0.001) and in c-erbB2 expression (71.0%; P = 0.003) and an increase in apoptosis (30.7%; P = 0.007) were observed in the flaxseed, but not in the placebo group...............................................
Conclusion: Dietary flaxseed has the potential to reduce tumor growth in patients with breast cancer. ...........................
Discussion

Our study shows that daily intake of 25 g flaxseed can significantly reduce cell proliferation, increase apoptosis, and affect cell signaling by reducing c-erbB2 expression of human breast cancer cells...................
The results of this clinical trial are in agreement with previous clinical and preclinical studies showing antitumor effects of flaxseed in prostate cancer patients (53), carcinogen-treated rats (32), athymic mice with established ER-positive (33), or ER-negative breast cancers (34, 35), and tumor-bearing transgenic mice (54). The 5% or 10% flaxseed diet used in the animal studies is approximately equivalent to 25 to 30 g of flaxseed given to patients with breast or prostate cancer, depending on the amount of other foods consumed.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 1/16/2016 10:56:36 AM (GMT-7)

Posted 1/16/2016 11:24 PM (GMT -5)
I recommend "Foods that Fight Cancer" by Richard Beliveau.
Posted 1/17/2016 4:59 AM (GMT -5)
I've seen somewhere these list of 6 cancer-righting superfoods:
Broccoli
Berries
Tomatoes
Walnuts
Garlic
Beans
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
12