Translate

Jul 18, 2016

Should you take a multi-vitamin?

YES!
You should be taking a quality multiple vitamin because:

  • Our food is not as nutritious as it used to be.
  • Many people have a nutritional deficiency
    • 9/10 Americans are low in 1 or more of the following vitamins and minerals: magnesium, Vit. D, Vit. C, Vit. E, calcium and zinc.
  • We live in a toxic world, antioxidants in a quality multiple vitamin help clean toxins from the body and keep the liver functioning better.
  • Your energy could likely use a boost.
  • Your mood could be better
    • A multiple vitamin with B-vitamins,Vit. C and magnesium promotes calmness and supports a healthy mood.
  • A good multiple vitamin with Vit. A, C and E helps support healthy, radiant skin.
  • Your stressed out, stress depletes our B-Vitamins.
  • A multiple vitamin with Vit. D, calcium and magnesium can help maintain muscle strength and mobility.
  • A good multiple vitamin supports healthy aging.
  • If you are lactose intolerant you may be deficient in calcium and vitamin D.
  • You’re pregnant, of child bearing age or may become pregnant or are breast feeding.
  • To prevent osteoporosis all women should be taking calcium, vitamin D, magnesium, vitamin C, boron, vitamin K, zinc and copper starting at 20 years of age or younger.
  • You have elevated homeocystein, a protein that may be related to an increased risk of coronary heart disease. 
    • Vitamin B6, Vitamin B12 and folic acid has been shown to prevent heart disease and lower homeocysteine levels.
  • You have had an intestinal condition such as inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome or chronic pancreatitis. All this conditions can interfere with nutrient absorption.
  • You’re on a weight reduction diet.
  • You’re a cancer patient 
    • you should be taking antioxidants.
  • You’re a strict vegetarian
    • you are probably lacking in Vitamin B12.
  • To reduce your risk of getting cancer. 
    • Harvard’s famous evaluation of 90,000 nurses for more than 15 years showed that multiple vitamins appeared to reduce the risk of colon and breast cancers.
Dr.Wiancek has formulated her own vitamin, to read about what's in it click here!


Dr. Wiancek's New Formulated Multiple Vitamin

Dr. Wiancek's newly formulated multiple vitamin

Why has Dr. Wiancek decided to reformulate her multiple vitamin?
Now adding methlyfolate to the vitamin, because many people do not absorb regular folic acid, learn more about methylation here. Also, with more vitamin K2 to prevent osteoporosis, bruising and overall bone health. Many of my patients are taking 5 or 6 bottles of different vitamins and minerals a day and it is costing them a fortune. So I decided to make it easy and cost effective for people. All they would need is provided in my multiple vitamins at a cost of $45.00 a month. Purchase in stores or online.

What does your multiple vitamin include?

It includes the following:
1,000 mg of calcium citrate the most absorbable calcium available to help prevent osteoporosis.
2000 IU of Vitamin D3 to prevent osteoporosis.
400 IU of Vitamin E which is a natural blood thinner, protects us from heart disease and all kinds of cancers.
1,000 mg of Vitamin C which protects us from getting the common cold because of it’s anti-viral effects.
15,000 IU of Vitamin A which protects us from all kinds of cancer and helps keep our skin healthy.
100 mcg Selenium which is also an antioxidant which protects us from all kinds of cancers including prostate cancer.
30 mg of Zinc which also protects us from colds and all kinds of cancers including prostate cancer.
50 mg of all the B Vitamins. These are water soluble vitamins which need to be replenished on a daily basis. We need them during times of stress that is why they are called our stress vitamins.
Other minerals that are needed to prevent osteoporosis which are included in the multiple vitamin are:

Other minerals included in the multiple include:

Vitamin K2 150 mcg
Vitamin B12 100 mcg
Biotin 300 mcg
Pantothenic acid 70 mg
Magnesium citrate 500 mg
Copper 1 mg
Manganese 15 mg
Chromium 100 mcg
Potassium 50 mg
Boron 2 mg
Molybdenum 50 mcg
Vanadium 20 mcg
Choline 70 mg
Inositol 70 mg
Methylfolate 800 mcg

Why is there no iron in this multiple vitamin?
Why a little may be good more is definitely not better when it comes to your heart. A study comparing coronary heart disease patients with healthy, age matched controls, found women older than 60 had a 3.5 fold increase in CHD risk for every 50 mg of iron consumed per month over 250 mg.

 The lesson here is to take iron supplements only when you need them.



One a day for Women has 27 mg of iron in each tablet. That amounts to an 810 mg of iron load every month, raising a consumer’s risk for CHD 40 fold. Several studies have conversely confirmed the cardiovascular benefits of iron depletion through blood donation, reducing the risk of an acute heart attack as much as 88 percent in middle aged male donors.



Jul 15, 2016

Immune Boosting Popsicles


Summer immune challenges are notorious for causing lingering discomfort that can interrupt summer fun. The best methods for maintaining immune health throughout the year include regular hand-washing, proper hydration, a balanced diet and adequate sleep.* Certain supplements may provide additional support for a healthy immune system.* Berry Well combines elderberry with other gentle immune-supporting herbs in a mild-tasting powder, offering immune support for all ages.* Berry Well is easily mixed into water, juice or soft food, or can be used to make immune boosting popsicles, perfect for cooling down summer immune challenges.* 

Berry Well Soothing Ice Pops

  • Berry Well Immune Support Powder, 2-3 teaspoons for ages 6 months to 3 years, 3-6 tsp for ages over 3 years 
  • 1/2 cup blueberries
  • 1/2 cup raspberries
  • 1 cup plain coconut water or cooled herbal tea
Directions: blend all ingredients until smooth. Freeze in 1/3 cup portions. Makes 6 ice pops.

Jun 27, 2016

Wearable Fitness Trackers: They’re Popular, But Are they Accurate?

By Leandro Pucci, Contributing Writer

Wearable fitness trackers are everywhere these days.
Consumers are using these devices to monitor exercise, sleep, and a host of other related health parameters. Health care researchers are also using the devices in the context of clinical studies. The choice of brands, features, and styles of wearable trackers is also expanding rapidly. 
Wearable TrackerBut are these devices reliable? Can we trust the numbers they give us? How accurate are they when it comes to gauging levels of energy expenditure, sleep cycles or other physiological measurements?
There is actually some medical literature on the accuracy of fitness trackers. The consensus seems to be that  consumer-level monitors show a good degree of accuracy for the measurement of steps, duration of activity, and sleep quality, but only moderate accuracy for quantifying total daily energy expenditure or energy output during physical activity (Ferguson T, et al. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015 Mar 27;12:42)
Accelerometers vs Heart Rate Monitors
Fitness trackers come in two basic types: accelerometer-based monitors that use predictive equations applied to a user’s acceleration in different directions to estimate energy expenditure; and heart rate devices, that use equations based on age, height, gender, physical-activity level, and resting heart rate to estimate caloric expenditure.
Of the two, the first is more widespread in the consumer market. Popular devices such as the Fitbit, Jawbone, Nike Fuelband, and Polar Loop all fit under the accelerometer category.
A closer look at the different models shows that the mode of exercise being measured can play a huge role in accuracy of these monitors.
Dr. Gregory Welk, Director of the Nutrition and Wellness Research Center at Iowa State University heads a team of researchers that have been studying the accuracy of consumer-level activity monitors compared with the types of monitors used for scientific research.
His team has conducted research for twenty years on various types of accelerometers. Now that the consumer market is being literally flooded with these devices, and multiple manufacturers have released their devices largely without any documented evidence of accuracy, Welk thinks that the research community has a responsibility to help evaluate them, so consumers can make more informed, intelligent choices.
To verify if consumer-centric trackers give accurate readings on calories burned, Dr. Welk’s team recruited 56 men and women aged 18-65, who used the two types of monitors in the context of semi-structured periods of low activity, aerobic exercise, and resistance exercise.
The participants had an average Body Mass Index (BMI) of 24 kg/m2, with body fat compositions averaging 21.2%. They were asked to simultaneously wear five consumer monitors and two research monitors while doing 20 minutes of sedentary activities of their choice, 25 minutes of aerobic exercise, and 25 minutes of resistance training with five-minute rests between the different activity periods.
They tested the Fitbit Flex, Jawbone UP 24, Misfit Shine, Nike FuelBand SE and Polar Loop devices representing the consumer products category. The professional research products were Actigraph GT3X-plus and BodyMedia Core.
The investigators used the Oxycon Mobile, a portable metabolic monitor that measures breathing, heart rate, and fat burned as a reference standard against which all the wearable monitors were compared
The average Energy Expenditure (total calories) measured by the Oxicon Mobile was just under 319 Kcal during the exercise periods. Measurements obtained from the consumer-level activity monitors varied from 275 Kcal to 396 Kcal. The research monitors had the most accurate total calories estimations.
Large Margin of Error
According to the researchers the Jawbone UP 24, Nike Fuelband SE and Fitbit Flex, in general, gave “reasonable accurate” estimations (Bai Y, et al. Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2015; 151-158)
In terms of measuring calorie expenditure during resistance exercise, all the trackers had no less than 25% margin of error in their results—a fairly large margin, according to the Iowa researchers.
For sedentary activity, the results also varied. The Misfit Shine, Nike Fuelband SE, and one research monitor had error rates of less than 20%. For the aerobic part of the test, one consumer tracker and one research tracker had error rates under 20%.
The overall margins of error in all devices were similar to results from earlier evaluations of consumer trackers by the University of Iowa team (Lee JM, et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014; 46(9): 1840-8).
What it comes down to is that in general, fitness trackers are more accurate or effective for activities such as walking or running on a level ground. When activities move away from this scenario the readings become less accurate.
Indeed, the devices have large margins of error for accurately estimating calories burned. But from the viewpoint of working practically with patients, they can still be great tools for promoting behavior change, so long as one does not focus too much on specific numbers.
The main value of tech tools like this is that they can promote accountability, and provide context for communication between practitioners and their patients. At the end of the day, the value of exercise trackers is that they really can help some people to get some exercise every day and to stay motivated.
Dr. Welk says there is an urgent need is for greater standardization with regard to the outputs and indicators used in wearable tracking devices. Consumer products will always vary in precision to some degree. But the emergence of some type of “Seal of Evidence” or an endorsement by a national regulatory group could go a long way in pushing companies to document, report, and ultimately improve the accuracy of their products.
Leandro M, Pucci is Candidate for a Master of Science degree in Nutrition and Integrative Health from Maryland University of Integrative Health (MUIH). He is currently working towards becoming a Certified Nutrition Specialist. He holds a Personal Trainer Certification by the American College of Sports Medicine, and is working on becoming Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialists by the National Strength and Conditioning Association.Leandro has a special interest in the health concerns related to metabolic syndrome, nutrition and exercise as medicine.

Prostate Assessment Tool

If you score a 7 or higher, it is strongly advised to schedule a prostate examination. Men 55 and over should have a yearly prostate examination as well.
Dr. Wiancek, N.D.
970-926-7606



Jun 24, 2016

EAT RIGHT TO STAY HEALTHY


From Dr.Wiancek's book "The Natural Healing Companion":

      The way to stay healthy is to keep your immune system strong and proper nutrition is the number one way to keep it in good working order. Food is the best medicine of all, provided you eat the right balance of nutrients, proteins, fats, and carbohydrates. Study after study links dietary deficiency to disease.
What constitutes a healthy diet? Specific requirements vary from one person to another, but the following general guidelines will get you off to a good start.
Eat at least five servings of fruits and five servings of vegetables a day, the best way to do this is to eat a salad with five different vegetables in it—the more colorful the salad, the greater the variety of nutrients you are getting. For fruits, eat a fruit salad or several fruit snacks during the day, or sprinkle a variety of fruits on your morning cereal
Eating fruits and vegetables increases the amount of fiber in your diet and helps you get your required daily quota of vitamins and minerals. The benefits include a reduced risk of disease, lower cholesterol and blood pressure, and help in losing weight. More than 200 studies have shown that eating fruits and vegetables helps protect you from various forms of cancer. Other studies indicate similar protection against cardiovascular disease, diabetes, stroke, diverticulosis, and cataracts.
One piece of fruit or 1/2 cup of a vegetable constitutes a single serving. Because cooking destroys valuable nutrients, try to eat fruits and vegetables raw, or steam vegetables lightly before eating. Precooked, frozen, and canned fruits and vegetables are lower in nutrients and higher in sodium, sugar, and preservatives.
Eat five servings of whole grains a day, Avoid white bread, white rice, and ocher heavily processed grains. Even if they are "enriched" or "fortified, they are still lacking essential nutrients. Instead, look for foods made from 100 percent whole grains, without added refined sugars (check the ingredients list on labels. A "whole grain" consists of 1) the bran, which contains fiber, B vitamins, fats, minerals, and protein; 2) the germ, a source of protein, fats, and vitamins A, Bs and E; and 3) the endosperm, which contains complex carbohydrates. Most of the vitamins and minerals in grains are found in their outer layers (the bran and germ) and processing removes both the layers and the nutrients.
A slice of bread or a cup of cooked grain or pasta constitutes one serving. Eat more complex carbohydrates. In the same vein, you should increase your intake of complex carbohydrates and reduce your intake of simple carbohydrates. Complex carbohydrates are found in unprocessed, unrefined vegetables; in dried beans and peas; in whole wheat products; and in grains including rye, barley, quinoa, millet, brown rice, buckwheat, corn, kamut, and oats. (Remember that white breads, white rice, and many pastas and breakfast cereals have been stripped of most of their complex carbohydrates during processing).
Simple carbohydrates are mainly in sugars: white and brown sugar, corn syrup, soft drinks, candy, dried fruit, jellies and jams, canned or frozen fruits, ice cream, and pudding. Simple carbohydrates contribute nothing to your diet except calories, and they can upset the way in which the body metabolizes sugar, leading to high blood sugar and adult-onset diabetes. Instead, use unrefined sweeteners such as 100 percent natural maple syrup, honey, and fruit juices. Avoid artificial sweeteners, as research shows they can aggravate diabetes and may cause cancer.
Eat at Least 25 grams of fiber daily. Dietary fiber comes from plant cell walls, which our bodies cannot digest, there are two types: insoluble (wheat bran is one example) and soluble, which can be found in oat bran, apples, cherries, and dandelion root, among other foods. A combination of both is recommended to help prevent breast cancer and intestinal diseases such as appendicitis, diverticulosis, and colon cancer.
Eat fish, but curb your intake of other animal products. Red meat, including beef and pork, is associated with increased risk of heart attacks, several forms of cancer, prostate disease, high blood pressure, and a host of other diseases. No more than one serving of red meat per week is recommended.
Chicken and turkey are better for you than red meat, but studies show that ocean fish are far preferable and offer protection against heart disease, multiple sclerosis, cancer, high blood pressure, inflammatory conditions including rheumatoid arthritis, and other diseases. Salmon, mackerel, cod, albacore tuna, halibut, anchovies, and herring are particularly good for you. In general, ocean-caught fish are more healthful than farm-raised fish.

Jun 20, 2016

INTENSIVE LIFESTYLE CHANGES MAY AFFECT THE PROGRESSION OF PROSTATE CANCER





Purpose: Men with prostate cancer are often advised to make changes in diet and lifestyle, although the impact of these changes has not been well documented. Therefore, we evaluated the effects of comprehensive lifestyle changes on prostate specific antigen (PSA), treatment trends and serum stimulated LNCaP cell growth in men with early, biopsy proven prostate cancer after 1 year. 

Materials and Methods: Patient recruitment was limited to men who had chosen not to undergo any conventional treatment, which provided an unusual opportunity to have a nonintervention randomized control group to avoid the confounding effects of interventions such as radiation, surgery or androgen deprivation therapy. A total of 93 volunteers with serum PSA 4 to 10 ng/ml and cancer Gleason scores less than 7 were randomly assigned to an experimental group that was asked to make comprehensive lifestyle changes or to a usual care control group.

Results: None of the experimental group patients but 6 control patients underwent conventional treatment due to an increase in PSA and/or progression of disease on magnetic resonance imaging. PSA decreased 4% in the experimental group but increased 6% in the control group (p  0.016). The growth of LNCaP prostate cancer cells (American Type Culture Collection, Manassas, Virginia) was inhibited almost 8 times more by serum from the experimental than from the control group (70% vs 9%, p 0.001). Changes in serum PSA and also in LNCaP cell growth were significantly associated with the degree of change in diet and lifestyle.

Conclusions: Intensive lifestyle changes may affect the progression of early, low grade prostate cancer in men. Further studies and longer term followup are warranted. Although this decision was made for reasons unrelated to this study, the choice to perform watchful waiting was clinically reasonable in these men. This subgroup of patients provided an unusual opportunity to have a nonintervention randomized control group to avoid the confounding effects of interventions such as radiation, surgery or androgen deprivation therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients in this study had biopsy documented prostate cancer with Gleason less than 7, serum PSA 4 to 10 ng/ml, and stages T1 and T2 disease. They had elected not to undergo conventional treatment. Patients were excluded if they had active prostatitis, had already made comprehensive lifestyle changes, had other life threatening comorbidities or major psychiatric disturbances, or were abusing alcohol, nicotine or other drugs. The University of California-San Francisco Committee on Human Research institutional review board approved this study and all patients provided proper consent. A randomized consent design was chosen to decrease the likelihood that control group patients might make diet and lifestyle changes comparable to those of the experimental group that could dilute between group differences and increase the likelihood of a type 2 error by decreasing the amount of information about the lifestyle intervention available to the control group. 

8 Of the 181 patients who were eligible for the study 93 enrolled, including 44 in the experimental group and 49 in the control group. Reasons for refusal to participate were unwillingness to make or not make comprehensive lifestyle changes and/or refusal to undergo periodic testing. An additional 15 patients with Gleason scores of 7 or greater were excluded because it is a unique prognostic category with biologically distinct and more aggressive neoplasms. Three experimental group patients withdrew soon after beginning the intervention because they said it was too difficult to follow and they refused further testing. No other patients were lost to followup. 

Experimental group patients were prescribed an intensive lifestyle program that included a vegan diet supplemented with soy (1 daily serving of tofu plus 58 gm of a fortified soy protein powdered beverage), fish oil (3 gm daily), vitamin E (400 IU daily), selenium (200 mcg daily) and vitamin C (2 gm daily), moderate aerobic exercise (walking 30 minutes 6 days weekly), stress management techniques (gentle yoga based stretching, breathing, meditation, imagery and progressive relaxation for a total of 60 minutes daily) and participation in a 1-hour support group once weekly to enhance adherence to the intervention. 
The diet was predominantly fruits, vegetables, whole grains (complex carbohydrates), legumes and soy products, low in simple carbohydrates and with approximately 10% of calories from fat. The diet is intensive but palatable and practical. In earlier studies most patients were able to adhere to this diet for at least 5 years.

A registered dietitian was available for nutrition education and counseling. A nurse case manager contacted patients by telephone once weekly for the first 3 months and once monthly thereafter. Control group patients were asked to follow the advice of their physicians regarding lifestyle changes. All therapeutic decisions, including whether to undergo conventional treatment during the study course, were deferred to the personal physician of each patient. Serum PSA was measured twice at baseline and at 1 year. 

Patients were counseled to avoid activities that might affect PSA for 3 days prior to testing, including sexual activity, exercise and digital rectal examination. Serum PSA was measured at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center prospectively by a heterogeneous sandwich magnetic separation assay with the Immuno 1™ System. Testosterone was measured by a competitive immunoassay with an Immulite® automated analyzer. 

LNCaP cells were grown in 75 cm2 flasks in RPMI-1640 medium without phenol red, as previously described in detail.12 Cells were collected using 0.25% Trypsin-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, Missouri) and then experiments were performed in duplicate (5 103 cells per well in 96-well plates). After 24 hours fresh medium composed of 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) or 10% human serum was replaced and the cells were incubated (37C, 5% CO2) for 48 hours. FBS served as a control for each assay and results are expressed as percent FBS. Cell growth was assessed by MTS Assay (Promega, Madison, Wisconsin). For apoptosis cells were plated at a density of 1 104 cells per well in 96-well culture plates and incubated as described for the growth assay. After 48 hours apoptosis was detected by Cell Death Detection ELISAPLUS (Roche Applied Science, Indianapolis, Indiana). CRP determinations were done in duplicate by ultrasensitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay with 1.6 ng/ml sensitivity, and with intra-assay and interassay coefficients of variation of 3.9% and 5.1%, respectively. 

Dietary intake assessing the percent of calories from fat and mg cholesterol was measured with a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire. Nutrient assessment was calculated elsewhere using United States Department of Agriculture food composition tables and other sources. The frequency and duration of exercise and of stress management techniques were assessed by self-reporting questionnaires. Attendance at group support sessions was recorded. The level of adherence to the recommended lifestyle change was based on a formula validated in previous studies.

A total score of 1 indicated 100% adherence to the program and 0 indicated no adherence. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to the control or the intervention group. Assessment of outcome measures were done while blinded to group assignment. Baseline equivalence of the 2 groups were analyzed using the independent sample t test in the case of continuous variables and the chi-square test of association in the case of categorical variables. 

Between group differences in baseline to 12-month changes in clinical and behavioral outcomes were compared using ANCOVA with baseline values as covariates. Although control patients were not asked to make changes in diet and lifestyle, some did so in varying degrees, that is 18% to 137% (experimental group 58% to 316%). As a secondary analysis, we correlated the degree of lifestyle change with changes in serum PSA, LNCaP cell growth, LNCaP apoptosis, serum testosterone and CRP across the 2 groups regardless of group assignment with baseline values as a covariate. Natural log transformation achieved normality (ln-CRP). 

All reported significance levels are 2-sided and p 0.05 was considered the required value for concluding tAt baseline there were no significant differences between the groups in demographic or clinical measures (table 1). Subject age, PSA and Gleason scores in those who were randomized into the study but refused to participate were not significantly different from values in those who participated. After 1 year adherence to the intervention was 95% in the experimental group and 45% in the control group. There were no adverse events attributable to the lifestyle intervention. Diet, exercise, stress management techniques and group support improved significantly more in the experimental group than in the control group (table 2). 
Six control group patients withdrew before 12 months and underwent conventional treatment, including radical prostatectomy in 3, and androgen deprivation, external beam radiation and brachytherapy in 1 each. Four of these patients underwent conventional treatment due to an increase in PSA during the study and 2 underwent it due to progression of prostate cancer, as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging compared with earlier studies. 

In contrast, no experimental group patients underwent conventional treatment during the study. Changes in serum PSA and LNCaP cell growth from baseline to 12 months were significantly different between the groups, showing more favorable changes in the experimental group. 
Specifically serum PSA decreased an average of 0.25 ng/ml or 4% of the baseline average in the experimental group but it showed an average increase of 0.38 ng/ml or 6% of the baseline average in the control group (F  5.6, p  0.016, fig. 1). Serum from experimental group patients inhibited LNCaP cell growth by 70%, whereas serum from control group patients inhibited growth by only 9% (p 0.001, fig. 2). CRP decreased more in the experimental group (p  0.07). There were no significant differences between the groups in serum testosterone or in apoptosis (table 3). Pearson correlations between changes in serum PSA, LNCaP, apoptosis, testosterone and CRP, and following recommended lifestyle changes in the entire sample indicated that the extent to which participants made changes in diet and lifestyle was significantly related to decreases in PSA (r  0.23, p  0.035, fig. 3) and to LNCaP cell growth (r 0.37, p 0.001, fig. 4).

Key words: prostate, prostatic neoplasms, prostate-specific antigen, life style, nutrition Increasing evidence from epidemiological and laboratory studies suggests that diet and lifestyle may have a role in the development of prostate cancer.1–5 The intake of total and specific vegetables, tomato products (lycopene), vitamin E, selenium, vitamin C and soy products has been inversely associated with prostate cancer risk. In addition, epidemiological evidence and migrant studies indicate that the incidence of clinically significant prostate cancer is much lower in parts of the world where people eat a predominantly low fat, plant based diet.6 There is considerable interest in the role of diet and lifestyle changes as complementary therapy in those with prostate cancer, especially because no consensus exists regarding the relative benefits and risks of conventional treatments in many patients. Many men are making changes in diet and lifestyle in the hope of preventing or slowing the progression of prostate cancer without the benefit of data from randomized, controlled trials to help guide these decisions. We examined if comprehensive changes in diet and lifestyle may affect the progression of prostate cancer, as measured by serial prostate specific antigen (PSA), treatment trends and serum stimulated LNCaP cell growth, in men with early, biopsy proven prostate cancer. To assess possible mechanisms mediating the relationship between changes in lifestyle and these measures we also evaluated changes in testosterone and C-reactive protein (CRP). Patient recruitment was limited to men who had chosen not to undergo any conventional treatment and who had low risk prostate cancer, as defined by baseline serum PSA and Gleason score. Submitted for publication September 9, 2004. Study received University of California-San Francisco Committee on Human Research institutional review board approval. Supported by Department of Defense Uniformed Services University Grant MDA905–99 –1– 0003 via the Henry M. Jackson Foundation Grant 600 – 06971000 –236, The Prostate Cancer Foundation, National Institutes of Health 5P50CA089520 – 02 University of California-San Francisco Prostate Cancer Specialized Program of Research Excellence, Bucksbaum Family Foundation, Ellison Foundation, Fisher Foundation, Gallin Foundation, Highmark, Inc., Koch Foundation, Resnick Foundation, Safeway Foundation, Wachner Foundation, Walton Family Foundation and Wynn Foundation. Foundation, Walton Family Foundation and Wynn Foundation. No supporting agencies were involved in the design or conduct of the study, in the collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, or in the preparation, review or approval of the manuscript. *
Correspondence: Preventive Medicine Research Institute, University of California-San Francisco, 900 Bridgeway, Sausalito, California 94965 (e-mail: d.ornish@pmri.org). † Financial interest and/or other relationship with Random House and Harper-Collins. ‡ Financial interest and/or other relationship with TAP Pharmaceutical Products, AstraZeneca, Pfizer and National Institutes of Health. 0022-5347/05/1743-1065/0 Vol. 174, 1065–1070, September 2005 THE JOURNAL OF UROLOGY® Printed in U.S.A. Copyright © 2005 by AMERICAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000169487.49018.73 1065
DEAN ORNISH, GERDI WEIDNER, WILLIAM R. FAIR, RUTH MARLIN, ELAINE B. PETTENGILL, CAREN J. RAISIN, STACEY DUNN-EMKE, LILA CRUTCHFIELD, F. NICHOLAS JACOBS, R. JAMES BARNARD, WILLIAM J. ARONSON, PATRICIA MCCORMAC, DAMIEN J. MCKNIGHT, JORDAN D. FEIN, ANN M. DNISTRIAN, JEANMAIRE WEINSTEIN, TUNG H. NGO, NANCY R. MENDELL AND PETER R. CARROLL‡ From the Departments of Urology (PRC) and Medicine (DO) and Preventive Medicine Research Institute (DO, RM, EBP, CJR, SDE, LC, PM, DJM, JDF, JW, GW), University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco and Departments of Physiological Science (RJB, THN) and Urology (WJA), University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, Department of Urologic Oncology, Memorial SloanKettering Cancer Center (WRF and AMD), New York and Department of Statistics, State University of New York at Stony Brook (NRM), Stony Brook, New York, and Windber Research Institute (FNJ), Johnstown, Pennsylvania ABSTRACT