Connect
← Return to Glutamine: The Surprising Link to Prostate Cancer -thoughts?
Discussion
Glutamine: The Surprising Link to Prostate Cancer -thoughts?
Prostate Cancer | Last Active: Jan 22 9:28am | Replies (20)Comment receiving replies
Thanks of the post!
Can you provide a link to the study you reference?
I purchased a copy and read Thomas Seyfried's 2012 book "Cancer as a Metabolic Disease"...its written in the fashion of a graduate level biochemistry textbook and assumes the reader has a good grasp of, at a minimum, undergraduate organic chemistry...so I have an interest in this line of research.
I had previously seen Dr. Geo YouTube video and I watched it again, after your post. I came away with a few notable observations from this video:
1) Dr.'s Gong & Espinosa both agree that glutamine, is a "non-essential" amino acid that is produced by the body and it is the most abundant amino acid in our blood.
2) Localized lower/intermediate risk prostate cancer cells are LESS glucose dependent than other types of cancer.
3) Dr. Gong's earlier research indicated that localized prostate cancer (Gleason 6, 7 and 8) were NOT influenced by glutamine blocking mechanisms. Apparently, it's a controversial point, in medical research circles, that glutamine influences these lower/intermediate PCa types.
4) Advanced prostate cancer (MCRPC & MCSPC), and especially neuroendocrine prostate cancer, DOES appear to be glutamine "addicted". This is where the the glutamine based research appears to be the most promising and focused; but NOT through modified diet.
5) In pancreatic cancer, the research shows the blocking glutamine makes the cancer MORE RESISTANT...therefore, one needs to be very careful before making conclusions about attempting to restrict glutamine...by any means. In fact, glutamine is absolutely necessary for proper functioning in other parts of the body.
It seems to me that the one thing that everyone (Seyfried, Gong, Espinosa and virtually every traditional cancer physician) in the cancer research arena ALL agree...the one thing that is definitely helpful in slowing cancer...EXERCISE, EXERCISE, EXERCISE.
Replies to "Thanks of the post! Can you provide a link to the study you reference? I purchased..."
Connect
What you posted right there, handera, is the single best example of all the contradictory discoveries we find on the internet.
For every study proving X, there’s a study debunking it and promoting Y. It can drive you bonkers!
The funny thing is that we all seem to think that the startling rise in cancer rates is solely to do with our modern diet, lack of exercise, environmental hazards, etc. Sure, there is some of that, esp. things like mesothelioma tied to asbestos, lung cancer to smoking, etc.
But people died from cancer centuries ago! There are accounts of breast cancer, skin cancers and others during pioneer times when there was no processed food, exercise was a necessity, and industrial waste was not as common as today.
The BIG difference is diagnosis. Imagine a country doctor trying to figure out why your 50 yr old father is in such pain, can’t pee and his leg “just done broke on his own”!
The poor guy probably had metastatic prostate cancer but how could anyone know? No PSA, no scans…nothing!
Now today we see a large increase in younger people getting cancer….getting ‘diagnosed’ is more like it since testing is so abundant (rampant?) today and drs. look for familial patterns of disease and start testing earlier.
We may not love the PSA test but once they can really refine it past the current PSE and onward, men will start getting tested at 40 yrs of age - and unfortunately even MORE cancer will be found and the news will be filled with the “startling rise” of prostate cancer in younger men.
But it will be the same as it ever was, to quote David Byrne, and for all that earlier testing and diagnosis some men will still die, just as they did in the Old West and in Roman times - if they lived that long in the first place.