Hello Paul,

Thanks for introducing yourself to this support group and assembling your website...I look forward to reading your book!

I was also diagnosed with Gleason 3+4 in Oct '23 and (as a retired chemical engineer who spent 45 years in R&D) have been very keen on asking questions and researching answers regarding active surveillance for low risk PCa.

I've been a member of this support group since my diagnosis and have summarized my situation in my profile.

I have also posted many discussion items including a lot of the information I found, my experience with implementation of various interventions and things that I have found to work since embarking on my AS journey.

As I read through your website I can confirm it is exactly inline with my research. Thanks for assembling it in such a helpful and concise format....you have done a great service for those who are serious about what I call "aggressive active surveillance"!

I'm a a huge advocate for the ERASE randomized clinical trial and started implementing that protocol immediately after being diagnosed. I've continued that protocol for the last 2.5 years, actually adding to it...three Zone 2 5K's/week, which is a very sustainable and safe pace to work towards for those who desire to include HIIT. I also found that two 0.25 mile HIIT runs (after each Zone 2 5K) is all that is required to get extremely fit (my VO2 Max is 49, at 69.5 y/o....in the top 4% for my age).

I noticed you put the ERASE study as "Tier One" and the "Strongest exercise evidence for active surveillance — PSA reduced, anxiety improved"...I'm living proof that it works for those diagnosed with low risk PCa.

As I have said other places in this support group, either my stablized/reversed PCa progression results are directly attributed to the implementation of ERASE OR my original diagnosis was completely in error and I never had Gleason 3+4 in the first place (contrary to my original MRI-directed ultrasound-fusion targeted biopsy).

My urologist tends to believe the later, indicating that mpMRI's are "notoriously inaccurate". He (like most) find it hard to believe that PCa can simply "go away"...maybe he's right...but trying to explain how three lesions, including a PIRADS 3, PIRADS 4 and PIRADS 5 in my original mpMRI simply can't be seen anymore, is a little disconcerting to a physician when you tell him that you have done NO active treatment and that your treatment is running 🙂 Either way he has a dilemma, if mpMRI's are "notoriously inaccurate"; then why should I bother or believe that a new one is "accurate" when the earlier ones get dismissed. Not to mention my biopsy that found two of the now invisible lesions were Gleason 3+3....anyway I think you understand where I'm coming from...

In any case, thanks again for your work in putting together your evidence website, I look forward to reading your book!

All the best!

I also really like how your http://www.evidence.zone.com website helps to dispel the notion that single ingredient supplements are beneficial. I think you are spot on regarding this assessment!