1. < Prostate Cancer
Profile picture for diverjer

I seem to find myself between a rock and a hard place

Posted by diverjer @diverjer, Oct 11 6:11pm

Now I seem to find myself between a rock and a hard place! I been taking AREDS2 supplements for 12 years for immediate AMD.
Studies have shown that taking more than 75 mg of supplemental zinc daily is associated with a higher risk of developing aggressive or lethal prostate cancers. And AREDS2 has more than 75 mg of Zinc may be associated with a higher risk of developing aggressive or lethal prostate cancers.
Well my ADRES2 I take for AMD has 80 mg zinc and 180mg of vitamin E.
Also, clinical trials, including the SELECT trial, noted that high-dose vitamin E supplementation can slightly increase the overall risk of prostate cancer in certain men.
Now with my pathology report from prostate removal at a higher risk for recurrence I don't need to stimulate progression.
Then AREDS2 is the gold standard for immediate AMD.
What a mess. Heck from some of my research in the last 10 minutes the AREDS2 could have caused the prostate cancer or at least made it more aggressive.

Interested in more discussions like this? Go to the Prostate Cancer Support Group.

Profile picture for dailyeffort
dailyeffort | @dailyeffort | Oct 19 11:30am
In reply to @diverjer "I was thinking about AREDS3 until I read the following: Major clinical studies, such as the..." + (show)
Profile picture for diverjer @diverjer

I was thinking about AREDS3 until I read the following:
Major clinical studies, such as the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) and follow-up analyses by organizations like Harvard Health Publishing and Johns Hopkins Medicine, found that high-dose vitamin E supplementation is linked to a 17% increase in overall prostate cancer risk, with even higher risks (up to 63% higher overall and 111% higher for high-grade prostate cancer) observed in men with low baseline selenium levels. These are the bad amounts 400 IU or 180 MG. Seems there are 2 forms of E? 400 IU of Vitamin E equals 268 mg if it is natural (d-alpha-tocopherol) or 180 mg if it is synthetic (dl-alpha-tocopherol).
Seems I could just take a multi vitamin and there is an eye vitamin I see in stores with Lutein and the Zeaxanthin in them and not a lot of zinc or E. Can get the zinc and E from multi vitamin. Sam's club has one with Lutein 25mg and Zeaxanthin 5mg both an extract from marigold flower. Still researching. Now just taking one of the PreserVision AREDS 2 from Bausch and Lomb instead of the 2 a day.

Then again I don't have a prostate anymore, but must still have some prostate tissue as PSA last reading was .06 and they say I have a high risk of BCR. So it's the BCR that I am concerned about. Actually, it's all over my head, need a physician that actually knows these studies as well as BCR risks.

Jump to this post

@diverjer
I am not a huge fan of mega-supplementation when the actual required dose can be derived from foods instead. My viewpoint is that supplement manufacturers use high dose formulations to deter people from getting the vitamins they need through dietary sources. They market 400 IU of a vitamin, a number far higher amount than the body will actually absorb or need for the intended theraputic purpose. Perhaps it is a form of marketing to imply that massive doses are required which exceed what can be obtained from regular dietary sources. One needs to convert IU to mg, research the actual theraputic requirement, factor in the percentage of the supplement lost to excretion due to factors like transport saturation from the digestive tract and the inhibition from dietary factors, phytic acid and zinc, for example, and then evaluate the bioavailability from food sources. It takes some effort, but so does dealing with an agressive recurrence.

Looking at the formulation of AREDS (the actual ingredients rather than just the IU of each vitamin), I would review the studies to determine the actual bioavailability of each ingredient. For example, with both zinc and vitamin E, the absorption rate drops to levels near, sometimes below, 50% due to mega dose transort mechanism saturation, a loss that doesn't occur with the lower dose of the vitamins from dietary sources. Other factors like decreased absorption due to competition/inhibition from diet, phytic acid/zinc for example, further reduce the number of mg actually available to and used by your body for the theraputic purpose. The end result might be that a small amount of supplement will be needed in addition to dietary sources, but the mega doses which may put us at risk of agressive/lethal progression are avoided. So you are on the right track with your efforts.

Several more links which you have likely already seen:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5745505/
https://www.healio.com/clinical-guidance/drugs/vitamin_e
Aside from all of the above, the prospect of a significant reduction in vision would likely have had me following the same path you have been on.
Wishing you a positive outcome on all of this,
Bill

REPLY
Please sign in or register to post a reply.