Diet for a healthy prostate
As part of a long-term study on prostate cancer prevention, researchers in Seattle analyzed the diets of thousands of men to see if they could identify any connection between what the men ate and their risk of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), a non-cancerous inflammation of the prostate gland. Although BPH is by definition benign, this very common condition is a major quality-of-life issue for men over 50. And having BPH is a risk factor for eventually developing prostate cancer.
In any case, the researchers spotted a few trends. Men who ate a low-fat diet and got four or more servings of vegetables a day had a dramatically reduced risk of BPH. They also reported that consuming lean protein appeared to be protective, while frequent consumption of red meat increases your risk.
That last statement betrays an annoying bias in this type of research. The dietary questionnaires they use to collect this data don't distinguish between a McDonald's hamburger (25% fat) and a grass-fed bison steak (2.4% fat). It's all just red meat. "Lean protein" appears to be reserved for other types of meat. (Why?) Personally, I'm reserving judgment on the red meat thing.
Finally, moderate alcohol consumption (2 drinks per day) appeared to be protective. (Read more details about the study here.)
So, to keep your prostate healthy, avoid excess fats and eat your vegetables. Hmmm, sounds awfully familiar.
 older posts |
home | newer posts  |
| Winter Warning: Your vitamin D levels may be at their lowest right now | | Nutrition Data Blog | | Complementary proteins: How much does timing matter? |
Posted by: Dan Allan | Jan 8, 2009 11:59:46 AM
I was told not to drink alcohol to improve my BPH difficulties. I have, through trial and error, found that if I consume Diet Cokes versus beers, I have more trouble during the night. I am up 3 to 4 times a night on diet coke versus just once having two beers.
As an aside, every doctor I have seen wants to give me the latest medication to address my BPH. not ONE of them even approached discussing my diet.
Posted by: Nutritionist | Mar 11, 2008 4:12:34 PM
Not all ANYTHING is the same. Fruits and vegetables can be cooked/steamed of all nutrients or raw, but they are lumped together. "Sugar" as a category is lumped together, so are fats, etc. As a whole, eating red meat is not the best of food choices. To distinguish between less crappy and more crappy doesn't make either NOT crappy.
Posted by: PaulDowding | Mar 11, 2008 8:52:02 AM
I've had bouts of BPH symptoms since I was 50 (in 1993), did a food-diary in 1995, and have controlled it since by eliminating trans-fats from my diet (I have always eaten way more than the 5 portions of fruit and veg a day). Trans-fat lapses (i.e., when eating out or with friends)would cause symptoms for about four days after. I eliminated milk and dairy products in 2002 because I was beginning to get bouts of BPH from some products. More recently I got a bad dose of BPH from cold-pressed organic rapeseed (canola) oil, and confirmed it by blind trial. In the last year I have got increasing problems from even the best commercial meat. The only meat I can now eat without getting a bout of BPH has to come from totally grass-fed animals. I am wondering whether the growing use of rapeseed meal in animal concentrate feeds over here in Ireland (to avoid using GM soya) is feeding some prostatic irritant through to me in the animal's fat. Rapeseed oil is usually hydrogenated before being sold as 'vegetable oil'or 'vegetable fat', so maybe if I could get pure hydrogenated soya I wouldn't get BPH. However trans-linoleic and trans linolenic FAs are so dangerous for health, that I'm not tempted to try to get pure hydrogenated soya.
If your BPH symptoms are erratic, keep a diary, but remember that there will be a delay between eating the irritant and symptoms (8-9hrs for me, with repeats at 8-9hr intervals for up to four days)
This is an interesting debate.
Posted by: BETTINA | Mar 10, 2008 11:55:50 PM
ITS A DILEMMA. I UNDERSTAND THAT VEGETARIANS ARE HEALTHIER AND SO ARE 7 DAY ADVENTISTS WHO LIVE LONGER. I ALSO HAVE READ THAT RED MEAT IS ANTI INFLAMATORY WHEREAS AS CHICKEN AND POULTRY AND MOST FRUITS ARE INFLAMATORY. GO FIGURE.
I ALWAYS SAID THAT IF I HAD TO KILL A CREATURE TO SURVIVE I WOULD STARVE TO DEATH. YET NATURE IS DESIGNED FOR MOST CREATURES OF EARTH TO SURIVE BY KILLING AND EATING ANOTHER OR EVEN THEIR OWN SPECIES.
Posted by: Jerry Snyder | Mar 10, 2008 6:58:11 PM
Most people do not tend to think of eating food as a function of laboratory study. The effects of the food we consume is one that produces various effects in the dynamic energies of nature. We should be aware that good nutrition includes recycling energy back into the system from which we extracted it. Red meat is butchery no matter how much fire you roast it in (or not). We should do more with the energies our body produces than torture and butcher other living entities.
Posted by: bvllets | Mar 10, 2008 4:39:58 PM
I eat grass fed beef and bison when I can. This way I am healthier so I can blow lines of meth later on.
Posted by: Marcsi | Mar 10, 2008 4:12:56 PM
Eating meat on our immensely overcrowded Earth is like smoking in an overcrowded elevator stuck between two floors and with no ventillation ... eventually we'll all suffucate, smokers and non-smokers alike.
Posted by: Jon Styre Cedar Rapids, Iowa | Mar 10, 2008 2:12:32 PM
Great distinction between grain feed beef and grass feed beef - they are as similar as black and white - same could be said about wild salmon versus farm raised salmon - as far as eating meat or not eating meat - bigger issues of excessive sugar and carbohydrate nutritionally dead food, trans-fats or bad fats, diet coke, lack of exercise and laziness, & stress factors have made us a nation of very unhealthy people. A diet rich in fresh fruits and vegetables from a garden of compost rich soil would do wonders for one's health. Perhaps there are moral issues with eating meat - but not eating meat does not necessarily make you healthy.
Posted by: Robin | Mar 10, 2008 1:33:21 PM
I agree that there is inherently a difference in red meat but studies still show that overall white meat and fish are better for you.
Posted by: Bob | Mar 10, 2008 1:06:16 PM
Michael Pollan says it best:
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.
That 7 word mantra would probably solve a lot of problems if folks could only follow the recommendation. I think the data available strongly suggests that vegetarians do better than meat-eaters in general. Selecting out for those who eat "bison" probably would not affect the results since so few people eat bison. I agree that the person who is very careful about only eating very lean cuts of beef or other red meats and avoids grilling which generates carcinogens would probably have statistically the same chance of developing cancer as a vegetarian.
Posted by: Christine | Mar 10, 2008 1:00:06 PM
Whether or not some red meat is "healthier" than other red meat is irrelevant when you consider that the production of meat contributes to tremendous environmental damage and to the needless suffering of animals.
If you truly want to make a positive difference in your health and the environment, while knowing that your choice did not contribute to suffering, it's a no brainer. Keep the meat off your plate.
Posted by: Maria Atwood, cnhp | Mar 10, 2008 12:39:31 PM
THANKS so much for making the red meat issues clear. I advocate on my website www.traditionalcook.com that we eat all the wonderful foods that are there by design, but also point out the importance of grass-fed beef and other meats we know are loaded with nutrients.
Thanks for keeping the understanding on this issue better known.
Maria Atwood, cnhp
www.traditionalcook.com
Eastern Plains of Colorado Chapter Leader for the Weston A Price Foundation.
Posted by: Heather | Mar 10, 2008 12:33:39 PM
I also cannot relate to the prostate cancer risk aspect of the red meat issue because I'm female, but I do agree with the others who commented that not all red meat is the same. Any meat can be bad for you when prepared incorrectly. Even chicken and fish can be worse than beef when they are, for example, deep fried. They have various types of red meat, with higher or lower fat contents. You just have to be cautious, shield yourself with knowledge, and choose the right kind.
Posted by: Phillip E. Banks | Mar 10, 2008 12:29:40 PM
All red, white or dark meat is dead. Eating something dead for your health? You tell me the sense in that. Fresh fruits & vegetables are alive and are better for you. Red meat gets a well- deserved bum rap no matter what the source.
Posted by: Kara | Mar 10, 2008 11:57:43 AM
I agree that all red meat should not be lumped together. When I use ground beef, I use the leanest one. I believe it is 97/03 with just 3% fat. Wanting to take a more healthy approach, once I reached for ground turkey. I was surprised to see that it had 3 times the fat in it than the ground beef did. So, happily, I went back to my lean ground beef. Not all beef is the same.
Posted by: Rae Nunley | Mar 10, 2008 11:56:50 AM
Being a woman, I can't contribute to the prostate part of the conversation, but I do agree that certain types of red meat are not as bad as the rest. I used to have stubborn high cholesterol inherited from both parents, but have changed my diet to include high fiber carbs, 5 vegetables and fruits per day, and low fat proteins that includes 1 buffalo burger once a week. My cholesterol dropped 80 pts from the total and is consistent.
