Van, Phil, and others looking for a single magic supplement:
For about 5 years I've been taking supplements prescribed by my doctor that contain lots of zinc supposedly from pumpkin seeds, (that's what it says on the label), as well as bio sources of selenium and a host of other co-factors that are supposed to support prostate health.  None of it has done any good.

As I've said before, I've done all the conventional things as well as many unconventional things, all without success.  At this point I don't think any single supplement is going to shrink my prostate.  At least none have done so over the past eight or nine years.  And in fact, my prostate continued to grow during that time.

If the issue could be solved with something as simple as oysters, pumpkin seeds, ginger root, saw palmetto, lycopene, Glutamic acid, Lysine, African pygeum, Stinging Nettle, Pomegranate, Quercetin,  Vitamin D3, Vitamin E, Vitamin B6 complex, Vitamin B12, various berry extracts, Beta-Sitosterol, manganese, magnesium, selenium, chromium, molybdenum, copper, silicon, boron, vanadium, etc, etc, etc, Did I mention a raw meat diet?  I'd have been cured long ago.  All of these popular supplements were prescribed by my doctor (with the exception of the raw meat diet).  If they have done anything at all, they have only suppressed the symptoms.  They did nothing to address the cause or stop, or reverse prostate growth.  Iodine did seem to lower PSA a bit, but didn't have any effect on prostate size, growth, or symptoms.

So far, just about everything that has been recommended on this forum has been researched and/or tried by me and thousands of other men, and to my knowledge, supported by my urologist, they have no effect other than to temporarily relieve symptoms.  The relief can be for months or years (8-9 years in my case).  Ultimately, for most men, the prostate will continue to grow until the supplements and drugs lose their effectiveness.  This is the point where I'm at today.

Lex

I'll let you know if it spoils, but I keep tubs or jars of it in the fridge now.   As far as water left in,,  I do know that any liquid that is apparent will  settle to the bottom of the jars or tub and can be poured out afterwards.  The 'trick' is to put it through a meat grinder with a small sieve.  The fat then comes out like spaghetti.

I always grind my fat before rendering as well. Renders much faster.

Large drops of moisture will settle to the bottom but without enough heat I've found that there is a good bit of moisture throughout the tallow as well.

I then put it in a ss colander with a weight on top suspended over a bowl, in a large pan with either water that I keep at 100 f or whatever works.   

This is interesting.  Putting the fat under pressure while rendering.  I never thought of this.  The more saturated fats may not melt but they surely will soften significantly and under pressure you may be extracting more than I would have expected.  I may try this just to see for myself.

 

    I think the guy on Charles' was me, I got banned for talking about organs and grass fed.  Other than the fact that the forum has about five active members, or so it seems,  I am surprised that Charles hasn't yet run into health problems.  It will be interesting to see in another ten years of eating just walmart meat. 

No, it wasn't you,  it was a guy using an amusing user name and I can't remember what it was (something-Joe I think).  His wife had lyme disease or something and she did well on pemmican.  I also think he said he raised is kids on pemmican as well.  The kids were something like 3 and 5 as I remember- two cute boys.

I was fairly active on Charles' forum for awhile.  Even went to one of his "meat ups" when he came to Los Angeles.  I got kicked of the forum when I dared to state that it was possible to gain weight on a meat and fat diet after the body had fully adapted to it.  Charles refused to believe this and said I was no longer welcome on the forum so I left.  I heard a couple of years latter that Charles was gaining weight and he couldn't understand why.  I was told he was blaming it on all sorts of things other than the fact that once the body fully adapts to a dietary protocol it then can use all the calories available and you can gain weight.  Not sure what he believes now.  I've pretty much lost touch over the last 2 or 3 years.

Lex

I had the TUMT procedure yesterday morning around 10am.  All went well.  There was some minor prep work where I was given a muscle relaxer and some ibuprofen as an anti-inflammatory.  They also inserted a catheter and inserted lidocaine into the bladder to numb it and much of the prostate area.  No needles were used for this, they just pushed the lidocaine into the bladder through the catheter.

I then waited about 20 minutes until the meds took affect before they took me into the treatment area.  This is an office procedure so no hospital surgery room was required.  They use the same room for the TUMT treatment that they use for cytoscope exams and other minor procedures.

When they felt I was ready, the urologist came in and did an ultrasound of the prostate through the rectum.  The normal prostate at age 25 has a volume of about 15 cubic centimeters.  The ultrasound showed my prostate to be 68 cubic centimeters – about 4 ½ times the size it was at age 25.  To give you a graphic that may help you understand the sizes, take a regular ¼ lb cube of butter.  Cut off about 1 1/2 tablespoons from one end.  The 1 1/2 tablespoons  represents the size of a normal prostate at age 25.  The remaining 6 1/2 tablespoons is the size of my prostate.

With the ultrasound guiding, the urologist injected (with needles this time) some lidocaine into the major nerves around the prostate and bladder, much as a dentist does in your mouth before drilling.  There was no pain and I didn’t even know he was doing this until he told me, so the lidocaine wash in the bladder did its job.

Once the nerves were numbed the urologist removed the ultrasound probe from the rectum and replaced it with about a 4 inch long temperature sensing probe.  I understand this probe has 5 sensors along its length.  It is also very flexible and maybe the size of your little finger so no discomfort here.

Next the TUMT catheter was inserted through the penis and up into the bladder where a small balloon at the end of the catheter was expanded with water to hold the catheter in position.  No pain but I certainly felt the catheter as it passed the valve into the bladder.  Sorta causes you to involuntarily curl your toes for an instant, then it’s over and you feel nothing.

The TUMT catheter looks like the tenticles of an octopus.  There’s one leg that goes into the bladder to do the work, 2 legs (input/output) that circulate the cooling fluid around the catheter to protect the urethra from excess heat, one that connects to the Urologix Coolwave Thermo Therapy machine, and I think one more but not sure what it’s for.
Finally they pressed some buttons to tell the machine what to do and the machine started clicking and humming as it went through a calibration cycle.  This took about 5 minutes.  Once the calibration cycle was over the machine started the 28 minute treatment cycle which is totally automatic. 

I must admit the treatment is a bit uncomfortable.  Not pain really, but very strong urges to urinate, bladder spasms, and other feelings that are annoying but you can do nothing about.  I was very glad when the 28 minutes was up.

When the treatment was completed, it took about 1 minute to remove the catheter and temperature sensor and I was then taken to a regular exam room.  Here I was given 24 oz of water to drink and container to catch urine.  They want to find out if you can pass urine after the procedure and the amount you are able to release determines if you must go home with a catheter for a few days.  The treatment causes trauma to the prostate and it often swells to the point that no urine can flow and this is what they test for.  The ibuprofen given at the start of the procedure helps some, but in my case it was not enough.  I was only able to pass one ounce of urine over a 1 hour period so in went a catheter.  Within 2 minutes 800ml of urine was drained from my bladder.

After that I was sent home with a prescription for antibiotics and ibuprofen to be taken for 2 weeks, and an appointment was made for next Monday morning to remove the catheter.

I arrived home about noon. The first 9 hours home was not fun.  Bladder spasms every half hour or so that were accompanied by a rather intense burning sensation.  I was ordered to drink lots of water and the resulting urine was pink showing some minor bleeding was going on, but I was warned that this would happen and not to worry unless it persisted for more than 3 days.

The spasms were so annoying that I couldn’t even concentrate on watching TV or working on the computer.  I finally gave up and went to bed around 9pm.  I was afraid that I probably wouldn’t sleep but this was not the case.  Since I was lying down and not moving, the spasms slowed way down and I went to sleep.  I woke up twice during the night with spasms but they passed quickly (maybe 1 or 2 minutes at most) and I fell right back to sleep.

I awoke at 6am with a 3rd mild spasm and decided to get up and start the antibiotic and ibuprofen for the day.  Overall I’m now very comfortable.  I get an occasional spasm but it is mild compared to the ones when I first got home and now they only happen every 3 to 4 hours if that often.

The catheter is left in for several days to allow the swelling in the prostate to reduce to the point that urine will flow reliably.  In my case I go back on Monday so I’ll have the catheter for 5 days.  I was told that 3 to 4 days was the norm, but the weekend gets in the way so I have to wait a couple of extra days.  As long as the spasms don’t return in force I’m fine with this.

I believe that they set the machine to kill about 30% of the tissue inside the prostate.  This dead tissue will be carried away and discarded taking the pressure off the urethra and allow urine to flow more freely.  The whole process takes about 6 months, but I’m told that I should start seeing improvement in 3 to 6 weeks and shortly after that I can discontinue the Doxasozin.  Results should last for 5 years or more after which the procedure can be repeated if necessary.  A friend of mine had this done and he went 10 years before he noticed things slowing down again.

Well that’s it for now.  Will answer questions and post as this adventure continues.

Lexa
   

On the other hand, just because a number is within range or close to it doesn't necessarily mean it's optimal. Lab numbers are based on American averages, which are themselves probably suboptimal to begin with.

Yup, I agree. 

That's an excellent question. What do you propose as the standard to measure ourselves against? Are American averages the best numbers to use, or should we consider the numbers of other populations?

I don't have a standard.  I just try to make informed and well thought out decisions and let the numbers fall where they may.

Yeah, Durianrider is a mostly-raw vegan with very different numbers than yours and he says the same sorts of things--that his diet is different, so his numbers are probably OK and just skewed because of his diet, which he claims is healthy. He also says he has no symptoms. It's an interesting contrast. With outlier diets it is indeed difficult to know what the numbers should be.

I have come to accept that I have no idea what is right or wrong, (only, what I hope are well reasoned theories) but what I firmly believe is that my body will do the best it can regardless of the choices I make, good or bad. It is my body's response to my choices that create the lab numbers. Since I have no idea what a good number should be, nor do I know if my choices are correct,  I let my body make its decision with out prejudice or intervention.

Yes, I see it improved and then gradually got worse again, and now is improved again since the iodine. It will be interesting to see what the next number is.

I'm not willing to make the leap that it is iodine that is affecting the numbers - even though the effect is small.  Remember I'm taking several supplements as part of the iodine protocol and any one or the combination of all of them could account for these small lab changes.  Or none of them.  Who knows. 

Yup. I look at my test results more as clues to try to help get a sense of the overall picture than absolute indicators of underlying causes of multiple individual pathologies. Unfortunately, some physicians apparently freak out over individual numbers and want to prescribe drugs at the drop of a hat. Luckily, I only encountered mild pressure to use statins in my case some years ago, which I declined.

My doctors push for meds but I'm up front with them and tell them that I will not take them even if they prescribe them.  I also give them my reasoning and of course my overall dietary results rather speak for themselves.

Lex

Danny Roddy thinks, based on Ray Peat, that your past TSH #'s were too high (he reported that around 0.5 is optimal http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/the-myth-of-male-pattern-baldnes) and your CO2 numbers too low. I would have been interested to see your TSH # with the Lugol's therapy.

Low/High as compared to what?  I don't know anyone who eats the way I do and I have no clue as to what the numbers should be based on my particular lifestyle choices.  I suppose I could manipulate the numbers by making different choices as Danny has done, but that defeats my methodology of making a choice and then letting the numbers fall where they may.  Last time I was in contact with Danny he was drinking lots of sugar water and consuming a good bit of caffeine in an effort to get specific numbers for TSH, CO2 and other lab results in line with Ray Peat's theory's.  That is Danny's current methodology and it's not what I'm about.

High RDW with normal MCV is associated with mixed deficiency (Iron + B12 or folate) anemia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_blood_cell_distribution_width) and possibly the early stages of deficiency in vitamin B12 plus folic acid (http://www.justanswer.com/medical/4395a-rdw-17-8-mcv-normal-b12-high-iron-saturation-iron-35.html). I noted before that the latter seemed more likely in your case, but your MCV was a touch low-normal in the past. High RDW with low MCV is associated with iron deficiency anemia, which is surprising in your case given the heavy read meat intake. I see the MCV rose in this test.

RDW is increasingly being regarded as an important measure:With your high RDW and low MVP, I wonder if you've noticed any easy-bruising (http://www.ask.com/question/low-mpv-count)?

No easy bruising or any other indications that there are problems.  RDW has consistently been at the high end of the range with MCV at the lower end of the range but both are still within a range that is considered "normal".  Even when one of my lab numbers slips outside the range it is usually by a fraction of a point or two and not grossly one way or the other.  The numbers also move slowly over the years with no wild fluctuations - very different than when I was living a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle when my labs were always all over the map and when something was out of range it was WAY out.

I think you said before that you haven't had any petechia.

None that either my doctor or I am aware of....

Did you get a urinalysis? Given the elevated creatinine, low eGFR and history of kidney stones, that might be useful, though I doubt your physician is concerned by one poor instance for those numbers.

Again, all lab numbers for urinalysis are within acceptable range and there is no pathology that points to getting a more comprehensive analysis.  Kidney stones have not returned since the initial incidences of Nov 2009 and Feb 2010 (one stone each side).

Since the only pathology I'm currently aware of is an enlarging prostate, and that pathology started well before I changed to a paleo lifestyle, can you show where BPH is caused by low MCV, high RDW, low CO2, high creatinine, high TSH  or any of the other things you've mentioned.  I understand that some of these may be ASSOCIATED with BPH, but association is not cause and therefore controlling the lab value won't solve the core issue.  Also, none of my numbers are grossly out of "normal" range so just what numbers should I be shooting for and how do I know that these new numbers are truly any better than the current set of numbers accepted by the medical profession.

There are lots of things associated with pathologies, but few of the associations are core causes, but rather co-symptoms.  I'm not about chasing lots of individual symptoms unless forced to do so.  In the case of BPH I had to deal with the symptom of being unable to urinate by taking medication - this issue was forced.  I've done everything in my knowledge and power to identify the core issue that is causing my prostate to enlarge, so far unsuccessfully.  I'm now to the point where I'm forced to take slightly more drastic measures to deal with the symptoms of BPH. 

If you or anyone else has clear evidence as to the root cause of BPH and know of a specific lifestyle change or protocol that will effectively deal with it, I'd certainly be happy to give it a shot. 

Lex

Sorry to let posts go unanswered for so long, but I've been out of town teaching an antique clock repair class since last Thursday and I'm leaving today to teach another one.

@Phil
Phil, I didn't find your post vague nor objectionable, I just didn't find the links useful.  They contained lots of observations that might be valid, but there is no clear way to use any of the information.  As an example, the findings on Zinc.  Valid information, but I have no control as to what my body does with the zinc I take in and there was no clue in the research as to how to control this.  The same goes for the research in the other links.  I have no doubt that some sort of stress and or inflammation, and possibly a deficiency, or even an excess of some inappropriate nutrient (such as gluten in grains)  is involved in the process, the issue is what to do about it.  Unfortunately, no one seems to be able to answer that question.

@GS
I've looked into most of the alternative therapies like Rife machines, magnetism, Beck protocol, & etc.  The testimonials are all over the map for these things and I don't find most of them credible.  They all seem to cure everything from hangnails to cancer.  What I've never seen is a double blind study (there have been some attempted), where the outcome is better than the control group or random chance.  If no one can achieve a positive outcome under controlled conditions, then I have little faith in the protocol.

@Johan August
At this point I agree with you.  I've tested well for all the common nutrients and expect that a test for magnesium would be no different.  Of course I could be wrong so will ask for this test next time I see the doctor.

@van
I understand your point on stress.  I have lots of stress in my life and always have. Interesting that at this point the only manifestation of this stress is an enlarged prostate - an issue that affects over 85% of males in developed countries. Stress is also shown to be related to heart disease, lupus, diabetes, crohns, and almost every other modern malady. All the indicators for these other diseases improved when I changed my diet.  Only the BPH remains. Being alive is stressful, so if that is truly the cause of BPH, then I suppose I can look forward to relief only after I'm dead and all the stresses of being alive are gone.

I'm also sorry you are so sensitive to the minor changes and stressors in your life.  Things like eating frozen foods, varying my fat source, or getting out of bed in the morning don't seem to have the negative effects on me as they do on you.

@ Iguana
I never counted my weekly ejaculations.  They say that what you measure is what you control.  Maybe it isn't the actual number of ejaculations at all,  maybe all we need to do is count them every week!  Alas, at my age it's too late, the damage is done.  If only I could go back to my twenties and start counting...

Lex

@peacefulbunny
Thanks for your kind words and comments on hormones.  This is an area I'm exploring with my urologist who is also a specialist in testosterone replacement therapy.  I fully understand your point on bioidentical hormones so will keep that forefront.  I never rush into anything.  I always research and then have a specific reason for each choice I make. I then test relentlessly to see if outcomes are as expected.

Lex

Phil,
I just managed to get through all the links you provided in you original post.  All kinds of interesting information but I couldn't find any way to use the information. 

Much was made of the link between modern metabolic disease and the development of BPH as just another manifestation of this disease.  My annual labs indicate that I pretty much have modern "metabolic disease" well controlled (with the notable exception of BPH) 

Specifically there was correlation of diabetes and hypertension (neither of which do I have) as common co-factors to BPH.  Also mention that oxidative stress MIGHT be a contributor but nothing on how to control this in practical daily living. And how do I measure my oxidative stress levels?  What should they be if I do measure them?

Low HDL seems to be a contributing factor to BPH, but I have high HDL levels, and my HDL/TotChol ratio of 2.7 is amazingly low.  Trigs at 42 are also amazingly low.

5 alpha- reductase inhibitors have shown to reduce prostate size but often at a significant cost in very undesirable side effects.  I know two people that went that route and they are both very sorry that they did.  The bad side effects have continued for years after discontinuing the drugs. Not everyone is affected, but I'm not willing to take the risk since stopping the drugs doesn't always stop the side effects.

Prostate tissue levels of zinc was the subject of another abstract.  Nice info but if I take zinc how can I assure that the zinc will go into the tissues rather than be excreted?  The study mentioned low levels of zinc in prostate tissue and high levels of zinc in urine when pathology was present.  So there seemed to be enough zinc, the body was just not putting it in the prostate tissue.  Nothing in the abstract on how to control how the body uses zinc.  You see, low zinc levels in prostate tissue doesn't directly translate to low zinc intake, just as taking calcium supplements doesn't mean the body will use the calcium to re-calcify the bones in osteoporosis.

In short, there were lots of observations of likely metabolic co-factors to BPH, but I see no way to use this information to make positive lifestyle changes beyond what I've already done.  Especially since I currently exhibit none of these metabolic problems (at least the ones I can measure) and haven't for over 8 years.  True, I had them in spades 10 years ago, but I fixed them and that helped a lot of the issues I was facing, but unfortunately BPH was not among the cures.

What am I missing?   

Lex

Part of my point should have been (and I'm sure you've looked) finding the nature of the enlargement through lifestyle, diet etc.  That is where traditional medicine I thinks fails us. 

Hmmmm.  I guess folks think I'm not looking hard enough to find what causes prostate enlargement.  I assure you, that has been my primary focus for almost 10 years.  I've followed up on everything that looked promising and many things that didn't.  I'm just as clueless now as when I started.  What I have learned is that we're not the only male animal where prostate growth occurs with age.  This might mean that for humans this is a natural process, as it is with other animals, and there isn't much we can do about it.  What is different about humans is that we're living so much longer now that prostate growth becomes a problem.  If I'd been eaten by a Saber Tooth Tiger before the age of 50 I wouldn't be experiencing these issues now!  To be honest, without modern antibiotics, I would have died from a massive infection I had when I was 14, and/or from several other major infections I had after that. 

As far as peer review, I get the concept.

I don't even care about peer review.  Do you (or anyone else for that matter) have any evidence at all that drinking urine will stop or reverse prostate growth?

I think increased blood flow is almost always beneficial for healing.

Increasing blood flow is not always good either.  There are times when we want reduced blood flow - especially to rogue tissues.  The ability to divert and increase blood flow to itself is one of the things that sets cancer apart from normal tissues. There's a whole branch of cancer research dedicated to finding ways to cut off the blood supply to cancerous tissues.

There's also some fairly solid evidence that increased blood flow to the prostate may play a role in tissue overgrowth.  Some of the research related to the treatment that I'm considering has shown that one of the problems with treating an enlarged prostate is the increased blood flow beyond what normal prostate tissue would have.  If this is the case, then increasing blood flow further may just exacerbate the problem.

People make assumptions based on conventional wisdom, and conventional wisdom is often wrong.  There is little related to the operation of the human body that can be depended upon to be true in every case.  Exceptions and alternate pathways keep cropping up to ruin our simplified operational models.  Increased blood flow being beneficial for healing is a good example.  It's always desirable -- except of course, when it's not.

I've spent years studying this stuff and the more I research the more complicated and confusing things become.  I started out thinking I knew a good bit about what was right/wrong, good/bad.  Today I must confess that I don't know much of anything for sure.  Most all of my cherished beliefs have been proven wrong over the years, and if not completely wrong, then riddled with exceptions.

I know that everyone is trying to help, but I'm way past the bromides and platitudes of conventional wisdom.  This is why I ask for actual evidence that what is being recommended has had some verifiable success.  Just faith or belief that "it should be good" or "its made me feel better"  is no longer enough.  I've been down those rabbit holes and not one of them has lead anywhere useful.

Lex

You might need to clean your colon, not sure if you've had it done before. I'd recommend it to everyone.
I felt as if I was born again after I had it done.

Having a regular colon cleanse was a major part of my health protocol during my 30 years as a vegetarian/vegan.  It's a foundation of the Natural Hygiene movement which I followed religiously.    Since it was during this time that my prostate started growing and giving me problems, I can only assume that colonics and colon cleansing had little positive effect.  Nor did any of the other protocols held near and dear to the hearts of Natural Hygienists and followers of Holistic alternative medicine.

I've pretty much done all this stuff (with the exception of drinking urine) and none of it works - at least it didn't work for me during the 30 years that I followed it.  In fact, it was following this lifestyle that destroyed my health over the long term and lead me to search out Paleo.

You might find it interesting that even with all the colon cleansing and the holistic lifestyle, I still had pre-cancerous colon polyps at age 54.  After changing my diet to all meat/paleo and ditching the colon cleansing, the polyps disappeared by age 57.

So much for the colon cleansing theory.

Lex

@alive
@jessica
Not sure where the idea of cancer therapy has come from.  As far as I know I don't have cancer.  I'm also not interested in using Cannabis in any form for anything.  I'm also not interested in using any other recreational drug, alcohol, or tobacco in any form for anything.  I don't like the way they make me feel - mild or not.  To my knowledge, there are no peer reviewed studies showing these things to actually cure any pathology.  Most of the time they are used to mitigate the side effects of other more mainstream medical treatments like chemotherapy.  None of this has anything to do with me or the way I wish to live my life. 

If you wish to discuss stuff like this please do it on another thread.

Lex

The opposite view is now held; testosterone protects against prostate cancer. Low testosterone is the danger. See "Testosterone for life" by Abraham Morgentaler, associate professor of urology at Harvard Medical School. McGraw Hill 2009. At the age of almost 70 I don't personally have a prostate problem or any significant enlargement but I do take extra testosterone after suffering a severe decline in testosterone after suffering from fibromyalgia. So please be careful before going down the road of deliberately lowering your testosterone levels. There are several good reasons to maintain a normal testosterone level apart from the obvious one.

Johan,
You pin point the problem exactly.  I'm not sure anyone knows what appropriate testosterone levels should be.  The medical community says one thing one day and then reverse themselves the next.  Politics and competition for government research grants just muddy the waters even more.

At this point I'm of a mind that hormone levels fluctuate and most naturally decline with age.  I'm somewhat concerned about trying to maintain a specific hormone like testosterone at the level of a 25 year old when all the other hormones are declining in my 62 year old body.  This seems that it could create an imbalance that might lead to other problems.

I did ask the urologist about testosterone supplementation and he said that as long as my testosterone levels were within the "normal" range for my age he didn't recommend it.   He sited some studies that suggested that boosting testosterone levels too high might support beneficial metabolic changes (lower weight, greater muscle mass, etc), in older men, but that it often lead to a significant increase in prostate and other cancers.  He didn't think the trade-off was worth it.

For now I think I'll trust my body to decide what its testosterone level should be.  It seems to be doing fine with insulin, cholesterol, triglycerides, thyroid, vitamin D, and other hormones and metabolic markers.  I don't think I want to mess things up by artificially propping up a specific hormone when I have no evidence that it is out of line with everything else that my body is doing.  Yes, I have an enlarged prostate, but I have no objective evidence that it is caused by low testosterone, and medical opinions on the subject vary widely depending on the source.

There have been many books written by experts over the years that have turned out to be totally incorrect.  I fell prey to blindly following these experts for many years and the results were not as advertised.  I now take a more cautious approach before hitching my wagon to an expert's rising star.  I'll take a look at the book you recommend and also see what my urologist says about his approach.  That's the most I'm willing to do at this point.

Lex