Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment

Physicians do that. Then they treat prostate cancer with
anti-testosterone
drugs.

Fwiw, castrated men as a general rule do not get prostate cancer.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

Note: I am NOT commenting on the masturbation the
topic; rather, I commenting on the alleged/oversimplified
relationship of testosterone to prostate cancer.

I'd be careful with this topic. While it is true
anti-testosterone drugs or castration are used tp
slow prostate cancer, the risk of prostate cancer
(PC) in uncastrated male is increased in those males
with a low testosterone to estrogen ratio. That is to
say some prostate cancers are a result of physicians
to refusing to treat this ratio thru ignorance or bias.

Prehen, R.T. "On the prevention and therapy of prostate
cancer by androgen administration."
Cancer Res. 1999; 59 (17): 4164-4164.

Testosterone helps maintain cellular differentiation
of prostate cells. Recall with time PC adapt
to the low androgen levels and their growth rate
will start to increase.

PC is also increased in dark skinned males with compromised
vitamin D status (if one can make a small leap in
logic). And of course if one looks at the animal
research, it blazingly clear that a moderately high
selenium status helps prevent PC.
And don't forget lycopene.........

The fact that castrated males don't get prostate
cancer proves little other than that
their prostates are either under-developed
or have undergone atrophy.

The book you need to read is "Anabolic therapy in
Modern Medicine" by William N. Taylor, M.D.
This isn't a popular press book rather it
written at the physician level. He has been
a researcher and author on this topic for
at least 20 years. This is an excellent book.

Beating the drum................
Playing the flute.................
And wishing that "Saint" Augustine's father
was castrated at birth..............................
...............William A. Noyes

And what drugs might those be? I suspect you don't know what
you're talking about.

Flutamide comes to mind as an antiandrogen. What else? Estrogens.
.............LHRH agonists, Ketocanzole...................


Fwiw, castrated men as a general rule do not get prostate cancer.

Neither do men with genetic 5alpha-reductase deficiency.

And Proscar is listed as an antiandrogen in my book:-)
It competitively inhibits 5-alpha reductase.

I fear you are making the same mistake that Doc Chung seems
to be making............a direct simple link of prostate cancer to
androgens.

Some theories, some truths, some facts..........
...........................................William A. Noyes

"William A. Noyes" wrote:


And what drugs might those be? I suspect you don't know what
you're talking about.

Flutamide comes to mind as an antiandrogen. What else? Estrogens.
............LHRH agonists, Ketocanzole...................


Fwiw, castrated men as a general rule do not get prostate cancer.

Neither do men with genetic 5alpha-reductase deficiency.

And Proscar is listed as an antiandrogen in my book:-)
It competitively inhibits 5-alpha reductase.

Chung said, "they treat prostate cancer with anti-testosterone
drugs."

Anti-androgen does not equal anti-testosterone, does it?
Reducing 5-alpha reductase activity reduces conversion to
DHT, thus increasing circulating T, right? That was my
point. You might also want to review recent studies that
indicate that finasteride, while good for BPH, may not be
good for prostate cancer.

I fear you are making the same mistake that Doc Chung seems
to be making............a direct simple link of prostate cancer to
androgens.

Some theories, some truths, some facts..........

The link between DHT in prostate tissues and BPH is
pretty strong. They are currently discovering that the
positive effect of DHT reduction on BPH doesn't
necessarily carry over to prostate cancer, and it may
even by counterproductive.

My point is that Chung's concept of reducing
testosterone to treat prostate cancer is a very
"old school" approach and may be contrary to
what the patient needs. It's not quite on the
level of stone-tool trepanation, but for him to
make such a statement backed by the "I'm a
physician" bit is good reason to tell him to stick
to cardiology and not dip into urology and
endocrinology.

"John M. Williams" wrote in message
...
"William A. Noyes" wrote:


And what drugs might those be? I suspect you don't know what
you're talking about.

Flutamide comes to mind as an antiandrogen. What else? Estrogens.
............LHRH agonists, Ketocanzole...................


Fwiw, castrated men as a general rule do not get prostate cancer.

Neither do men with genetic 5alpha-reductase deficiency.

And Proscar is listed as an antiandrogen in my book:-)
It competitively inhibits 5-alpha reductase.

Chung said, "they treat prostate cancer with anti-testosterone
drugs."

Anti-androgen does not equal anti-testosterone, does it?
Reducing 5-alpha reductase activity reduces conversion to
DHT, thus increasing circulating T, right? That was my
point. You might also want to review recent studies that
indicate that finasteride, while good for BPH, may not be
good for prostate cancer.

I fear you are making the same mistake that Doc Chung seems
to be making............a direct simple link of prostate cancer to
androgens.

Some theories, some truths, some facts..........

The link between DHT in prostate tissues and BPH is
pretty strong. They are currently discovering that the
positive effect of DHT reduction on BPH doesn't
necessarily carry over to prostate cancer, and it may
even by counterproductive.

My point is that Chung's concept of reducing
testosterone to treat prostate cancer is a very
"old school" approach and may be contrary to
what the patient needs. It's not quite on the
level of stone-tool trepanation, but for him to
make such a statement backed by the "I'm a
physician" bit is good reason to tell him to stick
to cardiology and not dip into urology and
endocrinology.



Thank John. I still getting myself
up to speed on the topic. In short,
I agree with your comments
to extent I understand the topic.
Note please that I have other
comments is this discussion.
I even suggested the book Chung
needs to read. The book is "Anabolic
Therapy in Modern Medicine" by
William N. Taylor, M.D.
Given his speciality, he should read the
Part 4 chapter 18 entitled "Rationale for
Anabolic Therapy in Cardiovascular Diseases
and Cardiac Rehabilitation":-)

A good book, a warm fire, and a sleeping
hound............................................. ........
................................William A. Noyes

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
...
Tim Tyler wrote:

In sci.med.nutrition Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
wrote or quoted:
DRS wrote:

Did you know that in medical circles prostate cancer is known as the
priest's disease? It's true.

Speaking as a physician, it is not true.

Risk of prostate cancer is higher in folks with higher testosterone
levels. Testosterone levels tend to be higher in folks that
masturbate
(or are otherwise sexually active) than folks who aren't. Sorry.

Are you assuming testosterone is the *only* risk factor?


Is that what I have written?


That is unlikely to be the case.


Correct. However, we do treat prostate cancer with anti-testosterone
drugs
that achieve chemical castration.

The action buys the patient some time but it isn't a cure.

Moreover, prostate cancer is virtually unheard of in castrated males.

This is a non-sequiter for a non-castrated males as this view
over-simplifies the situation. The result of this view
that many physicians refuse to use testosterone therapy to
improve the patient's quality life and quanitity of life.














However, I don't think prostate cancer /is/ known as the priest's
disease ;-)


I know it isn't, writing as a physician.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

"William A. Noyes" wrote:
"John M. Williams" wrote:
"William A. Noyes" wrote:
And what drugs might those be? I suspect you don't know what
you're talking about.

Flutamide comes to mind as an antiandrogen. What else? Estrogens.
............LHRH agonists, Ketocanzole...................


Fwiw, castrated men as a general rule do not get prostate cancer.

Neither do men with genetic 5alpha-reductase deficiency.

And Proscar is listed as an antiandrogen in my book:-)
It competitively inhibits 5-alpha reductase.

Chung said, "they treat prostate cancer with anti-testosterone
drugs."

Anti-androgen does not equal anti-testosterone, does it?
Reducing 5-alpha reductase activity reduces conversion to
DHT, thus increasing circulating T, right? That was my
point. You might also want to review recent studies that
indicate that finasteride, while good for BPH, may not be
good for prostate cancer.

I fear you are making the same mistake that Doc Chung seems
to be making............a direct simple link of prostate cancer to
androgens.

Some theories, some truths, some facts..........

The link between DHT in prostate tissues and BPH is
pretty strong. They are currently discovering that the
positive effect of DHT reduction on BPH doesn't
necessarily carry over to prostate cancer, and it may
even by counterproductive.

My point is that Chung's concept of reducing
testosterone to treat prostate cancer is a very
"old school" approach and may be contrary to
what the patient needs. It's not quite on the
level of stone-tool trepanation, but for him to
make such a statement backed by the "I'm a
physician" bit is good reason to tell him to stick
to cardiology and not dip into urology and
endocrinology.

Thank John. I still getting myself
up to speed on the topic. In short,
I agree with your comments
to extent I understand the topic.
Note please that I have other
comments is this discussion.
I even suggested the book Chung
needs to read. The book is "Anabolic
Therapy in Modern Medicine" by
William N. Taylor, M.D.
Given his speciality, he should read the
Part 4 chapter 18 entitled "Rationale for
Anabolic Therapy in Cardiovascular Diseases
and Cardiac Rehabilitation":-)

I would take Taylor with a grain of salt. He likes to pat himself on
the back for sidestepping the recommendations of the AMA and leading
the anti-steroid witch hunt which resulted in the Anabolic Steroid Act
of 1990, the law that criminalized anabolic-androgenic steroids.
Check out the article I wrote for Mesomorphosis a few years ago, and
note the multiple footnote references to his writings:

http://www.mesomorphosis.com/article...teroids-01.htm
(http://tinyurl.com/qyln)

Thank John. I still getting myself
up to speed on the topic. In short,
I agree with your comments
to extent I understand the topic.
Note please that I have other
comments is this discussion.
I even suggested the book Chung
needs to read. The book is "Anabolic
Therapy in Modern Medicine" by
William N. Taylor, M.D.
Given his speciality, he should read the
Part 4 chapter 18 entitled "Rationale for
Anabolic Therapy in Cardiovascular Diseases
and Cardiac Rehabilitation":-)

I would take Taylor with a grain of salt. He likes to pat himself on
the back for sidestepping the recommendations of the AMA and leading
the anti-steroid witch hunt which resulted in the Anabolic Steroid Act
of 1990, the law that criminalized anabolic-androgenic steroids.
Check out the article I wrote for Mesomorphosis a few years ago, and
note the multiple footnote references to his writings:


http://www.mesomorphosis.com/article...-anabolic-ster
oids-01.htm
(http://tinyurl.com/qyln)

He has a point of view. His sidestepping of those old AMA recommendations
are right or at least righter than.........not doing so.
If he did lead these regulationist activities, I will suspect him trying to
control turf and income for his profession. Such an action would be wrong
and in fact immoral, IMO.

Interesting article, Thank you. I see some books recommended/offered for
sale on the site. Would any these be of use to this middle aged life-
extension minded male? My interest is in lower levels doses than those of
a weight lifter. Second question, how many use the dermal
gel route of administration in this setting?

Another book to buy.............
...................William A. Noyes