Food Combining for Prostate Cancer

What would happen if you secretly gave cancer patients four of the healthiest foods?

In my video Pomegranate vs. Placebo for Prostate Cancer, I discussed how pomegranate pills appeared useless in the treatment for prostate cancer, and the same disappointing results were seen with a pomegranate beverage, but that was just a pomegranate extract as well. So, maybe the pomegranate itself “cannot be blamed for the ineffectiveness seen in the study” but rather the low dose of the pomegranate active principles in the extract. But what is the active principle? Extracts will boast about the level of ellagic acid, definitely “one of the most potent of the phytochemicals found in pomegranate. However, it is not as strong as pomegranate” itself.

What researchers mean is that the components may act synergistically: The whole may be greater than the sum of its parts. As you can see at 1:07 in my video Best Supplements for Prostate Cancer, human prostate cancer cells in a petri dish churned away at 100 percent growth, but after dripping on a pomegranate fraction, the cancer growth rate was cut by 30 percent. However, dripping on a different fraction appeared useless. What do you think would happen if you added them both together? 30% suppression + 0% suppression = 70% suppression! That’s synergy, where 1 + 1 is greater than 2. Under a microscope, prostate cancer cells appeared sparser with the combination of fractions. “Any attempt to characterize the phytoceutical power of a medicinal food by standardizing a single chemical is missing the entire point” of plant-based medicine. So, the standardized extracts represent a “cynical, lucre-driven [money-driven] attempt to replace the power of the pomegranate with the power of ellagic acid. The pomegranate needs no such tricks or enhancements.” It’s powerful as is. So, why don’t researchers just try the fruit on cancer patients?

Because you can’t stuff a pomegranate in a pill, so you can’t compare it to an indistinguishable sugar pill placebo. Drugs are easy to study. People don’t know if they are taking the active drug or a placebo, but they tend to notice if they’re eating a pomegranate or not. So, if you gave a bunch of cancer patients some pomegranates to eat and the cancer slowed down, you wouldn’t know if it was the pomegranates or just the placebo effect. Of course, the patients wouldn’t care. They’d just care that they got better. But, to change medical practice, we want to know if the fruit is actually something special. I suppose you could create some kind of pomegranate smoothie versus a fake smoothie, but that sounds logistically difficult. So, researchers tried powdering it. Three times a day, 199 men with prostate cancer got either a placebo or a tablet containing 100 mg of powdered whole pomegranate—the whole fruit with just the water taken out. How much can fit in a tablet? It comes out to be about six pomegranate seeds’ worth a day, about 1/100th of a pomegranate each day. Since so little could fit into a pill, researchers tried to maximize their chances of beating back the cancer using diversity.

As you can see at 4:01 in my video, two groups of people ate approximately the same amount of fruits and vegetables, but one group ate a relatively low biological diversity diet, where they ate tons of really healthy foods but just less variety than did a second group who ate smaller servings of a high diversity diet. Which group do you think would win in terms of protecting their DNA from free radical damage? The high diversity group. This suggests that “smaller amounts of many phytochemicals may have greater potential to exert beneficial effects than larger amounts of fewer phytochemicals.”

Same result for inflammation. Greater variety in fruit and vegetable intake is associated with lower inflammation even if you eat the same number of servings. Same with improving cognitive function, too. Greater variety in fruit and vegetable intake is also associated with a better mental status, executive function, attention, and memory function in some cases, even after adjustment for total quantity. So, if you have two people eating the same number of servings of healthy foods, the one eating a greater variety may do better.

Going back to the study with the 199 prostate cancer patients getting either a placebo or a tablet with 100 mg of powdered whole pomegranate three times daily, the researchers didn’t just put in pomegranate powder. They also added powdered broccoli, powdered turmeric, and powdered green tea concentrate. So, the tablet contained a fruit, a vegetable, a spice, and a leaf in tiny amounts—about one floret of broccoli a day, less than an eighth of a daily teaspoon of turmeric, and about one sixth of a tea bag worth of green tea. All great plants, but could such tiny amounts actually affect the progression of cancer? Yes. As you can see at 5:55 in my video, in the group of men with early stage prostate cancer trying to avoid surgery, the PSA levels in the placebo group rose nearly 50 percent, indicating that the cancer continued to flourish, whereas the PSAs didn’t rise at all in the pomegranate, broccoli, turmeric, and green tea food supplement group. And, in those with more advanced disease—patients who had already had surgery or radiation and were trying to avoid chemo—there was a 70 percent greater rise in PSA levels in the placebo group. This was enough to significantly delay some of these more toxic treatments. Indeed, the study found significant, short-term, favorable effects. However, they only had enough money to run the study for six months, because it was a “non-commercial” endeavor, funded by charities, not some supplement company. In fact, there was no supplement until the investigators dreamed it up from scratch for the study. Of course, now there’s a supplement, given the study’s extraordinary results, but the only reason the researchers put the foods in pill form was to match it with a placebo. In my mind, what this study should tell cancer patients is to eat curried broccoli with fruit for dessert and to sip some green tea. A completely plant-based diet may even shrink the tumor, not just slow it down, but there’s no reason we can’t do both with a plant-based diet chock full of especially powerful plants.

I love that study! You and I both know why these types of studies aren’t performed more often. Who would profit? (Other than the millions of people suffering and dying from cancer, of course!)

The note I ended on, the landmark Ornish study, is detailed in Cancer Reversal Through Diet. For those unwilling or unable to make such significant dietary changes, there’s still something you can do. See Prostate Cancer Survival: The A/V Ratio. Changing a Man’s Diet After a Prostate Cancer Diagnosis isn’t easy!


For more on the 2 + 2 > 4 concept, see Food Synergy.

What about preventing prostate cancer in the first place? Check out my videos like Prostate Cancer and Organic Milk vs. Almond Milk and Eggs, Choline, and Cancer to get a sense of what you might want to avoid. But, in terms of what to eat, see The Role of Soy Foods in Prostate Cancer Prevention and Fermented or Unfermented Soy Foods for Prostate Cancer Prevention?.

Also, see: 

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations:

Pill-Free Ways to improve Your Sex Life

“Sex is important to health,” according to the Harvard Health Letter. “Frequent sexual intercourse is associated with reduced heart attack risk.” But, as I discuss in my video Do Men Who Have More Sex Live Longer?, that seems to be the perfect case of reverse causation. They’re implying that more sex leads to healthier arteries, but isn’t the opposite more likely—that is, healthier arteries lead to more sex? Blood flow in the penis is so reflective of blood flow elsewhere that penile Doppler ultrasound can predict cardiovascular disease. However, low frequency of sexual activity may predict cardiovascular disease in men independently of erectile dysfunction. This suggests that sex may be more than “just fun” and may also be therapeutic, or at least so says an editor of the Journal of Sexual Medicine and colleagues in discussing whether or not “frequent sexual activity can be prescribed” to improve general health. In men, they suggest it’s because more sex means more testosterone.

When men have sex, they get a big spike in testosterone levels in their blood, but, interestingly, in contrast, they don’t get a testosterone boost when they masturbate, as you can see at 1:21 in my video. This may be because “testosterone increases with competitive success,” like if you win a sports game. While sex “is not usually regarded as a competitive event…one’s mental state following coitus could nevertheless be something like that of a winner,” as opposed to the mental state after masturbation.

As you can see at 2:00 in my video, the spike in sex hormones in the blood is so great that men’s beards actually grow faster on days they have sex. And, since low testosterone levels are associated with increased risk of mortality, this could help explain the health benefits of having sex.

So, do men who have more sex actually live longer? I searched Pubmed for sexual activity and longevity and found a study supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, titled “Sexual activity and longevity of the southern green stink bug”—clearly an example of our taxpayer dollars hard at work. I was less interested in whether or not screwworms live up to their namesake and more interested in a study on sex and death, in which the objective was “to examine the relation between frequency of orgasm and mortality.” The researchers found that men with “high orgasmic frequency” appeared to cut their risk of premature death in half and, apparently, the more, the better: There was an associated 36 percent drop in mortality odds for every additional 100 orgasms a year. “Conclusion: Sexual activity seems to have a protective effect on men’s health”—but, apparently, not if you cheat. “Unfaithfulness in men seems to be associated with a higher risk of major cardiovascular events,” like heart attacks and strokes. “Extramarital sex may be hazardous and stressful because the lover is often younger…[and] a secret sexual encounter” may be more stressful.

In a large autopsy series, the majority of cases of sudden death during sex occurred in men during extramarital intercourse. The absolute risk is low—“only one out of 580 men might be expected to suffer a sudden death attributable to sexual intercourse”—but for those at high risk, research shows that “[s]ex in familiar surroundings, in a comfortable room temperature, and with the usual partner adds less stress to the heart” and may be safer.

Speaking of safe sex, you thought drinking and driving was bad? “While it is generally assumed that sexual behavior happens in parked cars, there is little discussion…in the research literature of sexual activity in moving vehicles.” About one in five college students report engaging in sex while driving, nearly half while going more than 60 miles an hour. Researchers suggest maybe this is something students should be warned about in health class.

When done right, though, love may protect your lover’s life. Given the benefits of sexual activity, “intervention programmes could also be considered, perhaps based on the exciting ‘At least five a day’ campaign aimed at increasing fruit and vegetable consumption—although the numerical imperative may have to be adjusted.”

What are some pill-free ways to improve your sex life? Exercising, quitting smoking, not drinking too much alcohol, not weighing too much, and eating a healthy diet. But what does it mean to “eat a healthy diet”? As I discuss in my video Best Foods to Improve Sexual Function, heart-healthy lifestyle changes are sex-healthy lifestyle changes, which have been demonstrated in studies from around the world, including in women. “Sexual function in women is significantly affected” by coronary artery disease, atherosclerotic narrowing of blood flow through our arteries, including the arteries that supply our pelvis. So, high cholesterol may mean “lower arousal, orgasm, lubrication, and satisfaction,” and the same holds for high blood pressure.

Given this, putting women on a more plant-based diet may help with sexual functioning.   Researchers found that improvements in female sexual function index scores were related to an increased intake of fruits, vegetables, nuts, and beans, and a shift from animal to plant sources of fat. The same for men: a significant improvement in international Index of Erectile Function scores. In fact, the largest study on diet and erectile dysfunction found that each additional daily serving of fruits or vegetables may reduce the risk of ED by 10 percent. But why? It may be due to the anti-inflammatory effects. Two years on a healthier diet resulted in a significant reduction in systemic inflammation, as indicated by reduced levels of C-reactive protein. Fiber itself may play an anti-inflammatory role. Those who eat the most fiber tend to have significantly lower levels of inflammation in their bodies, as you can see at 2:06 in my video. The opposite was found for saturated fat, “associated with an increased likelihood of elevated CRP”, C-reactive protein levels.

We’re used to seeing changes in inflammatory markers over weeks, months, or years, but people don’t realize that the level of inflammation in our bodies can change after only a single meal. For example, there’s a pro-inflammatory signaling molecule in our bodies called interleukin 18, thought to play a role in destabilizing atherosclerotic plaque. As such, the level of interleukin 18 in the blood “ is a strong predictor” of cardiovascular death.

What would happen if you fed people one of three different types of meals: sausage-egg-butter-oil sandwiches, cheeseless pizza with white flour crust, or the same cheeseless pizza but with whole-wheat crust? Within hours of eating the sausage sandwich, interleukin 18 levels shot up about 20 percent, an effect not seen after eating the plant-based pizza. In contrast, those eating the whole food, plant-based pizza made with the whole-wheat crust had about a 20 percent drop in interleukin 18 levels within hours of consumption, reinforcing dietary recommendations to eat a diet high in fiber and starches, and low in saturated fat to prevent chronic diseases.

But the billions in profits are in pills, not plants, which is why the pharmacology of the female orgasm has been studied ever since 1972 when a researcher at Tulane University implanted tubes deep within the brain of a woman so he could inject drugs directly into her brain and was able to induce repetitive orgasms. A man who had electrodes placed into similar parts of his brain was given a device for a few hours that allowed him to press the button himself to stimulate the electrode. He pressed the button up to 1,500 times.


For more on male reproductive health, see:

Also check out my other men’s health videos, such as:

What effect might that inflammation directly following an unhealthy meal have on our artery function? Check out my three-part endotoxins series starting with The Leaky Gut Theory of Why Animal Products Cause Inflammation.

And why exactly is fiber anti-inflammatory? Watch my video Prebiotics: Tending Our Inner Garden.

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations:

Medical Meat Bias

When famed surgeon Michael DeBakey was asked why his studies published back in the 1930s linking smoking and lung cancer were ignored, he had to remind people about what it was like back then. We were a smoking society. Smoking was in the movies, on airplanes. Medical meetings were held in “a heavy haze of smoke.” Smoking was, in a word, normal. Even the congressional debates over cigarettes and lung cancer took place in literal smoke-filled rooms. (This makes me wonder what’s being served at the breakfast buffets of the Dietary Guidelines Committee meetings these days.)

I’ve previously talked about a famous statistician by the name of Ronald Fisher, who railed against what he called “propaganda…to convince the public that cigarette smoking is dangerous.” “Although Fisher made invaluable contributions to the field of statistics, his analysis of the causal association between lung cancer and smoking was flawed by an unwillingness to examine the entire body of data available…” His smokescreen may have been because he was a paid consultant to the tobacco industry, but also because he was himself a smoker. “Part of his resistance to seeing the association may have been rooted in his own fondness for smoking,” which makes me wonder about some of the foods nutrition researchers may be fond of to this day.

As I discuss in my video Don’t Wait Until Your Doctor Kicks the Habit, it always strikes me as ironic when vegetarian researchers are forthright and list their diet as a potential conflict of interest, whereas not once in the 70,000 articles on meat in the medical literature have I ever seen a researcher disclose her or his nonvegetarian habits––because it’s normal. Just like smoking was normal.

How could something that’s so normal be bad for you? And, it’s not as if we fall over dead after smoking one cigarette. Cancer takes decades to develop. “Since at that time most physicians smoked and could not observe any immediate deleterious effects, they were skeptical of the hypothesis and reluctant to accept even the possibility of such a relation”—despite the mountain of evidence.

It may have taken 25 years for the Surgeon General’s report to come out and longer still for mainstream medicine to get on board, but now, at least, there are no longer ads encouraging people to “Inhale to your heart’s content!” Instead, today, there are ads from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fighting back.

For food ads, we don’t have to go all the way back to old ads touting “Meat…for Health Defense” or “Nourishing Bacon,” or featuring doctors prescribing meat or soda, or moms relieved that “Trix are habit-forming, thank heavens!” You know things are bad when the sanest dietary advice comes from cigarette ads, as in Lucky Strike’s advertisements proclaiming “More Vegetables––Less Meat” and “Substitute Oatmeal for White Flour.” (You can see these vintage ads from 2:34 in my video).

In modern times, you can see hot dogs and sirloin tips certified by the American Heart Association, right on their packaging. And, of all foods, which was the first to get the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ “Kids Eat Right” logo on its label? Was it an apple? Broccoli, perhaps? Nope, it was a Kraft prepared cheese product.

Now, just as there were those in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s at the vanguard trying to save lives, today, there are those transforming ads about what you can do with pork butt into ads about what the pork can do to your butt: “Hot Dogs Cause Butt Cancer—Processed meats increase colorectal cancer risk” reads an for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine’s “Meat Is the New Tobacco” campaign, which you can see at 3:56 in my video. As Dr. Barnard, PCRM president, tried to convey in an editorial published in the American Medical Association’s Journal of Ethics, “Plant-based diets are the nutritional equivalent of quitting smoking.”

How many more people have to die before the Centers for Disease Control encourages people not to wait for open-heart surgery to start eating healthfully?

Just as we don’t have to wait until our doctor stops smoking to give up cigarettes ourselves, we don’t have to wait until our doctor takes a nutrition class or cleans up his or her diet before choosing to eat healthier. No longer do doctors hold a professional monopoly on health information. There’s been a democratization of knowledge. So, until the system changes, we have to take personal responsibility for our health and for our family’s health. We can’t wait until society catches up with the science again, because it’s a matter of life and death.

Dr. Kim Allan Williams, Sr., became president of the American College of Cardiology a few years back. He was asked why he follows his own advice to eat a plant-based diet. “I don’t mind dying,” Dr. Williams replied. “I just don’t want it to be my fault.”


I find this to be such a powerful concept that I have come at it from different angles. For other takes, check out Taking Personal Responsibility for Your Health and How Smoking in 1959 Is Like Eating in 2019. Are the health effects of smoking really comparable to diet, though? Check out Animal Protein Compared to Cigarette Smoking.

The food industry certainly uses the same kind of misinformation tactics to try to confuse consumers. See, for example:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations: