CAUSES of Peyronie's Disease - started 2005

[Hitman]

you have to remember that fruits were not present everyday for man to consume. they were consumed on occasion. I myself like to consume berries and other low sugar fruits. The antioxidants in the fruit can be obtained through high quality extracts mnus all the unnecessary sugar. As for athletes its a different story.

[George999]

Hawk,  All I can say is that the formula at this point is working exceptionally well for me.  As long as it continues to work, I will stay with it.  I think we all need to do whatever is working for us.  That might not be the same thing for every person.  But one thing I can tell you is our society today is so sick that health care is in a crisis.  Only a few get Peyronie's, others get other chronic maladies.  Why?  Because we are all different genetically and thus vulnerable to different issues.  There is no doubt in my mind that sugar is a prime reason for all the chronic sickness people are experiencing.  I certainly agree that 15g is hard to achieve, but thats my target.  And I have no doubt that I can get plenty of antioxidants in the process.  And remember, primitive peoples that eat large quantities of fruits generally don't have long life expectancies.  I suspect that the more active your lifestyle is, the more your tolerance for sugar will be.  I also suspect that getting larger quantities of sugar on occasional days is not going to be a huge issue.  But my point is that <15g is safe, >15g *may* be safe or may not be depending on the individual situation.  - George

[Hitman]

for me its around 50g of carbohydrates per day and a carb refeed once every week. Through trial and error I've come to the conclusion that the GI is not of much relevance but overall carbohydrate intake is.

[The solver]

Hawk, I agree, there are too many moving parts. I think the overall thesis relating to blood sugar has some merit. Diabetes issues all stem from blood sugar problems, the incidence of peyronies is higher in diabetics. I know this does not mean cause & effect. I dont understand many of the mechanisms in the body, hoping to learn. However, I dont follow your point on the urethra. From wiki: "In anatomy, the urethra is a tube which connects the urinary bladder to the outside of the body. The urethra has an excretory function in both sexes to pass urine to the outside, and also a reproductive function in the male, as a passage for semen." That to me is a clear a link as you can see. I don't really see the issue that it is further down the line.


George I'm with you up to a point. We agree on excess sugar being bad for you in general. I'm not sure about your take on fruit though. We need a varied diet so I agree with Hawk on that.  Where do you get the 15g from? Could be interesting to see.

The thing is, it is not the carbs/sugar in fruit that bother me. It is in other foodstuffs. For example, white bread, cereal pasta have extremely high levels. This is where the real damage is being done, not the fruits.

Excess carbs mean excess sugar. Bottom line for me on all of this, is that high blood sugars are creating issues for our cardiovascular & immune system. For whatever reasons, diabetics excrete an excess of the serum albumin and this is because there is insufficient thiamine/B1 in diabetics . This information is new e.g. this month http://www.naturalnews.com/025136.html

"Thiamin is one of only four nutrients associated with a pandemic human deficiency disease. It is essential for neural function and carbohydrate metabolism." So my extremely simplistic take: Dont exrete excess albumin (I bet it has a lot to do with excess sugars), take thiamine. Help with other disorders. That's about it

[Hawk]

It will help if you learn to use the quote feature effectively.  If you go to your post where I changed the format of quote and click on the "modify" button you can see how I did that.  You can also use the "Quote" button on other members posts then trim the quote down so you do not quote an entire post, only the key part.  This issues are key when trying to follow a huge long post.  You will also find you will get more response if you divide posts into subjects and keep them much shorter.  many members will not even read long posts.

[George999]

Actually, I am not diabetic and never have been.  I have had issues with uncontrollable hypertension and dealing with sugar plus key supplements has totally solved that problem.  In fact, I went from three prescription BP meds to no BP meds in no time and was off BP meds completely for a full year before my BP started to rise again and I am now back on a small dose.  I am hoping that moving to the 15g limit is going to solve that issue for good along with benefiting the Peyronie's problem and other issues.   The 15g limit is actually a recommendation of Jorge Cruise, a professional trainer and associate of Dr Oz.  He has had extreme success with it in dealing with people with major health and weight problems and I believe he is really on to something.  As for carbs, I am NOT limiting carbs and don't believe at this point that carbs are the problem.  I eat lots of bread and cereals but just make sure they have zero sugar per serving.  In fact, the amount of fruit I have cut back, I have replaced with cereal and bread products.  But these have to be 100% whole grain with zero sugar.  Refined flour products are as bad as sugar.  In fact all processed grains are as bad as sugar.  My current take is that if I am overdoing sugar, it should at least be coming from fruits and vegetables since they at least contain a lot of essential nutrients.  On this point, I somewhat agree with Hawk.  As for Benfotiamine, I would agree that it is a good thing, but I would also be looking seriously at the head of the chain which is vitamin D.   I think to fully understand this approach one has to at least read Dr. Oz's You On a Diet and Jorge Cruise's material.  The central role of omental fat is a critical factor in poor health outcomes due to the toxic environment it fosters in the body.  I would certainly agree with Hawk that the 15g limit is radically low.  But I would also assert that much of the problem stems from the fact that we are just consuming far too much food and far too many total calories in our diet.  At that rate, 15g becomes impossible, but when you scale all of that back, 15g becomes more attainable.  All evidence to date indicates that fewer calories equals better health.  Sugar drives appetite which drives calorie intake.  Once one attacks free sugar consumption, calorie intake declines radically, and health outcomes improve radically.  People in America are not falling ill due to starvation, the opposite is true.  - George

[Hawk]

Solver, in all due respect IMHO this is all a bunch of baseless speculation founded in little more than - "Maybe it could be therefore I think it is".  There is not a shed of indication that toxins or anything else permeates the urethra tube and migrate into the tissue.  In fact I am willing to go out on a limb and say it is known NOT to happen.  Otherwise our urine would filter right back into the body through the penile and prostate tissue.  As blood exchange pulled it back to the kidneys, they would again filter it out.  It would be a never ending cycle.

Analogies can be good for illustration but more often than not they compare two things that have no similarities or relationship to each other.  Water flowing down the banks of a river and urine flowing out a urethra have nothing in common that help us understand tissue contamination.  The bladder and urethra are made to transport contained impurities that the kidneys pulled from the blood.  Their walls are not made of permeable tissue that weeps impurities back into the body through penile tissue.  

[Hawk]

Welcome to the forum Alex and thanks for contributing with your post.  It is great to have you here with us.  By that I obviously mean we are glad we can support each other.  I am not glad that you share in this disorder.

Hawk

[George999]

Solver,  I agree that there is a connection to of this, but the "River Bed" is not the urethra, its the blood stream which carries toxins all around the body just as it carries nutrients.  And it is both about what it carries (but shouldn't) AND what it doesn't carry (but should).  - George

[The solver]

As for carbs, I am NOT limiting carbs and don't believe at this point that carbs are the problem.  I eat lots of bread and cereals but just make sure they have zero sugar per serving.  In fact, the amount of fruit I have cut back, I have replaced with cereal and bread products.  But these have to be 100% whole grain with zero sugar.  Refined flour products are as bad as sugar.  In fact all processed grains are as bad as sugar.

Maybe i'm all mixed up, but carbs are complex sugars. Sugars are simple sugars. High carbs are high sugars in my book. Very high sugars.

[The solver]

Solver, in all due respect IMHO this is all a bunch of baseless speculation founded in little more than - "Maybe it could be therefore I think it is".

Correct as charged but all theories start of as maybe x + y = z. I dont mind being wrong at all. If its not right, and i'm sure it's not, i'll move on. It's still progress.

There is not a shed of indication that toxins or anything else permeates the urethra tube and migrate into the tissue.  In fact I am willing to go out on a limb and say it is known NOT to happen.  Otherwise our urine would filter right back into the body through the penile and prostate tissue.  As blood exchange pulled it back to the kidneys, they would again filter it out.  It would be a never ending cycle.  Their walls are not made of permeable tissue that weeps impurities back into the body through penile tissue.

Despite being the object of affection of many a doctors, I sure as hell aint one. Help me out here a little. Are you 100% sure that the urethra is impermeable and there couldnt be deposits? I'm still taking the thiamine whatever the outcome.

I saw your tip and also edited my previous posts. Point taken.

[George999]

Maybe i'm all mixed up, but carbs are complex sugars. Sugars are simple sugars. High carbs are high sugars in my book. Very high sugars.

I'm taking my cues on this from Jorge Cruise who is endorsed by Dr Mehmet Oz who is professor and vice-chairman of surgery at Columbia University and Director of the Heart Institute at New York Presbyterian/Columbia Medical Center.  And I am pretty much convinced that they know what they are talking about on the differentiation of complex carbs and simple sugars and how complex carbs are very healthy and sugars very unhealthy.  AND they have plenty of success stories to re-enforce their theories.  - George

[The solver]

complex carbs are very healthy and sugars very unhealthy.

His approach is a good one, just like The Abs Diet. Smaller meals, more often, backed up by some fat burning anaerobic exercise. All good. You should eat carbs (and fruit), but they are both sugars. An excess is unhealthy, but you should still have carbs and fruit as part of a balanced diet. Bottom line is carbs = sugar

e.g. http://diabetes.about.com/od/carbohydratefaq/Carbohydrates_and_Diabetes_FAQ.htm

"When you eat carbohydrates, either simple or complex, your body breaks them down into sugars, which are absorbed into the bloodstream."

[Hawk]

Bottom line is that your body depends on 100% sugar (glucose) for its energy and nothing else !

Excess macro nutrients such as carbs, protein, and fat are stored for the most part as fat.  Some may be stored short term as glycogen which is a more complex form of glucose.  Glucose is the body's fuel.  When the body needs energy (which is every second it is alive) it draws on blood glucose.  It usually then draws on glycogen which it can quickly convert to usable glucose.  It then starts converting fat (which came from carbs, fat, and protein) to glucose.  It does not burn fat directly.  About half of the energy a cell uses is just to get this fuel and other elements back and forth across the cell membrane.

If you are not using your muscles and the body senses a calorie plummet, it will try to save the stored fat and instean break your muscles down into burnable glucose.

There are problems with too much stored fat -  It crowds organs and it deposits fat in arteries, etc.
There are problems with quickly flooding the blood stream with glucose - It triggers insulin which prevents the breakdown of stored fat into usable glucose.

There is a problem with low blood glucose - the cells (brain, heart, nerves, muscles) cannot work properly.

The preponderance of evidence does not indicate there is a problem with steadily proving a slow release of glucose into the blood from any source.  It is necessary.  The key is the rate of release of sugar (glucose) not sugar vs something else.  There is nothing else.  That is why, complex carbs are fine, because they convert to glucose slowly.  That is why some sugar is fine if buffered with protein and fat, because it slows down the delivery of the sugar to the blood stream.  That is why burning fat is good, because it slowly converts to glucose and slowly puts sugar into the blood stream.

Nature combined many of the most essential antioxidants essential to health with the sugars in fruit.  A philosophy that says a normal body system must avoid these or make draconian efforts to restrict them is considered radical in well educated nutritional circles.  It risks perils of cancer and innumerable other diseases.  Few people that study this could conclude that we should eliminate these things and think we can get these components from a pill.  

Whole, diverse (vegtables, grains, fruits, etc), unprocessed foods remains the best choice for health.

[George999]

Carbs do NOT equal sugars.  There is a huge difference.  Complex carbs are broken down by the body slowly and do NOT result in insulin spikes.  Insulin spikes result in a bad chain of changes in the metabolism.  Simple sugars DO result in insulin spikes whether the sugar in question comes from the sugar bowl or free fructose in fruit.  No amount of external fiber, protein or fat can buffer it.  If you had read through the material you would have picked up on this point.  More and more attention is currently being given to damage done by dynamic blood sugar levels since experts now realize that the old dependence on fasting levels is simply not working.  And, in fact, the program is promoting the exploitation of this concept to actually allow weight loss WITHOUT exercise AND without loss of muscle tissue.  And if you had actually read the material you would have been aware of that as well.  These guys are experts in their fields, they are not just spouting the time honored common wisdom.  - George

[George999]

There are risks in any attempt to correct a physical condition whether it be from prescription drugs, supplements or lifestyle changes.  But anyone wanting to get better will be willing to take reasonable risks.  For example, we are now discovering that there is much benefit from curing vitamin D deficiencies.  But it is also becoming known that trying to correct vitamin D deficiencies can cause cancer in a few people.  AND we are now finding out the reason for that.  In some cases, being vitamin D deficient for a long period of time can actually result in damage to the vitamin D receptors on the cells.  I such cases, additional vitamin D may actually cause cancer to result rather than restoring health.  But life has risks.  You can just accept an accelerated decline in health, or deal with it and take a risk.  I prefer to take a risk.  - George

[Hawk]

Carbs do NOT equal sugars...   Complex carbs are broken down by the body slowly and do NOT result in insulin spikes...  Simple sugars DO result in insulin spikes whether the sugar in question comes from the sugar bowl or free fructose in fruit.  No amount of external fiber, protein or fat can buffer it.  If you had read through the material you would have picked up on this point.  

sheeeesshhh George I have read "through the material" on this topic.    I am surprised that that you state an assumption that just because I disagree with you that I must have failed to pick up on the point becuse I didn't read the material.  Could it be that I have referenced that material and more that presents evidence of a contrary point of view?   I could retort that you would have picked up on the fact that I made the point of complex carbs feeding sugar to the blood more slowly if only you had read the material.  

Did you read? :

"The key is the rate of release of sugar (glucose) not sugar vs something else."

I find it astounding that it seems your current opinion is that no amount of simple sugar including fructose can be eaten by a normal person even when combined with other foods without causing detrimental insulin spikes.  After volumes of material, I do not think the preponderance of evidence supports such a radical interpretation of proper nutrition.  In fact, that is an extreme view in the eyes of the vast majority of nutritionists and scientists that have also availed themselves to a lot of material on this topic.

My point was that in this case I have weighed the evidence, personally tried the system, and concur with that vast majority.

[George999]

Hawk, I would simply challenge anyone to read You On a Diet by Dr. Oz and Dr. Roizen and the Belly Fat Cure by Jorge Cruz and see what the experts say about the risks of simple sugars.  Certainly simple sugars should always be buffered. I make sure to do that myself.  But a buffered free sugar does not equal a complex carb.  And I, like Jorge Cruz, maintain that over 15g results in weight gain that one has to work increasingly harder to work off.  And I, like Dr. Oz, maintain that every inch you can take off your waist improves your health outcomes.  It is a known fact that people who practice calorie restriction have better health and live longer.  It works with rats AND it is known to work with people.  The problem is that bull force calorie restriction takes an enormous amount of dedication and discipline AND bull force calorie restriction DOES result in some degree of muscle loss and emaciation.  But the sugar method bypasses those problems by naturally lowering appetite and avoiding sugar conversion to fat in the body.  So we will simply disagree on this one.  - George

[hornman]

Maybe its too early to tell, but after a month of sugar restriction and a month in the gym, I havn't lost an ounce.  I do feel however that my peyronies is less active.

[Hawk]

George,

Please indulge me and, give another point of view the respect of voicing legitimate thought-through questions and points.  I am not challenging your religion or attacking a family member, I just question your minority view on a nutrition point.  I might add, that neither of us have more then some diligent self-education on this topic.  I read lots of books, 99% are non-fiction.  I own books by Oz although not the one you mention.  I consider him an interesting author worthy of selling books and I value his opinion.  I find his theories interesting and very worthy of discussion.  I am not prepared to take his word against an army of conventional wisdom on any topic without sound clinical evidence.  

I have not read Jorge Cruz other than everything on his website including video clips.  I found him interesting but I found nothing that impressed me.  He may or may not be just another guy selling some plan or book.  I am still open on that point.

I have read several other authors on this topic from reputable body builders with 2% body fat at age 70, to trainers, to Medical doctors., and more than a few PHd's in nutrition.  NONE of them would ever support the concept that "fruit is your enemy" or a policy of drop the fruit swallow a pill.  I know enough about the antioxidents found in fruit, and the newly discovered phytonutrients and their benefit in everything from delaying Alzheimer's, preventing cancer, and too many other clinically established benefits to list.  You cannot have the necessary healthy intake of whole fruit with a radical 15 g sucrose/fructose limit a day.

You must admit that idea is radical and counter to all established mainstream thinking.

You must admit that the hard clinical evidence (not theory), that supports such an idea is at best flimsy and at worst non-existent.

I also ask for any clinical data that extreme calorie reduced diets prolong life or health.  There are a few anecdotal accounts but we have that for a thousand cures that don't work.  I have kept up on these theories including their research with worms and mice.  I know the data for humans is just not there.  It may be some day.  I tend to buy into that concept myself.  An honest discussion however demands that you acknowledge that it is NOT proven rather than risking a false impression to those than have not followed the data.

George I respect your tenacity, knowledge, commitment, and intelligence.  I do think at times you tend to sign on to the latest book you have read.  Your enthusiasm seems to give you the view that the books you read are the last word on topics with little clinical info.  One only has to hear a live hour-long debate by medical doctors on the Arnish diet Vs. the Atkins diet to realize that things just are not clear cut and conclusive.  It is premature to act like the debate is over based on a couple books.

[George999]

Well, Hawk, you have your view of this and I have mine.  I'm just really happy at this point with the results I am getting and the speed at which I am getting them.  I just had a cholesterol test on Monday and got the results today.  I have forever had difficulty trying to get my cholesterol levels in order and after my last test, my doc threatened me with statins.  Today his jaw sort of dropped as he shared my results with me:

Total Cholesterol:  155
Triglyceride:  50
HDL:  43
LDL:  101

And thats with the fact that I have increased my intake of carbs AND I have not been exercising for the last nine months.  I find this pretty miraculous and it kind of reinforces what I believe.  Or perhaps its just a placebo?  AND I have NOT eliminated fruit from my diet and DO NOT recommend that anyone else do so.  Both fruit and vegetables contain some free sugar, especially fruit.  Limiting intake of them to a reasonable amount provides plenty of nutrition while avoiding sugar overload.  - George

NOTE:  My doctors did a blood panel on me precisely when I contracted Peyronie's and here are the results of that panel below.

Total Cholesterol:  225
Triglyceride:  84
HDL:  35
LDL:  142

The above numbers are from when I was exercising daily.  I really believe that Peyronie's is tied in directly with Metabolic Syndrome and only the advice of Dr Oz has been able to move these numbers.  And now Jorge Cruise's advice plus the vitamin D strategy is moving them down further.

[Hawk]

George, I am sure you know I am sincerely happy with your results.  I am also not contending with low fat, or exercise.  With those changes and Pentox I would expect some improvement with Peyronies Disease as well.

My point is only with the point of radical sugar guidelines which had no impact on your cholesterol.  Contrary to what you said in your post you just cannot eat a reasonable or a healthy amount of fruit at that extreme restricted intake.  You well know that because you live it. One orange would be prohibited as would a single serving of blueberries.  Forget a few ounces of pomegranate or any other kind of juice.  You can never consider eating a single banana, and the list goes on.  Any of these would put you over for the entire day before you touched another morsel of food.

I guess we just agree to disagree on acceptable levels of sugar from whole fruit in a healthy diet.  I opt for moderation, and a wide variety of whole fruits, grains, vegetables, fish, and good fats along with moderate strength and aerobic exercise and plenty of rest.

I hope your progress continues.  You definitely work hard for your health.

[George999]

Actually, I have probably increased my fat intake if anything.  That is what makes these numbers so amazing, even to me.  And the fact I achieved these numbers without exercise?  Perhaps what they have been telling us is wrong.  Perhaps it IS sugar and not fat or sedentary lifestyle that is the problem.  I really don't know how else to explain this.  For years I have tried so hard to achieve something anywhere near this, and now suddenly its there and all I have been doing over the last few weeks is radically restricting sugar and of course taking the vitamin D.  So for sure this has zero to do with fat intake or exercise.  I am planning to restart my exercise now that I have my neuropathy fixed (the neurologist was pretty amazed that I had pretty much diagnosed it and cured it myself before even seeing him), I am planning to restart my exercise, that should REALLY bring it down.  So this all boils down to either vitamin D or strict sugar limitation has done miracles for my cholesterol levels.  Its one or the other, or of course maybe a combination of both.  For me this is the real deal.  This stuff is really working for me no matter if the docs or others roll their eyes.  - George

[Hawk]

Or maybe not!!!

[Ptolemy]

My lame view on this is that our knowledge of Peyronies today is analogus to "the fever" back in the 1700's. The fever was thought to be the disease. Possibly Peyronies is not a disease, only a symptom of one or many other issues. Clearly the "Peyronies" described by many on this board is not the Peyronies that I have.

Life was just fine for me until 2001. A stress test taken prior to surgery (for 50 year olds) revealed some issues and an angiogram shortly thereafter revealed some artery blockage. Note, I was in great shape, never over weight, didn't like sugars and had run marathons. But I added even more discipline to my living by taking lipitor to bring my cholesterol to below 150. I also limited saturated fats and switched primarily to vegetables and red wine. Latest results are: cholesterol 125, LDL 65, HDL 50 and triglycerides 51.

I was personally introduced to Peyronies in 2005, when my diet was as good as I know how to make it. Now I did have some autoimmune issues -  see Our Histories, reply # 42.


Quote from My History
I have been diagnosed by an Arthritis Specialist as having DISH (diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis). DISH (sometimes called Forestier's disease) is considered a form of degenerative arthritis and is characterized by excessive bone growth along the sides of the vertebrae of the spine. It is also associated with inflammation and calcification (bone growth) at other areas of the body where tendons and ligaments attach to bone, such as at the elbow, knee and the heel of the foot. These can lead to bone spurs. Heel spurs, for example, are common among people with DISH. I have all of these.

My belief is that the problematic autoimmune that contributes to Peyronies is related to that which contributes to DISH. I take NSAID's for the arthritis. I hear they're also good for Peyronies.
End Quote


I don't take NSAID's anymore since the more recent negative results on them.

Peyronies for me came from careless sex.  But with me it didn't heal. Basically, bad DNA I guess. There is no need for evolution to purge those of us with Peyronies. Has Peyronies ever stopped breeding? I don't think so.

So Hawk, George999, Solver and others have great insights and I read them all and practice as many as make sense to me but I think we're a long way from a cure and I still see Peyronies as a symptom of something else rather than a disease.

And that is why this forum is the absolute best thing out there for this friggin disease or what-ever it is.

[Tim468]

Read "Good Calories, Bad Calories". The data on fat intake vis-a-vis heart disease is actually minimal. The overall calorie intake, fiber, exercise and other factors may be more important.

Another interesting thing... lowering cholesterol does not confer much improvement in length of life - perhaps 1-4 months per person, if they keep to a diet throughout their entire life. Fascinating book, mostly about how dogma becomes dogma.

Tim

[George999]

Tim,  There is actually some pretty substantial agreement at the research level that there are other superior measures of stroke and heart disease risk compared with cholesterol numbers.  But cholesterol was easy to measure and quantify and the medical establishment jumped on it and hangs on to it like a bulldog.  I had an aunt who had cholesterol levels WAY out of range from the time she was middle aged.  She never had either stroke or heart disease issues and was actually very healthy until she passed away in her late eighties from cancer.  Don't get me wrong.  I do think that cholesterol numbers are important.  I just don't think they are the be all and end all that most medical professionals make them out to be.  Its really frustrating.  Its like a mindless treatment mill.  In a similar vein, the doctor prescribed Fosomax for my wife due to osteoporosis issues.  Hidden in the fine print of the accompanying literature is the admonition to check each patient for vitamin D deficiency before prescribing this drug.  Did my wife's doctor check for vitamin D deficiency.  Absolutely.  She looked my wife over and decided she obviously wasn't vitamin D deficient.  Help me!  I want to scream!  - George

[Hawk]

My mother had cholesterol levels of over 300.  long story short... Several years ago she had a angiogram. She was 78 years old at the time.  The cardiologist said" she literally has the arteries of a 16 year old".  When I expressed surprise and mentioned her cholesterol he just shrugged and said "my cholesterol has always been around 160 and I had a heart attack at 45.  There is a lot more to it than cholesterol and there is a lot we don't know."

[Hitman]

I think its more to do with the underlying inflammation. VAP cholesterol and CRP would be good tests to look at in my opinion.

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/search/label/HDL

[young25]

Hi all,

Today after 2 years of messing around why I got peyronies and Venous leak, I finally have the answer. I was on minixodil 5% solution for around 9 months. This drug is similar to Propecia has for certain unlucky dudes like me has same side effects. On top of being on 5% soln, it had DMSO which would have spread that in my blood stream. The worst part is its more or less irreversible...
Is thr anybody on this board who has peyronies from propecia/minixodil useage. I am sure it messed up my hormones and left me limp at 25. I may try to get all my hormones back on track but the recovery path is still bleak as I read on propecia board. Just a note for everyone Saw Pallemento is very similar to Propecia...so read all the side effects before taking SP. I last month took SP also for a week thinking, my condition cud be prostatis a big big mistake ...

[ocelot556]

I, too, believe that I developed Peyronies Disease from propecia use. I used propecia for two weeks only - I used Minoxodil for about two months. I hadn't thought minoxodil would have caused Peyronies Disease -- you apply it on your head, for starters, and although I discontinued it's use because it wasn't doing much for me aside from causing me a facial tic -- but it's a possibility

All the "medical studies" don't let you know that this hairloss medicine that curbs TGF-Beta I could be detrimental to your penis, though there are studies that show in the rat model that propecia does just that. Minoxodil doesn't use DMSO as a delivery agent - it uses MSM, a less powerful compound. I doubt the MSM itself has anything to do with it, personally. It was IMO the propecia.

The best thing you can do it start taking supplements and, most importantly, realize that your hair isn't what makes you a man, or attractive. A lot of companies are hurting people because of the vanity that those companies instill into us (especially those in our 20's) that states that how "cool" or desirable we look is the be-all end all. Go natural, and shave it off! Girls like confidence, not hair.

[young25]

Hi Ocelot,

The soln I was using had DMSO. It would have lead the minixodil to be absorbed better in my blood stream hence the side effects. Now days if you search minixodil in google cetain sites include partial or complete impotence as side effect...

About the hair thing.. heck i have forgotten it already.. its more abt my lil mem which is nt working like it shoulld be for a guy in his 20's and heck I have to correct that  

[LWillisjr]

The following was posted under another topic by BOND007 but caught my attention. I know there are many posts on this forum about what happens at a metabolic level to cause Peyronies. But there is the line of thinking that one of the causes is trauma induced to the Tunica. And I've read where there seems to be some unscientific data to suggest that there seems to be some corollary of men with Peyronies and heart disease. The primary factor here being the medicines used to treat high blood pressure, particularly beta blockers. The theory goes that being on these medicines can make it harder to achieve a full erection. I know I had problems when first but on high blood pressure meds years ago. It is always a balance to work with my doctor to get a sufficient dose of the medicine, but yet not too much as to impede a good erection. The compromise being achieving an erection, but not as firm or hard as it used to be. And that in this "less than hard" state that we are more susceptible to trauma during sex. So I see this post as another, yet unscientific piece of data that supports the theory.

50 years old and have a stent in my heart otherwise great condition.  I am taking several meds for my heart, Plavix, lipitor, niaspan, lisinopril, low dose asprin.

[Bertie]

Hi all. I am newly diagnosed with Peyronies Disease. I am also Type II diabetic. Is there a link between the two conditions? I have also had bouts of plantar fasciitis and prostatitis over the last five years. Is there any link here???  

[George999]

Hi all. I am newly diagnosed with Peyronies Disease. I am also Type II diabetic. Is there a link between the two conditions? I have also had bouts of plantar fasciitis and prostatitis over the last five years. Is there any link here???

Yes, yes, and no (sort of).  The same things that cause diabetes and plantar fasciitis also cause Peyronie's, namely autoimmune processes.  On the other hand, prostititis is more remotely connected in that it is associated with immune system malfunction, but not autoimmune syndrome.  - George

[Gregory]

My doc says that my Peyronies Disease is not the result of my taking Trimix and that it was just a coincidence that Peyronies Disease presented by my third injection.  I see on the prostate cancer forum that there are many guys using Trimix without any trouble.  Does anyone know of any research into a possible connection between Peyronies Disease and Trimix use?  

Greg

[George999]

None of these drugs actually CAUSE Peyronie's.  The cause of Peyronie's is metabolic.  IF you have this metabolic problem, ANY trauma to the penis from physical injury to certain drugs can trigger Peyronie's because your body no longer has the capability for your penis to heal normally.  - George

[jackp]

Gregory

Trimix is an off label use of three drugs and is not FDA approved.

If you research PGE1, Carvaject or Edex that is used in trimix you will see the warning that injections in the penis can cause the penis to bend.

In my case trimix caused corporal fibrosis and made my condition worse.

Jackp

[ocelot556]

George --

You say that because of the metabolic problems, that your body is incapable of healing the penis after trauma, but is it that severe? I imagine it's a diminished capacity for healing, or specific instances of "failed" healing that trigger a cascade of fibrosis and irregular healing.

If the penis could no longer heal, wouldn't any sexual contact make it worse? There has to be SOME healing taking place, the sort of 'general maintenance' healing that occurs on your entire body due to everyday stress. If not, I imagine our members would all harden completely into one large scar.

Am I wrong in this assumption? Because if the thinking is that healing is forever "broken", it ignores the fact that there was a point in our lives where our metabolism allowed correct healing, and thus should be able to be corrected to it's normal range (i.e. Type II Diabetics managing their insulin levels with diet and exercise after making the whole system go awry in the first place). I also find it hard to believe that NO healing is taking place, because I've jammed my member a few times during sex/masturbation since developing Peyronies Disease, and each instance did not result in new fibrosis (although I am taking Pentox now, which is affecting it I'm sure).

[Hawk]

None of these drugs actually CAUSE Peyronie's.  The cause of Peyronie's is metabolic.  IF you have this metabolic problem, ANY trauma to the penis from physical injury to certain drugs can trigger Peyronie's...

George,

I hear what you are saying but the evidence is strong that it is more than the needle trauma.  Specifically, Papaverine, one of the drugs used in both bimix and trimix has a higher incidence of causing fibrosis than prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) (or alprostadi).  Some even argue that the the (PGE1) or alprostadi that is added to Trimix is possibly antifibrotic.

Caverject uses - prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) or alprostadi
Bimix combines papaverine and phentolamine
Trimix adds prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) or alprostadi to the 2 bimix drugs

[George999]

Hawk,  I am sorry,  I didn't state it very clearly.  I meant to say physical OR CHEMICAL trauma.  Chemical trauma being from any number of drugs via differing pathways ie actual direct irritation or indirect such as limiting blood flow.  My point is that this combination is used without problem by a number of people.  One needs to be susceptible in order for it to be a problem.  - George

[George999]

Ocelot,  Peyronie's is a progressive, degenerative disease.  This means that without external intervention (ie Pentox, etc), it will get progressively worse.  A second trauma may not result in additional scarring because either it is not severe enough or it is being prevented from progressing by external intervention (Pentox).  We know that Pentox interferes with the chemistry of Peyronie's and does indeed allow some degree of physical healing while at least stopping progression.  My remark about physical healing being impossible assumes no Pentox or other intervention.  In the case of Diabetes, it WILL indeed get worse without external intervention.  - George

[George999]

Jack,  Remember that Corporal Fibrosis is exactly the same process as Peyronie's.  It just affects a different part of the penile structure.  And, in fact, Pentox is used to treat Corporal Fibrosis as well as Peyronie's.

[George999]

The real key to solving Peyronie's is to understand that it is caused by an underlying metabolic problem and taking steps to resolve that underlying metabolic problem.   Much emerging evidence demonstrates that Vitamin D is a key player in that equation although at this point we don't know if there are other major factors involved or what they might be.  But across the board Vitamin D deficiency is being strongly associated with fibrosis and degenerative diseases and, in some cases, Vitamin D repletion is being associated with reducing the effects of those diseases or even curing them.  - George

[Hawk]

Ocelot posed an excellent question about healing.  The ability to heal cannot be totally gone from the penis.  Cell regeneration happens daily.  The fact is that Peyronies Disease is very much similar to keloids and hypertrophic scaring on other parts of the body.  Are keloids an absence of healing?  Is scaring an absence of healing or in fact is it the healing process gone awry? A person with keloids does not keep an open wound.  They start rapid healing with an over abundance of scar tissue that even over runs healthy tissue.

The attached picture shows scar tissue gone awry from nothing more than some infected hair follicles.  The scars way over ran the healthy tissue far from the site of injury.  These keloid cells also seem to not experience normal cell death.  All of these things are CLUES but they are not an exact correlation.  It is also not exact to say that something that treats Peyronies Disease will necessarily cause general immune suppression.  Something that does cause general immune suppression could benefit Peyronies Disease.  The truth is we are lay people not cellular biologists on a research team.

We must be careful stating what is a fact and what seems like a likely possibility.

[George999]

Hawk,  I think we have a different definition of healing.  To me healing means that things become as they were at the beginning.  I would not conclude that scarred tissue has "healed", in fact I would conclude that it has not.  And while there are many approaches that are helpful in the case of Peyronie's, the fact remains that it is an autoimmune process at its roots with T-reg cells releasing TGF-beta1 inappropriately and only suppressing that process will stop in with certainty.  And suppressing that process is going to compromise the immune system to some degree which is what is happening with ComeBack.  - George

[Hawk]

Hawk,  I think we have a different definition of healing.  To me healing means that things become as they were at the beginning.  I would not conclude that scarred tissue has "healed", in fact I would conclude that it has not.

George, I understand your point but I find that to be a confusing unscientific definition.  If I apply that I would have to conclude that my appendectomy incision from 1985 has not yet healed.

We need a better working definition than that.

[George999]

Hawk,  I think we have a different definition of healing.  To me healing means that things become as they were at the beginning.  I would not conclude that scarred tissue has "healed", in fact I would conclude that it has not.

George, I understand your point but I find that to be a confusing unscientific definition.  If I apply that I would have to conclude that my appendectomy incision from 1985 has not yet healed.

We need a better working definition than that.

Then the problem becomes what do you do when the scar tissue in question is deadly?  For example, people die from an accumulation of scar tissue in their liver.  Do we declare them as healed because we accept scar tissue as a normal part of healing?  I think we accept scar tissue on our skin because its negative affect is only cosmetic.  But when we start to apply that to other organs it become problematic.  I don't think we can tell Ocelot or anyone else that they are "healing" when scar tissue is, in fact, accumulating in their TA.  I think that, in fact, represents disease progression, NOT healing.  - George

[Hawk]

By the same token George you cannot say the penis has lost its ability to heal.  If that were so open tears or wounds on the tunica or elsewhere would remain active, open wounds. That makes my point that this is being reduced to a far too simplistic discussion.

[ocelot556]

I remember a saying that all of the cells in your body are replaced in 7 years. Maybe that was BS, or quasi-science, but it makes sense - your cells have to divide for you to live. Arguably, the cells in your penis are doing this! I can press with my fingernail into the skin of my penis, see the red mark it leaves - that is damage, yes? A small amount, but on the smallest scale I've done some damage to the structure of my penis. If I had lost the ability to heal entirely, that would become a large scar/nodule like the ones so many of us have? (I know the damage would be on the skin, not the TA, of course, but in my mind the example is sound).

Not that we have the scientific means to discover this, but there has to be a reason why SOME trauma triggers Peyronies Disease, and other trauma does not. I'm not sure members to this site can honestly say "Every time I pulled too hard masturbating, 'popped out' during sex and jammed my penis, or had my penis contorted during sex in an unnatural way, I ALWAYS developed Peyronies Disease symptoms in the area affected". I know that if that were the case with me, I'd have nothing but a big lump of scar tissue.

Given my own experience I'm liable to say there's a metabolic reason, perhaps, or more likely androgens (as I beleive propecia made me androgen-deficient and thus unable to heal correctly in response to usual penile masturbatory trauma) that might be lowered in the body when the injury occurs, thus triggering the inflammation/fibrosis cascade.