Diet Debate

What's to counter ? I think most of us doing something similar have the same or better results. You can do nothing and have blockages worsen, or be proactive and get about a 5% improvement per year. That is the number that Dr. Dean Ornish reported about 10 years ago. That article you cite in the link is from 1990 !!

I could not chase after a small dog a few months after bypass surgery. Now I can try almost anything, even forego part of my mandatory warm-up, and not feel anything in my heart.

I've not had an angiogram in almost exactly 6 years. But I am so improved, there really is no need to check anything, except maybe to figure out where my heart's wonderful blood supply is coming from.

DMW

I always like to hear both sides of any issue and this is a deabte board....

Im happy to hear things are going so well for you...we can always debate Fuhrman vs McDougall issue by issue and try to figure out who is right and wrong about each topic...

I think McDougall is right about starches like potatoes and Fuhrman is right about no sodium.

And don't you think Heretic might find fault with the study?

Yawn... what what where?

I just looked at the paper, the numbers. Its totally pathetic!

Quote:

... 40.0 (SD 16.9)% to 37.8 (16.5)% in the experimental group yet progressed from 42.7 (15.5)% to 46.1 (18.5)% in the control group.


SD stands for Standard Deviation I presume! That means that all changes are statistically insignificant and about a half of his treated patients experiences a worsening while another half - an improvement.


For example, the average change in the experimental group was -2.2 and 3.4 in the control group. Both changes are about five times smaller than the standard deviation!


This is a prime example of bad science!
Stan (Heretic)

Maybe not all that significant but still there is the diference in regression and progression.Do you think stabalization is enough to prevent cardio incidents?

It is my understanding that even a small regression increases the flow of blood through the arteries by some geometric amount, that is a small increase in diameter means an even larger increase in blood flow. Even if it doesn't regress it is a positive occurrence if it doesn't progress. Arteries don't get to be 80% blocked overnight so why would you expect only one year's time to give you the arteries you were born with.,

I also always like to know exactly what the experimental diet is. Maybe it wasn't what many of us would consider a healthy low fat diet. I remember one low fat diet study in which the low fat eaters were consuming 29% fat and by the end of the study they were eating just about as much fat as the control group, Yet the results were reported as being from eating low fat.

Dolores

No, not good enough! Marginal results and bad papers hurt people by deflecting their attention from seeking true causes and much more powerful remedies. They give people a false sense of security and dulls their awarness of danger. A single percentage decrease in lumen, holy smoke! On average! - while about a half of his patients got actually worse! Pathetic!

Hi Heretic,

I believe you have a physics backgound?

Re: "SD stands for Standard Deviation I presume! That means that all changes are statistically insignificant and about a half of his treated patients experiences a worsening while another half - an improvement.


For example, the average change in the experimental group was -2.2 and 3.4 in the control group. Both changes are about five times smaller than the standard deviation!


This is a prime example of bad science!
Stan (Heretic)"

I'm sorry. You have forgotten all of your statistics. For example "Both changes are about five tims smaller than the standard deviation! This is a prime example of bad science"

In a case like this, the results can be very statistically significant, or not, depending on the sample size.

You are a brilliant man. Instead of working to support your beliefs, work to support the truth.

Best regards, EngineerGuy

Hi folks,

In Dr. Ornish's experiment with heart patients, they improved on the Ornish diet, and got worse in the control group, on standard medical care, on whatever diet their doctors ordered. The angiogram measurement simply were an unbiased measurement reflecting that the Ornish group was improving. Before Ornish ran this study, he could not get NIH funding, and had to raise the money himself from private industry (including Enron). Doctors said it was not possible to reverse atherosclerosis. After Dr. Ornish demonstrated that it could be reversed, the same people complained that it didn't reverse fast enough!

Also, Dr. Ornish did not use statins, and the control group probably did. This worked against Dr. Ornish's group, since Statins do contribute to reversal of atherosclerosis. However, this work was published in 1990, before the benefits of statins were clearly demonstrated. Today, Ornish and the doctors in this movement, prescribe statins for patients while they are at risk for heart attacks or strokes.

Best regards, EngineerGuy

Hi Dolores,

Re: "Maybe not all that significant but still there is the diference in regression and progression.Do you think stabalization is enough to prevent cardio incidents?"

Yes, in a separate publication the Ornish group, without statins, had half the heart attacks compared to the standard medical care group.

The Esselstyn study had 18 patients, who were worse on the average at the start of the study, who had no heart attacks or cardiac events, for 22 years. Why was Esselstyn more successful? Esselstyn was more strict on the diet, emphatically zero animal protein (zero meat, fish, poultry or dairy - sorry Heretic), and measured blood cholesterol once every 2 weeks for the first 5 years of the study. They could not cheat !! Also, Esselstyn used statins.

Hi Dolores,

Yes, you are right, that a 6% increase in the lumen diameter, reflects a much higher percentage increase in blood flow. As shown in the short abstract, looking only at blockages greater than 50%, the reversal was larger. As the short abstract said, 80% of the patients (from memory) had improved, larger lumen openings. This was done with randomized readings of the angiograms, where the person reading the angiogram, did not know which angiogram was the "before" and which was the "after".

The study was actually quite impressive, as it was the first demonstration of reversal of atherosclerosis in humans. The results also show the benefit of being completely strict, as Esselstyn's results are the best ever published in a medical journal.

Heretic, if you disagree, theories are fine, but results are preferred.

Best regards, EngineerGuy

Hi jc,

OOPS - the first quote - "Maybe not all that significant..." was from you, not Dolores.

Best regards, EngineerGuy

Dr Esselstyn says that regression is not necessary to prevent cardio incidents.He says stabalization is the key to halting cardio incidents..... but regression is even better.

At any rate it beats progression.

H or anyone. Can you point me to a study that shows stabilization of plaques and reversal also using a very low carb, high fat diet? Not risk factor improvements, but angiograms. Does Davis use angiograms in his track your plaque program? If he has reduced the calcium caps on plaques that really is truly amazing because I believe even Esselstyn doubted that could be done. Is this what is happening in Davis's program?

Dolores

Hi Dolores,He uses calcium CT scans,sometimes 64 slice that can even pick up soft plaque.He claims regression of calcium score.For various reasons I'm not sure I would trust what he claims but I don't really know.He has removed several of my posts which were challenging in nature and as you probably know I don't fully trust anyone who rejects open debate.He does not use angiograms but does present some evidence in his book that angiogram data correlates with calcium score reduction.I have his book which is now about 4-6 yrs old.