Skip to content

    Announcements

    Exciting News for WebMD Members!

    We've been busy behind the scenes building new message boards for you. You'll have new and easier ways to find messages, connect with others, and share your stories.

    And, this will all be available on your smartphone or other mobile device!

    What Do You Need to Do?

    The message board you're used to will be closing in the coming weeks. While many of your boards will be making the move to our new home, your posts will not. Want to keep a discussion going? Save posts you want to continue (this includes your member profile story), so that you can re-post them in the new message boards.

    Keep an eye here and on your email inbox, we'll be back in touch soon to give you all the information you need!


    Yours in health,
    WebMD Message Boards Management

    Olive oil study - more bad news for dr. mcd theory
    FirstPrevious12NextLast
     
    avatar
    jc3737 responded:
    "The multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios were 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI>, 0.54 to 0.92) and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.96) for the group assigned to a Mediterranean diet with extra-virgin olive oil (96 events) and the group assigned to a Mediterranean diet with nuts (83 events), respectively, versus the control group (109 events). No diet-related adverse effects were reported"

    Thats still a ton of cardio events and not all that great a reduction...109 vs 83 and 96.If the McDougall diet resulted in 0 or just 2 or 3 events then that would be significant.Wonder why someone has not done that research?
     
    avatar
    anon615 replied to jc3737's response:
    so what does this mean in language that someone battling senility can understand?

    Dolores
     
    avatar
    jc3737 replied to anon615's response:
    It means the Med diet was not REALLY all that great if one looks at the actual numbers.

    The reductions in cardio events were very minor for those on the diet.
     
    avatar
    heretk replied to jc3737's response:
    Minor? 30% !
     
    avatar
    jc3737 replied to heretk's response:
    Yes,Very minor ... 108 vs 83 vs 96 events.

    If a diet was REALLY effective and not some statistical garbage I would expect a reduction to 15-20 events.(at the very most)

    I would still not be happy until the events were in the 0-5 range... then I could depend on the diet to provide real benefits.
     
    avatar
    heretk replied to jc3737's response:
    Lyon Heart study (French) also used Meditteranean diet (with fish - Dr. Mcd fans please notice!) and they reduce the risk of a second heart attacks by over 70%.

    I suspect that the reason behind only 30% in that Spanish study was that some of the control group people begun applying the same diet over time. It is even mentioned in the text or in an interview. It also depends on the degree of compliance, probably in a dose-dependent fashion, unlike the diet of the one you know, which seems to be all or nothing and a slightest deviation may elicit a heart attack.


    H.

     
    avatar
    engineerguy replied to heretk's response:
    Hi H,

    Yes, but even with the Lyon Heart Study, in 4 years, 25% of the Mediterranean Diet group had a heart attack or died. These results are "wretched" compared to Esselstyn's results.
    Esselstyn has the best results ever published, for treatment of heart disease.

    The Ornish diet (I believe without statins) reduced heart attacks by 50%, compared to standard medical care. That's great, but poor compared to Esselstyn. What is the difference between Ornish and Esselstyn? Mostly Esselstyn is stricter. Nothing with a face or a mother. No dairy products. And Esselstyn gave his patients a cholesterol check every 2 weeks. They could not cheat.

    If H is right, then Esselstyn should do poorly, with all those veggies and carbs and all. Hmmmm.

    Best regards, EngineerGuy
     
    avatar
    jc3737 replied to heretk's response:
    I agree with you about the weakness of the Fuhrman/McDougall diet.... is the need to follow it to the letter.As he says "Moderation Kills"and as we all saw from the experiences of Dolores, he may be right.

    Adding a small amount of fish and nuts to her otherwise low fat vegan diet caused her problems to say the least.
     
    avatar
    jc3737 replied to engineerguy's response:
    It does appear that the less fat the better..Dr E even says to avoid any type of fat and even nuts are suspect.

    He claims that the small amount of fat in vegetables is more than enough and even says to avoid higher fat vegetabes.
     
    avatar
    heretk replied to engineerguy's response:
    Yes but Esselstyn rejected all diabetics out of his study. Those who were left did not have uniform results either, patiets health improved on average but close to a half of arteries did not improve and some patients worsened. I am refering to his published paper which gave a different picture to his interviews where he is claming 100% disease proof. Incidentally where are those heart attack examples for people on the high fat low carb diets?

    Best regards,
    H.
     
    avatar
    heretk replied to jc3737's response:
    Adding a small amount of fish and nuts to her otherwise low fat vegan diet caused her problems to say the least.


    JC, I am not convinced that a few oz of salmon a week may have caused any difference. If it does then you would be threading a narrow line through a mine field. I think a more logical explanation is that the low fat high carbohydrate vegan diets simply do not eliminate a cardiovascular risk completely, regardless of salmon.


    Best regards,
    H.




     
    avatar
    heretk replied to jc3737's response:
    Adding a small amount of fish and nuts to her otherwise low fat vegan diet caused her problems to say the least.


    JC, I am not convinced that a few oz of salmon a week may have caused any difference. If it does then you would be threading a narrow line through a mine field. I think a more logical explanation is that the low fat high carbohydrate vegan diets simply do not eliminate a cardiovascular risk completely, regardless of salmon.


    Best regards,
    H.
     
    avatar
    heretk replied to jc3737's response:
    Adding a small amount of fish and nuts to her otherwise low fat vegan diet caused her problems to say the least.


    JC, I am not convinced that a few oz of salmon a week may have caused any difference. If it does then you would be threading a narrow line through a mine field. I think a more logical explanation is that the low fat high carbohydrate vegan diets simply do not eliminate a cardiovascular risk completely, regardless of salmon.


    Best regards,
    H.
     
    avatar
    anon615 replied to heretk's response:
    I agree with H. Especially if you have diabetes. Even the plant positive guy says something about the arteries of diabetics being more permeable (to ldl?) In his first study, Esselstyn did not include diabetics in his study.

    Dr. Bernstein is in his nineties, a t1 diabetic who controls his diabetes using frequent insulin shots and a very low carb diet to keep his blood sugar at around 83 at all times. So apparently one size does not fit all. On the other hand, I am not impressed by some on the diabetes support group who are t2 and use low carb and increasing amounts of meds and often add insulin. Is that necessary for t2's? Those are the same meds that carry warnings about cardiac side effects.

    H, didn't your own guru recommend either the diet you are on or a fat free Japanese type diet?

    Dolores


    Spotlight: Member Stories

    My name is Ashley, I'm 20 years old. (5'6, 159 lbs). My interest in nutrition/living healthier started when at the age of 53 my father passed ...More

    Helpful Tips

    Old Discussions
    You can find some of the old discussions from the original diet debate board by looking up keywords or member names using the search on the ... More
    Was this Helpful?
    29 of 45 found this helpful

    Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

    FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.