Skip to content
My WebMD Sign In, Sign Up
zn deficient?
avatar
jc3737 posted:
http://forums.webmd.com/3/heart-health-fuhrman-ornish/forum/83?@guest @
Reply
 
avatar
Heretk responded:
Dolores,

You are right! This - the attitude and vegans' habit (*) to cover up some problems rather than talk, is I think a more important issue then the exact science of plant based nutrition. We shall eventually get the science right by trial and error, by studying it, if and only if the people involved will maintain an open scientific attitude. Which is the more difficult the less they co-operate.

So far, vegan diet promoters like you know who, are not really trying to be helpful. Your example was very telling. You may be interested to know that I read everything on Fuhrman's website 10 years ago and as I remember, he was very self-assuring 100% low fat vegan! Now he isn't! He added fish and nuts to his diet! Nuts are 60% fat by calories (which is one source of his clash with McDougall). What is he going to advise 10 years from now? Would you like a guess? :)

People who DID NOT listen to him 10 years ago but follow him now are better off, then those who begun back then with a diet that probably causes known problems for some people, am I correct, EG? :) . Extrapolating the trend: - would you not just be better off jumping straight to Dr. Fuhrman's future high animal fat diet of 2020, rather than wait so long? :)

I am being only partially sarcasting but partially glad that Fuhrman did eventually move forward, for sake of his patients. Yet, from my point of view he moved WAY too slow for a scientist.

Regards,
Stan

--------
*) Please note that I intentionally did not write "some" here. I think generalization is warranted because a number of scientifically open-minded practicing vegans is really small. I don't quite understand why.
 
avatar
dtms1 replied to Heretk's response:
H, I have not read any Fuhrman from ten years
ago. I think. However, a mistake I made is assuming that Fuhrman's Eat to Live is his last word on nutrition. He does not make it clear in this book, but the diet in Eat to Live is for sick people who need to lose a lot of weight fast and reduce their blood sugars and lose angina pain etc. If you watch his videos you will see that he says that he eats starches, that he thinks fat from nuts and seeds should be part of the diet (not big chunks of animal fat), that fasting should not be tried without a doctor's help and that it is not for everyone but could be used in certain cases of certain serious illnesses.

I do not think that it is unreasonable for a person who is in the habit of searching the literature to change an opinion based on a preponderance of evidence.

If you read Atkins first and second book, you will see that he admits that his diet is not the one for diabetics and that after a while they do worse on Atkins. So his second book has his "Meat and Millet" diet for diabetics in which he adds grains and more vegetables. So there is the guru of fat saying that eating fat and eliminating vegies and grains (and maybe fruit, I can't remember) is not going to correct high blood sugars. He must have seen in his actual practice that a high fat diet is not healthful for diabetics. And everyone knows LDL is raised on the Atkins diet.

What I would like to see is your recommendation used for hundreds of patients with occluded arteries and heart disease who are slated for by pass surgery or angioplasty adopt your diet. Let's see if they lose their chest pain and are able to forgo surgery---just like those patients of Ornish, Esselstyn, Pritikin, McDougall, Fuhrnan and any others who use a plant based diet and drastically reduce animal fat and avoid surgery.

That you are perfectly healthy on your diet and EG is doing great on his is hardly a cross over double blind study. However, it wonders me why so many people with angina pain cut out the fat and lose the chest pain and add the fat back in and have trouble walking up a flight of steps

Dolores
 
avatar
dtms1 replied to dtms1's response:
H, I just read that in two separate studies it was shown that replacing sat fats with intact carbs that do not cause a great rise in blood sugar decreases risks of heart attack but replacing high glycemic carbs (read processed and sugary food) with sat fats also decreases risk of heart attack. The message I get from this is eliminate sat fats and sugary, processed food from the diet.

Dolores
 
avatar
jc3737 replied to dtms1's response:
Dolores,Can you post the study?....need help in posting?

Essee's long term data established that a plant based diet is a fix for heart disease....no cardio incidents for over 20 yrs.The odds are that most all(or probably all) of those patients would not have survived for 20 yrs on a regular diet(and many likely would not have made it for 5 years)...unless he made up the data we have to assume that 100% lack of cardio incidents and 100% survival is proof that a plant based diet has its place,especially if you have heart disease.

The debate can center on....is this a speciality diet only for those with heart disease?....how good is it for cancer?(the data is totally lacking in this area(we can discount the TC Campbell speculation).

Can the average person(without heart disease) thrive on a plant based diet?Are they free from other ailments?
 
avatar
jc3737 replied to Heretk's response:
This lack of willingness to talk,debate and discuss is a problem.When they resort to calling those who disagree "trolls" or banish them from their kingdom then something is wrong.

They say that their vegan sites are for support and don't allow discussion on them...they say discussion is for the "debate" forum.OK ,then why are they not here?Many have come to this forum and left out of frustration because many here don't see the "TRUTH" they are giving us.Frustration is never a problem if open honest discussion is ones intent.Its only when they see themselves as dispencing truth to others who will not listen that frustration creeps in.

The parallels to religious right wing findamantalism are striking.

To be fair I have also found this same problem with some of the high fat advocatres....especially Dr W Davis.When I posted several times on his site he removed one and did not answer the other.I asked why his "improvement" was so minor in his peer revieved study(on pubmed) and did not match all the hype that I read on his web site daily.I asked why he often fails to back up his contentions with real (pub med) data.
 
avatar
Heretk replied to dtms1's response:
Dolores,

Re: And everyone knows LDL is raised on the Atkins diet.

This is not relevant. LDL does cause heart diesase neither small dense particles (LDL-B) not large "fluffy" particles as Dr. Davis calls them. The small dense (LDL-B) result from VLDL or ILDL manufactured by the liver out of fructose and glucose and THOSE are the direct causes of the problems (probably). The large fluffy (LDL-A) which is considered harmless or benefitial (like HDL), result from chylomicrons from dietery ingested fat, including animal fat.

In other words LDL-B is correlated with more harm because ir comes from sugars. LDL-A is associated with less risk because it comes from dietary fat.

Re: What I would like to see is your recommendation used for hundreds of patients with occluded arteries and heart disease who are slated for by pass surgery or angioplasty adopt your diet. Let's see if they lose their chest pain and are able to forgo surgery.

Yes, hundreds if not thousands of cardiac patiens attend Arkadia spa/clinics (private) every year pay, spend some money and rid themselves of vascular and other disease. No, Arkadia clinics do not publish their data in the scientific magazines. Too bad, but on the other hand, I have to be blunt (sorry): it is probably more of _your_ loss than theirs!

As a scientist, former at least, I wish that such data were published and made more widely available, other than through my personal communication from some Arkadia doctors.

Unfortunately this is not the case. Polish doctors also suffer from some "mental bugs" just like their American coleagues. :)

H.
 
avatar
Heretk replied to dtms1's response:
Hi Dolores,

I too would like to have the refs to those studies, thanks,
Stan
 
avatar
Heretk replied to jc3737's response:
Hi JC,

I didn't realize that Davis resorted to nuking your post! This is really bad. May be he has got something to be afraid of?

So many of them are so screwed up its unbelievable.

Did you read my "tribal" human regression posts on my blog?

[rant=ON>
Forsaking Great Western ideals of individualism and creativity. Society reverting back to the "tribal village" culture run on rigid social hierarchy and groupism, especially since the boomers generation. Replacing individual loyalty with group loyalty. Noticeable shift in the way they look at the ideas of value, reward and work. This is sad!
 
avatar
EngineerGuy replied to Heretk's response:
Hi Heretic,

Re: No, Arkadia clinics do not publish their data in the scientific magazines. Too bad, but on the other hand, I have to be blunt (sorry): it is probably more of _your_ loss than theirs!


Pritikin fully realized that he had to publish, in order to help more people. The Pritikin Longevity Center has published over 100 articles in medical and nutrition journals. Check www.pritikin.org to see an overview.


For example: A five-year follow-up of 64 men who chose Pritikin instead of the recommended bypass surgery found that 80% never needed the surgery. Of those taking drugs for angina (chest) pain, 62% left the Center pain-free and drug-free. Journal of Cardiac Rehabilitation, 3: 183, 1983.

But you keep posting about the harm the low fat high plant diet does to people. However, you have no data except your own opinion. You felt that the low fat diet harmed me when my IMT worsened, but really it may have minimized the damage, until I adopted Fuhrman's program. Under Fuhrman, the increased nutrition per calorie, caused my IMT to improve.

You mention that Fuhrman moved too slowly as a scientist, to add more fat to his diet. But you fail to understand that Fuhrman totally excludes animal fat and meat, for those who are most ill. So does Esselstyn, with the best results ever documented. The only fat Fuhrman allows is nuts and seeds, and avocados, for those ill. No, there is no movement at all towards your diet, and all data is against your diet.

Please show us some data about people getting better on your diet? Please post something to counter Dr. Fleming's article about improving heart blood flow for a low animal fat diet, and worsening heart blood flow for the Atkins diet. Where are the countering studies? Where?

Please don't bother to post cholesterol levels. We know from the Masai, whose average cholesterol level is 150, that they have worse athersclerosis than Americans. The high fat, high cholesterol diet of the Masai may actually lower total cholesterol for these very lean and fit people, yet it gives them very diseased arteries. Even some 10 year old Masai children have fibrosis in their arteries. Yet those on the Cholesterol Conspiracy boards post speculating why the Masai suddenly worsen suddenly, when they get older than 40 (from memory). The posts imply that the Masai are fine prior to 40. But they are not fine. They go from awful to horrid artery health.

They look, but they cannot see.

Best regards, EngineerGuy
 
avatar
EngineerGuy replied to Heretk's response:
Hi Heretic,

Re: Forsaking Great Western ideals of individualism and creativity. Society reverting back to the "tribal village" culture run on rigid social hierarchy and groupism, especially since the boomers generation.


I enjoy debate, discussion, and even being proven wrong. If I am proven wrong, then I have learned something. I object when data is simply ignored, and it's called debate. Do you agree that ignoring data is unscientific?


Some people, confronted with something they don't want to believe, 1) look for an excuse to disregard it, and then 2) disregard/ignore it.


For example, Dr. Fleming's study(1), comparing heart blood flow for low fat high veggie (improved), vs Atkins dieters (worsened).


Someone said that Fleming's low fat group lowered triglycerides, which they though was not right for a high carb diet, so they used it as an excuse to disregard the entire study, including that the Atkins group had worsening heart blood flow. I retorted with a reference that triglycerides drop at the Pritikin Center (2). Simply ignored.


Where is the countering study, where a high animal fat, high animal protein diet improved heart flow ?


Best regards, EngineerGuy


(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11108325


(2) Among 4,587 men and women, LDL (bad) cholesterol fell on average 23% within three weeks. Triglycerides plummeted 33%. New England Journal of Medicine, 323: 1142, 1990; Archives of Internal Medicine, 151: 1389, 1991.
 
avatar
jc3737 replied to Heretk's response:
I read it as I do all your blogs on your web site....and I still read Dr Davis's site despite my problems with him.(don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater)

I think we discussed his meger results that were on pub med some time ago.Apparently he did not want to discuss that when I tried to post on his site.His results were not even in the same remote class as those Essee got and apparently Essee is willing to discusss and debate with anyone...he is not...

so its not just the low fat vegans like McDougall and Ornish who shy away from debate....but then there's Essee who loves to discuss and defend his position.
 
avatar
dtms1 replied to dtms1's response:
sorry guys. I do not remember where I read this. I have to get into the habit of writing these things down. If I come across it again I will answer your question.

Dolores


Spotlight: Member Stories

Let's see.... I'm the mom of six (three hers, three mine) who used to live in Florida but now lives in the Chicago area. (Don't ask.) I&#...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

Related News

There was an error with this newsfeed

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.