Heart Health Fuhrman Ornish

Oddly enough, I clicked on the above link this morning and read the article with no problem, but tried again this afternoon because I wanted to check it before writing this and could not get it but got a message that said something like --yahoo won't allow it because I am not coming from an approved site. Anyway---

It seems that Mr. Russert's doctor is being criticized because people think it is unlikely Russert would have passed the treadmill test and died shortly afterward. The test was in april and he died in June. Who are they kidding. I read somewhere that many people go through the test and don't die at the time they are taking the test but a good number of people do die about two weeks after the test. Possibly as a result of the stress of the test.

My mom, who had by pass surgery (the most insane and worthless torture considered beneficial by those who should know better) was subjected to treadmill tests and became very ill after each one. Why they would subject a woman who absolutely refused to ever go through surgery again to those treadmill tests, I will never know. So I do not think it is at all surprising that Mr. Russert died in June after an April test or that his doctor is any better or worse than any other doctor. I do think that this is a good example of meds controlling a symptom but doing nothing for the illness.

Dolores

Here is another link - interview with his doctor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSoIDgj4l0M&feature=related

Thanks x, I got the link. Unbelievable. The doctor being interviewed cited a recent study which said that the consensus is that medical management is the way to go with coronary artery disease. No mention of diet. They emphasized that Mr. Russert watched his diet and exercised yet the Dr. said he was overweight and kept promising to do something about it. I am wondering if the diet he was on was the American Heart Association diet which is usually recommended. I surely would love to know his eating habits. It could be a help to many.

Dolores

Hi folks,

Many people on blood pressure medication think they are fine, because the blood pressure is in control.

If people are at the lowest high blood pressure level, 140/90, they have 4x risk of heart attack and stroke.

If they take blood pressure medication, the risk is cut by 20%. That's pretty good for popping a pill, but it still leaves them at 3x risk of heart attack or stroke, compared to a person with the same blood pressure, who does not take medication.

Statins drop risk of heart attack and stroke by about 25%, and drop mortality 10% (which is consistent, because only 1/3 of heart attacks and strokes are fatal). That's great for popping a pill. But reducing cholesterol level by diet and exercise is more effective.

Some explanations are in order, to clarify the above paragraph. The American Heart Association diet lowers cholesterol an average of 5%. That's nice, but too moderate to be effective for most heart patients or for really most people. That's why I and many of the people on this board follow a much more effective diet, Dr. Fuhrman's Eat To Live diet. (By the way, the new revised edition of Eat To Live just came out this month, Jan, 2011.)

I would recommend that anyone with significant cardiac risk, DO take a statin drug, and work hard to adopt the Fuhrman diet. When the health improves, weight is lost (if belly fat is more than 3/4 inch for men, 1 inch for women), and you are confident that your cardiac risk is low, consider reducing or eliminating the statin dose. A few people have difficult heredity, from a heart disease perspective, and they should continue a statin even when on a perfect diet. A test such as an IMT test (carotid artery ultrasound) can track changes in artery health, and be an effective, safe and inexpensive way to monitor you condition.

Best regards, EngineerGuy

Interesting that Dr's McDougall & Abramson (and several others) say statins are of no benefit unless someone already has heart disease. That's quite different from how they're prescribed now - especially pushed on diabetics, along with aspirin & blood pressure drugs. Even after the ACCORD study proved they do not reduce any risk factors for diabetics, most doctors still push them on their patients.

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdV6qXE5NRqcA0DBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByN2s4bDgzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkAw--/SIG=14ito64nd/EXP=1297009962/**http%3a//abcnews.go.com/Health/DiabetesNews/diabetes-intensive-cholesterol-blood-pressure-control-heart-risk/story%3fid=10098023

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdV6qXE5NRqcAyzBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByZWgwN285BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkAw--/SIG=12jkde0cu/EXP=1297009962/**http%3a//www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/prof/heart/other/accord/q_a.htm

x and eg, what is heart disease? If it is blocked arteries then just about everyone in the country by the time they are twenty has heart disease. I am diabetic and should be a heart patient. Does that mean that I should be on statins (which haven't been shown to be effective in women over 65--not that I would ever admit to being over 65--but there are some women out there who are over 65). It is entirely possible that Tim Russert was on statins.

There is a guy in England whose paper was accepted by a well known medical journal who suggested that fast food joints give out statins to their customers along with the food. He was not laughed out of England and is being taken very seriously.

Dolores

According to many medical professionals, if you are diabetic, you have heart disease.

I couldn't believe it when the CDE at my diabetes classes said, "Everyone in this room has heart disease right now." I asked her how she knew that. She replied, "By the time your diabetes is diagnosed, you've already been diabetic for several years, so you have heart disease."

She is saying what she has been taught to say.

Hi Dolores,

Hi Xring,

Excellent questions.

I guess I'll stick with, "I would recommend that anyone with significant cardiac risk, DO take a statin drug, and work hard to adopt the Fuhrman diet."



Would you prefer I say, "Anyone on the program I recommend does not need any medication?" That would be false. Of course, I am not pushing statins, but they do have a valuable place. If I were not fortunate enough to finally reverse most of my atherosclerosis with diet and exercise, I would happily (I guess) take statins, niacin, or whatever medications were necessary. My choice, for myself, is that I would eat twigs and berries, and sleep upside down in bat caves, if that would reverse atherosclerosis without medication. A few people have heredity such that they need the best diet and exercise, plus the best medications.


So should people who have not had heart attacks take statins? I was ready to, but then I heard of Fuhrman, and tried that, and was successful.


The ACCORD study showed that adding fibrates to statins, did not reduce heart attacks, for diabetics. It did not evaluate statins themselves.


So what is "significant cardiac risk" ? For a person who has not had a heart attack, an IMT test is an inexpensive, safe way to gain information.


We all agree that anyone of "significant cardiac risk", should commit themselves fully to the Fuhrman diet, however that is not the case for many people, for whatever reason. It's each individual's decision. Some faithful Fuhrman devotees did not take the plunge until after heart attacks, bypass surgery, stents, and subsequent recurrence of heart disease.


Best regards, EngineerGuy