Skip to content


    Attention All WebMD Community Members:

    These message boards are closed to posting. Please head on over to our new WebMD Message Boards to check out and participate in the great conversations taking place:

    Your new WebMD Message Boards are now open!

    Making the move is as easy as 1-2-3.

    1. Head over to this page:

    2. Choose the tag from the drop-down menu that clicks most with you (and add it to any posts you create so others can easily find and sort through posts)

    3. Start posting

    Have questions? Email us anytime at [email protected]

    new trial
    Anon_605 posted:
    Higher death rate for those on the vegan diet?

    Less cardio deaths but does that even matter if there are more total deaths?

    jc3737 responded:
    But this was a trial to see the diets effect on cardio disease.I don't think the total mortality stats will hold up longer term.This was a brief period of time.
    max9821 responded:
    what do you mean anon? There were less than three percent total deaths out of the 177 adherent patients and there were about eighteen percent deaths out of the eleven non adherent patients. And proportionately many more adverse incidents.

    As someone with a stent, it is disheartening to read of the restenosis although apparently some did not take the course of post op meds prescribed by their cardiologist nor did one person with a fib take the prescribed meds. Is there any other diet that would give anyone with a stent a better chance of survival? If there were I would be on board. I would like to think it were one hundred per cent guaranteed but we have to rely on what is statistically more conducive to recovery.

    There is nothing to compare this study to. I know of nothing similar among the Atkins, paleo or low carb claims in which a similar size study was conducted over a similar time period with patients such as the ones in the E study. To promote a low carb high meat and fat diet as better than the one Esselstyn recommends has to be pure wishful thinking on their part. How do they know the low carb way of eating is better without clinical proof? And with clinical endpoints not just surrogate endpoints like biomarkers. Why criticize something that has gotten pretty darn good results because it isn't one hundred percent guaranteed perfect when you have nothing but conjecture and wishful thinking to offer?

    jc3737 replied to jc3737's response:
    Crow,I took a close look at the study and the mistake you made was to mix up compliant with non compliant patients.
    5 vs 2.

    But the comparion was not between those on the diet and those not on the diet.
    jc3737 replied to jc3737's response:
    Crow,Look at the patient event rate..............."

    Outcomes for nonadherent
    CVD participants
    Twenty-one patients (11%) were nonadherent
    with dietary intervention. Thirteen of
    these patients experienced at least 1 adverse
    event each—2 sudden cardiac deaths, 1 heart
    transplant, 2 ischemic strokes, 4 PCIs with
    stent placement, 3 coronary artery bypass
    graftings (CABGs), and 1 endarterectomy
    for peripheral arterial disease—for a patient
    event rate of 62% (TABLE 2).
    jc3737 replied to jc3737's response:
    "Among the 177 patients who reported
    adherence to the dietary intervention, there
    were 5 noncardiac deaths (3 cancers, 1 pulmonary
    embolus, and 1 case of pneumonia"

    none of the 5 deaths were due to cardio reasons...they were due to cancer and pneeumonia
    jc3737 replied to jc3737's response:
    Crow,Another key mistake you made was to compare the absolute number of cases instead of looking at percent.There were far fewer non compliant patients so naturally you would expect fewer deaths in the non compliant group.
    crow89 replied to jc3737's response:
    You are both right.I should have looked at the %.Still not convinced by the study however.I'm still convinced a low fat diet is unhealthy and the human body needs animal fat and animal protein.
    max9821 replied to crow89's response:
    OK. Human infants do need animal fat. They get it from an animal, their own mothers--- via the milk of their mothers. And being nursed for at least two years.

    Crow, if the human body needs animal fat, what would the consequences be of not eating it? So far as I know, humans need two essential fats, omega sixes and omega threes, both of which are obtained from plants. Everything else we can manufacture in our own bodies. Oatmeal, for instance, is about fifteen per cent fat. But I have never read anywhere of the necessity of consuming animal fat other than as a source of storage calories for times of food scarcity which those of us in this country do not have to worry about. It also might help keep arctic dwellers warm but they are not known for good health or long life.

    Do you have a specific reason or a study you can point to for believing we need animal fat? Or is it just a feeling you have?


    Spotlight: Member Stories

    Long-time fan of the Diet Debate-though infrequent contributor to the discussion.

    Helpful Tips

    Be the first to post a Tip!

    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.