Fat Free/Vegetarian Theory of Heart Disease
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:07 pm
Weston A. Price is probably turning over in his grave now, although he's probably done it a few times from Dr. Dean Ornish's books alone.123xyz wrote:Dr. Esselstyn convincingly argues that a plant-based, oil-free diet can not only prevent and stop the progression of heart disease, but also reverse its effects."[/color]
The above quote is from: http://www.heartattackproof.com/.
ofonorow wrote:Esselstyn did a 12 year study with 18 patients which were a pretty sorry lot. In the 8 years prior to his study, these patients experienced 49 significant events (bypasses, heart attacks, strokes, stents, etc.). During the 12 years of the study, these patients experienced exactly zero such events. To me, Esselstyn's study is pretty convincing and stands on it's merits.
We usually begin these debates with the question of what is the "theory" behind the positive results claimed by the Esselsytn diet? And I must say that if the above information is true, it would deserve serious attention, however, the claim that there were zero events over the next 12 years?! That just doesn't ring true to me.
Ideally, diet alone would bring it down to 150, or less, but, if not, then a statin drug was used for the final push to less than 150. No data was supplied regarding the details of the statin supplementation.
DonHarry wrote:............ but regardless of whether one believes total cholesterol levels as a risk factor, (I certainly don't) the fact remains that statins are employed as an acceptable measure to aid the reduction of cholesterol production. This I find an unacceptable protocol. There is a wealth of knowledge surrounding the health implications of statin use and from a health perspective there is no instance, save for hypercholesteraemia, where actively depleting ubiquinone levels can be considered beneficial for health.
ofonorow wrote:
Now 123xyz, I was not asking you to theorize, I am asking what your understanding of the experimenters (Esselstyn's) theory was or is for the reason he achieved such spectacular results. And from your post, as picked up by DonHarry, the theory seems to be lowered cholesterol on such diets. Are there any other important factors from your reading?
You have peeked my interest enough that I will probably order the book. Do you remember whether cholesterol was measured or monitored during the study? Can we find his study on pubmed? (I did find some of his articles but so far not the study paper.)
But lowering cholesterol that low is known to be dangerous, perhaps carcinogenic, so even if no coronary events were seen, there may be other reasons that a peer-reviewed study paper would help clear up.
I'll bet those Chinese didn't/don't use statins.
The use of red yeast rice in China was first documented in the Tang Dynasty in 800 A.D. A detailed description of its manufacture is found in the ancient Chinese pharmacopoeia, Ben Cao Gang Mu-Dan Shi Bu Yi, published during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644). In this text, red yeast rice is proposed to be a mild aid for gastric problems (indigestion, diarrhea), blood circulation, and spleen and stomach health. Red yeast rice in a dried, powdered form is called Zhi Tai. When extracted with alcohol it is called Xue Zhi Kang.
......Why not??Esselstyn used mainly diet to lower cholesterol but he says that he did use small amounts of statin for some patients although no details are supplied
And above all they contain saturated fat which immediately injures the endothelial lining of the arteries when eaten. It doesn't matter whether it's olive oil, corn oil, or any other kind of oil.
So far as I can tell, Esselstyn simply believed that people whose total cholesterol was naturally 150, or less, hardly ever had heart attacks or strokes (for whatever reason). I cannot dispute this belief. I believe he simply felt that the oil-free plant diet was a good way to recover & maintain the strength, integrity & health of the endothelium as a whole.
He did Before & After cardiac PET scans on certain patients after just a few weeks on his protocol to demonstrate "significant" & "profound" flow restoration; these findings are in the book.
Cholesterol was monitored frequently, like every two weeks. I have no knowledge of how he published the results of his study other than through the book and by lectures. Check the site: http://www.heartattackproof.com/
Having been on both the receiving & giving end of many peer reviews, I am not convinced they are necessarily particularly useful in helping to "clear up" technical issues. Sometimes, the prejudices of the reviewer dominate over objective review. Pauling found that out the hard way.
DonHarry wrote:I think it's important to take a step back and look at the bigger picture, it's very easy to adopt a one track mind when exploring these things.
For arguments sake, if we accept that his study reduced the risk of heart disease by a significant margin we can assume that others will have the same results if they adhere to his regimen. By removing saturated fat from the diet however, we are trading risk factors for one condition (Atherosclerosis), and replacing it with a different risk factor for another condition - cancer. The truth is saturated fat is essential for health. There are numerous biological functions which are augmented by various saturated fats.
I just can't stress enough the benefits of eating saturated fat, and there is actually so much knowledge on this subject that it worries me that Esselstyn is a clear believer in the lipid hypothesis.
Harry
ofonorow wrote:And the use, even minimal use, of statin drugs makes me question the results.
Not having one's "study" accepted for publication (often for political reasons) is a far cry from not submitting them for publication.
And one clear benefit of a study setting is have some control over what the patients are doing. Perhaps these patients, suddenly interested in stopping their heart disease also found paulingtherapy.com and began taking vitamin C and lysine?! THAT would explain these results!
I don't think Esselstyn is timid about submitting his results anywhere.
The study included 22 patients with angiographically documented, severe coronary artery disease that was not immediately life threatening. These patients took cholesterol-lowering drugs and followed a diet that derived no more than 10% of its calories from fat.
Of the 22 participants, 5 dropped out within 2 years, and 17 maintained the diet, 11 of whom completed a mean of 5.5 years of follow-up.
Analysis by minimal lumen diameter of 25 lesions fotind that 6 regressed, 14 remained stable, and 5 progressed.
Disease was clinically arrested in all 11 participants, and none had new infarctions. Among the 11 remaining patients after 10 years, six continued the diet and had no further coronary events, whereas the five dropouts who resumed their pre-study diet reported 10 coronary events.
A physician can influence patients in the decision to adopt a very low-fat diet that, combined with lipid-lowering drugs, can reduce cholesterol levels to below150 mg/dL and uniformly result in the arrest or reversal of coronary artery disease.
Is there data that directly demonstrates that eating an oil-free plant diet raises the risk of contracting cancer? I am talking direct. By direct, I mean I am not interested in one of these circuitous kind of stories: An oil-free plant diet produces THIS which in turn causes THAT which has been proven to force THOSE which are known to cause CANCER in rats 51% of the time. You know what I mean. Let's get real & specific.
Unless I am mistaken, I thought that both cholesterol and saturated fat, though necessary, are not essential.
That is, the human body can & will make its own supply of both in adequate amounts whether or not they are consumed in the diet.
The only thing I'm aware of is possible B12 deficiency and the consequences of that