Fat Free/Vegetarian Theory of Heart Disease

The discussion of the Linus Pauling vitamin C/lysine invention for chronic scurvy

Moderator: ofonorow

123xyz

Fat Free/Vegetarian Theory of Heart Disease

Post Number:#1  Post by 123xyz » Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:07 pm

jknosplr wrote:I changed the diet back in 2007, to monostaurated fats, cut the red meat and shell fish, (Except Venison), , increased the lean white meat, and cold water fish. Dumped all the refined sugars and simple carbs, increased the complex carbs with greens and fiber.


jknosplr wrote:Saturated fat intake has increased some but for the most part I'm maintaining my regiment for the last three years.


Note this: "Based on the groundbreaking results of his [Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., M.D] 20-year nutritional study—the longest study of its kind ever conducted—this book [Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease] explains, with irrefutable scientific evidence, how we can end the heart disease epidemic in this country forever by changing what we eat. Here, 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."

The above quote is from: http://www.heartattackproof.com/ There's a lot of interesting stuff at this website.

Added in Edit: Here is essence of the Esselstyn study.

Esselstyn was a cancer surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic, which has a premier conventional cardiology facility. He proposed a study to the cardiologists. The clinic's internal review board approved the study. Esselstyn was given permission to conduct the study essentially in his spare time with no financial support that he acknowledges.

The cardiologists sent him 24 heart patients, all with severe 3 vessel disease, for whom conventional medicine could do more more. The patients were in despair & without hope. The death sentence had been rendered. Esselstyn was dealt a lousy hand but he played it anyway. There is no mention of what drugs the patients were using but a good guess is that they were all on drugs of various kinds since they had been under conventional care by cardiologists.

The main part of the new protocol for the patients was a new diet: plant based (grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables) with no added oils/fats. [This is not your usual "low fat" diet - this is pretty radical.] In addition they were to take a statin drug as needed to get their total cholesterol below 150. They also took a few vitamins. The protocol did not include exercise, EECP, EDTA chelation, massive vitamin doses, or other alternative therapies. Six patients would not comply with Esselstyn's protocol so they were released back to their cardiologists. The 18 remaining patients had had 49 serious cardiac events (heart attacks, bypasses, stents, etc.) in the previous 8 years. These 18 patients agreed to comply with the protocol.

The total study lasted 12 years. One patient did not make it to the end. His death sentence came due after 5 years and he died of a cardiac arrest, an electrical malfunction. Autopsy showed no CAD-caused heart attack. Of the other 17, one fell off the wagon for 18 months and reverted back to his prior diet. He ended up with a bypass but afterward returned to compliance. In all, 17 patients completed the 12 year study. In these 17 patients there were no cardiac events (other than the aforementioned bypass) during the 12 year study. Furthermore, the patients all recovered a large measure of their vigor, health & vitality. Now, roughly 21 years after the study began, 14 are still alive and following the protocol and are living active lives with no cardiac events.

These are just the bare facts, obtained from reading the book. For more information, go here: http://www.heartattackproof.com/reversal01.htm
Last edited by 123xyz on Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

VanCanada

Re: VC....... not exacty the results I was looking for!!!

Post Number:#2  Post by VanCanada » Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:40 pm

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/.
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.

Uffe Ravnskov's books and scientific papers might be a useful contrast to Esselsyn's arguments. The Weston Price Foundation website is another good resource that takes quite a different position on this question of diet and human health.

123xyz, after you've gone oil-free for a few months or a year, let us know how your health is doing. That would be most interesting. Not recommended of course, but interesting if you follow through all the same.

123xyz

Re: VC....... not exacty the results I was looking for!!!

Post Number:#3  Post by 123xyz » Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:39 pm

VanCanada wrote:
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/.
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.

Uffe Ravnskov's books and scientific papers might be a useful contrast to Esselsyn's arguments. The Weston Price Foundation website is another good resource that takes quite a different position on this question of diet and human health.

123xyz, after you've gone oil-free for a few months or a year, let us know how your health is doing. That would be most interesting. Not recommended of course, but interesting if you follow through all the same.


My particular results on the Esselstyn diet [similar to Mike Anderson’s Rave Diet] would only be an anecdotal single case. 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. If Price & Ravnskov did some studies on heart patients that obtained similar results with a different approach, it would be interesting to learn about such studies. To me, Esselstyn's study is pretty convincing and stands on it's merits.

As a matter of interest, the plant diet is followed (by necessity) in many parts of the world and those folks don't seem to suffer from the heart disease epidemic. See The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health, about $10 on Amazon.com

Ranne

Re: VC....... not exacty the results I was looking for!!!

Post Number:#4  Post by Ranne » Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:51 pm

The only thing I am sure is bad for your heart diet-wise is trans fats... which interestingly the authorities on nutrition were shoving down everyone's throats for decades.

Campbell didn't actually give us the China Study; he gave us his interpretation of the data and he had bias going in to prove that vegetarianism was healthier. Others who have looked at the raw data have had different conclusions. For example:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-ch ... or-fallac/

Esselstyn, well Weston Price Foundation was not impressed (big surprise, but it's the only detailed review I'd come across):
http://www.westonaprice.org/book-review ... sease.html

There have been cultures mostly free of heart disease on a wide array of diets. Problems seem to come with civilization and there is a lot more to civilization than a change in diet. Having said that, I am much more suspicious of wheat than animal fat.

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 15822
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Re: Fat Free/Vegetarian Theory of Heart Disease

Post Number:#5  Post by ofonorow » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:52 am

My particular results on the Esselstyn diet [similar to Mike Anderson’s Rave Diet] would only be an anecdotal single case. 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. If Price & Ravnskov did some studies on heart patients that obtained similar results with a different approach, it would be interesting to learn about such studies. 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.
Owen R. Fonorow
HeartCURE.Info
American Scientist's Invention Could Prevent 350,000 Heart Bypass Operations a year

123xyz

Re: Fat Free/Vegetarian Theory of Heart Disease

Post Number:#6  Post by 123xyz » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:34 pm

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.


The protocol on how we begin these debates is unimportant to me. And I'll leave the theorizing to others more qualified than me.

I read the Esselstyn book, Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease. My take is that Esselstyn believed that coronary artery disease is rarely seen in individuals with cholesterol levels below 150, presuming that such level is consistent and achieved by diet. So, Esselstyn decided to conduct a clinical study wherein the patients would adopt an oil-free plant diet to achieve the lowest possible cholesterol level. 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.

His claim about zero major cardiac events during the 12 year study is contained on p55 of his book. True or not, it's his claim. I personally would be reluctant to call him a liar. His clinical results were astounding. With clinical results this good, one might assert that the double blind randomized study is not really necessary, as Pauling did with the clinical results from those adopting the Vitamin C & Lysine approach.

Esselstyn's study was very focused and was done with a small group. I think it deserves some serious attention. Enlarging the study in both numbers of patients and in the parameter space investigated would be most interesting. I personally think it would be great to do a study combining the Esselstyn & Pauling approaches. But Esselstyn's approach suffers from the same curse as does the Pauling Therapy: Widespread adoption of these approaches would seriously degrade the earning potential of the heart disease business community. So, the Esselstyn work will likely be largely ignored by the medical establishment.

The meat of Esselstyn's study is contained in roughly 100 easy-to-read pages of his book. I suggest y'all read the book yourself and make up your own mind about where his approach might fit in your own lives.

To sum it up, here's the Esselstyn claim: "Cardiac events: The 17 patients in the study had 49 cardiac events in the years leading up to the study, and had undergone aggressive treatment procedures. Several had multiple bypass operations. After beginning the eating plan, there were no more cardiac events in the group within a 12-year period."

DonHarry

Re: Fat Free/Vegetarian Theory of Heart Disease

Post Number:#7  Post by DonHarry » Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:10 am

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.


So if we are to subscribe to the 'Total Cholesterol' numbers game, (Which has it's own dedicated refutes) we can infer from the study that the dietary changes prescribed were, in some cases, unable to reduce total cholesterol levels to or below 150. Given the small study sample we can appreciate that any participants who needed a statin represent a potentially significant amount of population who would need to go on statins to achieve this figure once the study is applied to general population.

I assume we're talking about total cholesterol since no specific lipoprotein is mentioned, 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.

As we know, statins actually increase circulating levels of Lp(a) which directly contribute to atherosclerosis. So to bring total numbers down is a moot excercise when the major risk factor actual gets increased. That, coupled with the impaired synthesis of ubiquinone (By up to 40% with some statins!) means that good health cannot co-exist where statins are involved.

To make the diet work to an acceptable level you would need to supplement CoQ10/Ubiquinone and Ascorbate just to redeuce the effects of the statin.

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 15822
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Re: Fat Free/Vegetarian Theory of Heart Disease

Post Number:#8  Post by ofonorow » Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:14 am

Thank you DonHarry!

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 you 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.)

Two thoughts from what you have posted. Any diet that avoids artificial transfats (and increases dietary vitamin C) should have a very positive effect on cardiovascular disease.

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. (And of course we/Pauling would love to have published clinical trials of vitamin C and lysine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is a crime that no one in medicine or the NIH has conducted them by now... But this is another story.. p.s. but while we don't have clinical studies, we do have a comprehensive "unified theory" of what causes CVD, and who/why vitamin C is so important.)
Owen R. Fonorow
HeartCURE.Info
American Scientist's Invention Could Prevent 350,000 Heart Bypass Operations a year

123xyz

Re: Fat Free/Vegetarian Theory of Heart Disease

Post Number:#9  Post by 123xyz » Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:03 pm

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.


I personally agree with this comment and wish Esselstyn had not used the statins. One of the parameter changes I would make in a continued investigation would be to repeat the study but delete the statins altogether. But Esselstyn's use of statins (he claims "low doses when necessary") does not change or invalidate his clinical results. The results are the results, and they were very good. They may not apply to everyone and they could perhaps be improved but they really cannot be ignored/dismissed.

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.


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.

Lowering cholesterol by means of diet and by means of drugs are two different issues. Esselstyn discusses this. 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. He would probably respond to a question here - he responded very quickly to a question that I posed on another matter. In any event, there are many places in China where people eat substantially the Esselstyn kind of diet and where cholesterol levels & cancer rates are both extremely low [see The China Study]; I'll bet those Chinese didn't/don't use statins. The three Esselstyn patients who have died since the 12-year study ended did not die of cancer. See p54 of the book.

Added in Edit: For Esselstyn articles/publications see : http://www.heartattackproof.com/articles.htm

jknosplr
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:04 am
Contact:

Re: Fat Free/Vegetarian Theory of Heart Disease

Post Number:#10  Post by jknosplr » Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:28 am

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.


http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/red-yeast-rice/NS_patient-redyeast


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
......Why not??

DonHarry

Re: Fat Free/Vegetarian Theory of Heart Disease

Post Number:#11  Post by DonHarry » Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:29 am

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. My main problem with this diet, or rather my main problem with its creator is his knowledge of saturated fats. It worries me when on his own website he says:

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.


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. Myristic acid and palmitic acid play an important role in immune modulation, absence of these two in lymphocytes has been shown to decrease leukocyte function. Myristic acid alone is vital for protein stabilisation through myristoylation. This process directly affects the expression of suppressor genes that would otherwise halt lung tumors. In addition to that very specific example we also know that saturated fats are important for hormone production and vital in maintaining cellular membrane integrity.

Palmitic acid for instance, provides a reversible signal for the conservation of blood glucose postprandial. Interestingly, when a high carbohydrate meal is consumed, the liver actually exports palmitic acid into the blood stream, unmodified, causing a temporary insulin resistance. This process is important as it signals the brain to begin conserving blood glucose while insulin is still elevated. Glucagon increases glucose secretion by the liver, and palmitic acid makes sure the glucose isn't removed from the bloodstream too quickly. This feedback system is vitally important in maintaining stable blood glucose. This is the reason a very low carbohydrate diet does not cause a hypoglycemic reaction. For example, if one was to eat a meal essentially devoid of carbohydrates, consisting of only protein and fat (like the back slab of an animal for instance), circulating insulin levels would rise to allow amino acid absorption into the tissues from the bloodstream. As we know though, insulin also prompts tissues to begin taking up glucose - which is hardly present in this low carb meal. At this point we would expect to see some kind of hypoglycemic reaction, but fortunately animal fat contains the same palmitic acid which the liver exports when we eat a carbohydrate meal. The presence of palmitic acid is detected by the brain and consequently it signals tissues to become temporarily resistant to the glucose transporting effects of insulin. As this is happening, glucagon signals the liver to release glucose into the bloodstream thus maintaining a stable blood glucose level.

If you remain unconvinced about the worth of saturated fats in your diet I really would recommend reading any of the library of articles on the Weston A. Price foundation. The saturated fat section is extremely comprehensive.

In addition to the metabolic properties of saturated fats, its also worth looking at the Frammingham study - the longest running study of atherosclerosis EVER. It was set up to back the lipid hypothesis and the notion that saturated fat causes heart disease. Unfortunately for them the results were quite the contrary. Forty years after the start of this study, its director, Dr. William Castelli, reluctantly admitted, In Framingham, Massachusetts the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's serum cholesterol.

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.

Whether elevated cholesterol is a risk factor or not will probably follow on from this discussion but for now this is all I have time to contribute. I will check this again after work though.

All the best,

Harry

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 15822
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Re: Fat Free/Vegetarian Theory of Heart Disease

Post Number:#12  Post by ofonorow » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:24 am

Thanks again DonHarry. I have learned a great deal by reading your posts in this thread.

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.


This is why a theory is helpful. It is possible that this diet would be quite effective, and that the cholesterol levels being monitored had little or nothing to do with its success, (other than perhaps of being an indicator of success, i.e., that the CAD "fire" had been dampened or put out.) As we discuss here often, one function of cholesterol is healing; cholesterol is one of the body's most important detoxification mechanisms. It rises in response to toxic loads and when the body is fighting heart disease. Medicine presumes that by lowering this "symptom," without putting out the underlying fire, patients benefit. The evidence is paltry, especially considering the amount of resources that have been applied trying to proving this supposition.

Not to be insulting or to say the diet isn't effective, but if I were in E.'s shoes, and trying to get cardiology interested in the diet, I would probably focus on cholesterol and use statins, etc.

And the use, even minimal use, of statin drugs makes me question the results. I would love to see the raw data.


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.


I'd like to find out more about this particular test from our cardiologist readers or other experts. (We are always looking for the right test to study Pauling's therapy.)

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.


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!
Owen R. Fonorow
HeartCURE.Info
American Scientist's Invention Could Prevent 350,000 Heart Bypass Operations a year

123xyz

Re: Fat Free/Vegetarian Theory of Heart Disease

Post Number:#13  Post by 123xyz » Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:45 pm

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


I would argue that whether or not "others will have the same results if they adhere to his regimen" has nothing to do with whether or not "we accept" ; it has only to do with the applicability of his protocol to a wider population and complete disclosure of all protocol details.

The big picture view of Esselstyn's study is this: Many symptoms of cardiovascular disease were eliminated in seriously ill patients with no reported ill effects over a 12 year period. It's now about 21 years since the study began and most of the still living patients are apparently still following the protocol with no ill effects attributable to the protocol. Those that have died have not died from cancer.

Keep in mind that Esselstyn's oil-free plant diet basically excludes vegetable junk like white-sugar coated cookies made from white-flour. When I refer to an oil-free plant diet below, I am also excluding veggie junk. French fries & donuts & white rice, though vegetarian, are not part of the Esselstyn oil-free plant diet. By oil-free, I mean no added oils, like canola oil, olive oil, etc., even though they were derived from a plant; in an oil-free plant diet, approximately 11% of the calories are derived from the fat/oil that resides in the whole plant.

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.

I have no ax to grind here about consuming any kind of fat. To each his own is my opinion. But, at the risk of being nitpicky, I must point out that the benefits of saturated fat are not necessarily the same as the benefits of eating saturated fat. Just as, the benefits of cholesterol are not necessarily the same as the benefits of eating cholesterol. 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. If true that both are necessary, but not essential, then dietary consumption is not necessary, unless prescribed to correct some disease condition brought on by a cholesterol or saturated fat deficiency. Or, for the proactive, to prevent some disease condition that is attributable to a cholesterol or saturated fat deficiency. And the success of this might depend on whether that which is eaten is chemically identical to that which the body needs.

I'm curious, are there any studies which demonstrate that eating an oil-free plant diet causes one to suffer a cholesterol deficiency or saturated fat deficiency? [By the way, how does one define a cholesterol deficiency or a saturated fat deficiency?] Or, to be more general, is there any clear/direct evidence that eating an oil-free plant diet will cause any disease? The only thing I'm aware of is possible B12 deficiency and the consequences of that. But I'm ready to be educated.

Like I said before. Esselstyn's results are his results. If his motives or his beliefs or his protocols or his explanations of why he got what he got are not satisfying, the clinical results still remain. And one can always feel free to offer his own explanations for those. If there are questions, they can be presented to Esselstyn through the contact info on his website. I see no reluctance on Esselstyn's part to clarify, explain, defend, publish, debate, etc. His speaking schedule is pretty busy - I'm sure he's already been peppered with most of the relevant questions so he should have ready answers. Personally, I'd like to see the Lp(a) data on his patients.

PS1_I think I have read somewhere that there are some studies that assert a positive correlation between low cholesterol and cancer. True? I wonder, if so, was the low cholesterol achieved through eating an oil-free plant diet? I also understand, by the way, that there are some studies that assert that Vitamin C does no good in relieving symptoms of coronary artery disease (CAD). :roll:

PS2_Buy the book. Read it; the meat is in 100 pages. Then make up your own mind about what you want to do with the info. [Personally, I feel that, for those who have run out of therapies to try and are still plagued with severe symptoms of CAD, the Esselstyn protocol is something to think about.] You could also cruise through Esselstyn's website and find out a lot about his study. Or you can just ignore the whole thing. :mrgreen:
Last edited by 123xyz on Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:02 am, edited 2 times in total.

123xyz

Re: Fat Free/Vegetarian Theory of Heart Disease

Post Number:#14  Post by 123xyz » Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:57 pm

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!


In what respect do you "question the results"? Are you saying you do not believe the published results of Esselstyn's clinical study? :?:

Check here: http://www.heartattackproof.com/articles.htm
I don't think Esselstyn is timid about submitting his results anywhere. 8)

Now if those patients really did secretly sneak in large doses of C & Lysine, that would really be sumthin!! :D

DonHarry

Re: Fat Free/Vegetarian Theory of Heart Disease

Post Number:#15  Post by DonHarry » Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:57 am

I don't think Esselstyn is timid about submitting his results anywhere.


Having read the first study on the list I think perhaps Esselstyn should be timid about submitting his results.

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.


Before we get to the results I thought it was worth noting that this statement appears to suggest that in fact, all of his patients took a statin, not just 'when necessary'. This is a fairly major point in my opinion.

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.


Perhaps an obvious point but the study sample was extremely small.

Analysis by minimal lumen diameter of 25 lesions fotind that 6 regressed, 14 remained stable, and 5 progressed.


These results seem less impressive that the ones you mentioned in the first post.

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.


So in 5 years he was down to 11 participants. After 10 he was down to 6 participants. No mention as to the subsequent regressions, just that no new infarctions emerged.

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.


This just isn't the conclusion I would have come up with from his results. It's just totally unjustified.

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.


Unfortunately there isn't a 'direct' study for every element of every interaction in a clinical scenario. There is however plenty of information out there to suggest that a fat free diet does not promote good health. I wish I had time to dig out every related study but I just don't. If you have time, id look at the literature regarding oil free diets and depression - there is a strong correlation between them.

Unless I am mistaken, I thought that both cholesterol and saturated fat, though necessary, are not essential.


Necessary and essential mean the same thing surely?

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.


You said it yourself, cholesterol is so important that the body actually makes it. So why would we want to synthetically block it's synthesis with statins?

The only thing I'm aware of is possible B12 deficiency and the consequences of that


Relying on Beta-Carotene for your Vitamin A intake is unwise, as Beta-Carotene conversion to Retinol is poor. Your intake of Vitamin K2 will be limited, unless you choose to supplement. EPA/DHA will be severely lacking if you actively avoid those fats in fish. ALA conversion to EPA/DHA is weak at best. You'll be eating a high phytate diet (From grains). You'll be eating predominately allergenic produce, such as wheat (Gluten), and other grains. Principally, you will be eating the opposite of the diet we evolved on, which has seen man through some million years.

As far as his studies go though, I'm totally unconvinced with the results, and he offers minimal detail to illuminate the ins and outs of his methods. The fact that he employs statins so routinely is a big no-no for me. I should also point out that of his original cohort (Before it became 11 patients), 23 were male and only 1 was female. Again this affects its relevance to general population.

If you want to base your diet around sketchy evidence its your call. I'm not saying the diet is all bad but to the best of my knowledge I can say that its far from optimum. Let us know how you get on with it anyway.

All the best,

Harry


Return to “Heart Disease: Linus Pauling's Vitamin C/Lysine Therapy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests