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).
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.