Re: Ornish's alleged evidence

[Guest guest]

> This is what the Ornish group is posting as evidence of their diets

beneficial effects. There is no mention of which high protein diet

that was followed. As you know Dr. Atkins does not consider his diet

as high protein.

>

>

> http://my.webmd.com/content/article/3075.903

several points to be made:

1. Heart attacks are not caused by plaque blocking arteries, but

rather by plaque becomine inflammed, weak, and unstable. They then

rupture releasing clotting agents that cause the heart attack.

Thus, " regressing " heart disease could actually increase your risk of

a heart attack, by making the plaque weaker and more rupture prone.

Treatment should focus on stabilizing plaque, not regressing it.

2. Plaque is found in all humans regardless of cholesterol levels.

They are not primarily buildups of cholesterol, but smooth muscle

cells in response to turbulant blood flow. Wherever the blood flow

becomes turbulant you get plaque. Wherever it isn't, you

don't. " Regressing " plaque could increase the amount of turbulant

blood flow, which is not desirable.

3. The only dietary treatment that has been shown clinically to

reduce the rate of CHD (and then not statistically significant,

although it will probably be with larger trials), is the addition of

omega-3 fatty acids. This is something we get in our food (grass fed

animal fat - yummm), and something that ornish dieters can only get

as a supplement. Which diet do you think is healthier?

Heiner C. Bucher; E. Griffith; Gordon H. Guyatt. Systematic

Review on the Risk and Benefit of Different Cholesterol-Lowering

Interventions. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

1999;19:187-195

4. A meta-analysis of cholesterol lowering diets shows *no* reduction

in the rate of coronary heart disease, even when you stock the study

with 'ringers' - middle-aged men who have been screened for the

highest 1% of cholesterol levels. If eating a low-fat diet can't help

those guys, who can it help?

Lee Hooper, Carolyn D Summerbell, n P T Higgins, L

, Nigel E Capps, Davey , Rudolph A Riemersma,

Shah Ebrahim. Dietary fat intake and prevention of cardiovascular

disease: systematic review. BMJ 2001;322:757-763 ( 31 March )

[Guest guest]

> > This is what the Ornish group is posting as evidence of their diets

> beneficial effects. There is no mention of which high protein diet

> that was followed. As you know Dr. Atkins does not consider his diet

> as high protein.

> >

> >

> > http://my.webmd.com/content/article/3075.903

>

> several points to be made:

>

> 1. Heart attacks are not caused by plaque blocking arteries, but

> rather by plaque becomine inflammed, weak, and unstable. They then

> rupture releasing clotting agents that cause the heart attack.

> Thus, " regressing " heart disease could actually increase your risk of

> a heart attack, by making the plaque weaker and more rupture prone.

> Treatment should focus on stabilizing plaque, not regressing it.

>

> 2. Plaque is found in all humans regardless of cholesterol levels.

> They are not primarily buildups of cholesterol, but smooth muscle

> cells in response to turbulant blood flow. Wherever the blood flow

> becomes turbulant you get plaque. Wherever it isn't, you

> don't. " Regressing " plaque could increase the amount of turbulant

> blood flow, which is not desirable.

>

> 3. The only dietary treatment that has been shown clinically to

> reduce the rate of CHD (and then not statistically significant,

> although it will probably be with larger trials), is the addition of

> omega-3 fatty acids. This is something we get in our food (grass fed

> animal fat - yummm), and something that ornish dieters can only get

> as a supplement. Which diet do you think is healthier?

>

> Heiner C. Bucher; E. Griffith; Gordon H. Guyatt. Systematic

> Review on the Risk and Benefit of Different Cholesterol-Lowering

> Interventions. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

> 1999;19:187-195

>

> 4. A meta-analysis of cholesterol lowering diets shows *no* reduction

> in the rate of coronary heart disease, even when you stock the study

> with 'ringers' - middle-aged men who have been screened for the

> highest 1% of cholesterol levels. If eating a low-fat diet can't help

> those guys, who can it help?

>

> Lee Hooper, Carolyn D Summerbell, n P T Higgins, L

> , Nigel E Capps, Davey , Rudolph A Riemersma,

> Shah Ebrahim. Dietary fat intake and prevention of cardiovascular

> disease: systematic review. BMJ 2001;322:757-763 ( 31 March )

I am, as well as my mother, who lives with me and I support, are both McDougal

/Ornish refugees. When I was a vegetarian I was always hungry, frequently had

serious energy dips in the afternoon, which caused me to run to the vending

machine at work for a bag of cookies. I had low cholesterol but high

triglycerides. So in other words I traded one risk factor for another one. I

frequently had mood swings and got into arguments at work. I almost got fired. A

friend took me aside and suggested I get psychiciatriac help and get on Zoloft.

But the one thing that made me realize that something was wrong is that both my

mother and me got cataracts in both eyes just about the same time. I had no

known other risk factors. I don't even spend that much time in the sun. I was 46

at the time. An eye surgeon told me that is extremely rare for someone as young

as me to get cataracts. But he admitted, for some strange reason there has been

an increase in cataracts in younger people the past 10 years. I told him that my

mother who lived with me also got them at just about the same time. He told me

that my mother at age 65 would have been considered too young for them just 10

years ago. I started thinking. Although there have been some small skirmishes,

the all out offensive war on fat was launched just 14 years ago in 1988 (thanks

Dr. Koop). Could there be a connection? Since giving up low fat all my

" emotional " problems have gone away. I feel much better, have more energy, I

have been able to keep the weight off and I no longer crave sweets. But my

doctor is concerned my cholesterol is too high. It is only 204 with an LDL of

142, but triglycerides of only 63. From what I have been reading lately the

triglycerides /HDL ratio is a more accurate predictor of risk than total

cholesterol or HDL/LDL. My ratio TG 63 / HDL 42 = 1.5. Below 2.5 is considered

low risk.

[Guest guest]

> ,

>

> I think it would be a good idea to post this in a review for one

(or all) of

> Ornish's books on amazon.com and maybe other sites.

I don't know if anyone would be interested, but this is just a small

part of a literature review on the role (or lack thereof) of fat and

cholesterol in coronary heart disease. I wrote it to hopefully

impress a professor and get me into graduate school in biostatistics.

Its 12 pages long single spaced and that's without the references

which are several more pages. Here I'd be preaching to the choir, but

if people have skeptics among friends or family, it might be useful?

I'll have to think about doing the ornish review - the only problem

is that I did a review of NT on amazon and got lots of helpful votes.

I don't want my reviewer rating to go down!