HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

Ornish Program

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
1 2 34 5 6
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 1/1/2016 2:57 PM (GMT 0)

BillyBob@388 said...
Hey Prato et al, I see the warnings about bringing it down a notch and I sure hope I was not perceived as attacking your wanting to look into Ornish. Because I certainly am not attacking, Bro, just giving some views and research related to it (and my experience) on a view which is seldom promoted. And which happens to be virtually the opposite of Ornish. But there seems to be evidence that both work.

And after all, I started my rants by suggesting a book I am reading that I thought you might like, "How Not to Die". And guess what the way not to die is? Of course, Vegan! After my last rant to you, and after gorging on chicken plus rice/gravy/cornbread and some vegetables to undo the harm, then the LAST piece of MS. Mud cake from Christmas(entire meal a massive carb loading, but YUM!), I went back to reading that book which is on the verge of converting me to vegan!

Though I admit to getting a bit frustrated when I hear about 3 different meds needed to lower triglycerides when there is such a solidly documented means of doing that by way of diet, that seems to work spectacularly. Although I have no proof it works for every one every time, only that it worked for me and my bud spectacularly well, and that I have quite a few studies to back up the theory. (I really should not call it theory, it really seems more like well established fact that more carbohydrates = more insulin and more triglycerides) Still, maybe lots of folks don't want to cut there carbs, so I'm sure it is not for every one.

Oh well, back to learning "How Not to Die" by reading that book which is going to convert me to vegan!

BillyBob - I don't think the mods comments were directed at you, but rather at others (maybe me among them, but I don't think so). More important, I did not take your comments as an attack in any way shape or form. I am taking your comments as very useful and constructive points of discussion. And in fact appreciate your involvement in this thread and all of your input.
Posted 1/1/2016 3:03 PM (GMT 0)
@Tim, Captaindd, thanks for the info, comments, and thanks for the videos. I intend to watch them.
Posted 1/1/2016 3:11 PM (GMT 0)
Let's hope any nutritionist worth anything is familiar with that study :) As far as diet and lifestyle being major factors preventing progression of CAD....maybe, to a degree. There has never been a real study prospective or retrospective that shows that..anecdotal evidence and some indication, yes, but not a lead pipe cinch. The real culprit in CAD is probably genetics as much as we hate to admit it.
Changing the composition of plaques with statins? That's an interesting "study", more like a "finding" acutally ,Franklen, on ONE patient. I don't know that we could take that to the bank.

Other than the rate at which they are absorbed, glycemic index, etc. Carbs are pretty much carbs.
Posted 1/1/2016 3:15 PM (GMT 0)
@Franklen...
Thanks very much for your very thought provoking post. "What constitutes reversal" is a very interesting question. Sort of like when we ask a surgeon who we are considering for Prostatectomy, "How do you define full erectile function?".
I wonder if the data is published by Ornish. I have seen photos of arteries in his works, before and after going through the program, but who knows, and it's not very scientific.

Re the 1998 study you cite in JAMA, do you have a link? Or is the OrnishSpectrum link you provided, a link to that study? That link does not work, takes me to a,page on his website that is invalid.

Re the video, I will def watch it.
Thank you again.

I clicked on the
Posted 1/1/2016 3:23 PM (GMT 0)

RCS said...
Franklen,

Thank you for the wonderful review and links. You are certainly up on the subject.

The very important point that you make is that if people who have had stints installed do not make huge changes in their diet and lifestyles they will reblock. I have known people who felt that their stints were a cure and reblocked because they did not like the diet or exercise.

I would go one step further, and recommend folks who have a family history of heart attacks make the same huge changes .... you might find with time whole grains, veges, and red wine taste good. Certainly, less stress feels darn good.

Could help your PCa too!

This is a big takeaway from this thread. Lifestyle change is imperative. And all three issues - stress, diet, and exercise are so important, and at the same time so habitual, and thus so difficult to change.

For me, I seem to have licked the exercise issue, and have made almost daily exercise a habit.
Regarding diet, it's obviously a work in progress, and I've made substantial positive changes, but not enough, I go off the wagon a bit too often, and also have issues I need to clear up

Stress is an entirely different matter. Very difficult to control in daily life. It can't be eliminated, and the thing to work on is how we handle it. Which I guess gets back to mindfulness training.

Type of blockage, fat, fibrous, calcified, is obviously not under our control. What I do know is that my CT scan report along with the 937 calcium score showed both calcified and non calcified plaque. I think the non calcified is the bigger danger.
Posted 1/1/2016 3:47 PM (GMT 0)
Yep, yet another complicated medical issue with no clear answers and a ton of "studies" showing this and that. Makes for interesting conversation though.
Posted 1/1/2016 4:36 PM (GMT 0)
Pratoman,

A person would die waiting for a definitive study on this topic. You are going forward with what I consider currently the best approach to addressing the problem you face. With or without attending the Ornish course, your doing great. Keep it up!
Posted 1/1/2016 5:10 PM (GMT 0)
You are probably right, RCS, thanks.
All we can do is the best we can, I suppose.
Posted 1/1/2016 5:25 PM (GMT 0)
I got a chuckle from RCS's comment that in time you might find you like whole grains..etc. I must be an outlier. I used to like brocolli, cauliflower and brussels sprouts...after eating lots of them over the past 5 years I can barely stand them...stopped soda almost completely..they say you will not like it if you return ..not so, I would love a glass of Mt. Dew right now.:) Whole grains still add an earthy, metallic, strong grain taste to baked goods. haven't learned to like that either. I believe all of this stuff is good for you and I eat it..but don't try to tell me it tastes good. LOL
Posted 1/1/2016 5:38 PM (GMT 0)
Sheepguy,

I hear you. It is strange how some things I can quit and not miss while others I can't. Stopped cigarettes and can't stand to be around them, but when I stopped scotch .... well, I didn't!?
Posted 1/1/2016 5:56 PM (GMT 0)
I have learned to really like (not love) broccoli when cooked, specifically sautéed , or as part of an omelet, with the right seasoning (low sodium soy sauce, little olive oil, salt, garlic, grated Parmesan, etc.). Same for roasted Brussels sprouts, asparagus, cauliflower, cooked mushrooms. Also, I buy fresh made Zabars Whole Wheat Bread and love it. I haven't learned to like the packaged ww bread, like pepperidge farm. It's probably not as good for you anyway as its soft, not rough, like high fiber whole wheat should be.
I'm still looking for whole wheat croutons for salad and soup. So far haven't found anything but Reese Whole Grain . So I bought a Case of it on Amazon, and when it came I looked at the ingredients and the first (most plentiful) item listed, is enriched wheat. Poison. So I make my own croutons using the Zabars fresh whole wheat bread.

RCS I hear you, I smoked 3 packs a day from age 20 something till about 35, then stopped cold turkey. I can't stand being around second hand smoke. My wife smokes. 2-3 a day (cigarettes, not packs) and it drives me nuts. I just don't understand it.
Posted 1/1/2016 9:11 PM (GMT 0)

Pratoman said...
BillyBob - re your post on Carbs vs low fat (too long to quote)... I am not at all surprised. When I was seeing a nutritionist regularly for my triglycerides, I remember asking her specifically about sugar free chocolate pudding vs fat free, and she told me, always choose sugar free (I.e. Carb free) vs fat free, sugar and carbs in general are the worst thing for triglycerides. I was NOT aware that carbs could suppress HDL, effect LDL particle size, etc (another problem I've had, small particle size)

OK, good to now that some traditional nutritionists at least know that sugar can be as much or more of a problem than fat.

Pratoman said...
Also, in answer to your questions,....
1. The Dr who had me on 3 meds for TGL, did mention stay away from pasta, bread, etc, but didn't dwell on it. He did refer me to a nutritionist for that info
2. The three meds did help, got my triglycerides down from 700s to mid 300s. It was diet that got me down to 150. Then he started taking me off the meds, one at a time (just like he put me on them one at a time). Right now I'm down to one med for TGL (4 meds altogether, BP, Blood thinner, Statin and TGL)

Another thing Worth mentioning...... When I first started my weight loss journey, I felt I needed a kick start. So I started the Medifast diet. It is based on almost no carbs, and is designed to put you into ketones. I lost a lot of weight really fast. And my TGL plummeted. So there's that!
Now, it's not sustainable long term. And when I went off it my TGL rose, but I watched food intake carefully and they didn't rise back to where they were, and I kept about half the weight off.



So yes there is a lot of evidence that low carbs are a way to go. And yet, increasing saturated fat does seem to go against the grain.


Well I see that it was not really needed for me to post my against the grain studies and personal experience, as you already knew it from your own personal study of one. Which totally confirmed my own study N2 and all the other studies I linked to: your TGLs PLUMMETED! I mean really, how often do we get to use a word like that in relation to a diet, or even most medicines? Not very often for sure. And the nasty side effect was, what, maybe your HDL went up and you lost weight and your BP went down and your blood sugar/insulin levels improved? Turns out I did not need to convince you, as you had already PROVED it IMO. Add you to my 2 and we are now up to N3 at 100% superb effect on TGLs + other good stuff. That's good enough for me I don't care how many big brains might say "but there is no proof".

Pratoman said...
I'm printing out the study you cited and will take it with me to the nutritionist appt.

P.S. I do wonder, in these studies, whethervtherevis a differentiation between simple, and complex carbs. Are carbs from whole whet bread or pats, for example, not detrimental, while carbs from white bread or other enriched wheat products are? Are carbs from Apples, broccoli etc, of a type that do NOT suppress LDL and TGL? Another question to ponder .

OK, not sure which one that is as I linked to 1/2 dozen or so, but I do remember thinking about one of them that I should tell you "print this out and ask your nutritionist about this one". But I don't think I did(did I?) because I thought that might be a little presumptuous of me.

My understanding is (could be wrong, often am) that a carb is a carb, once it gets digested it ends up as some form of sugar in the blood(gkucose, fructose etc) Totally 100% whole wheat bread ends up just the same as white bread or snickers bar in your blood stream. But there is a practical difference. Look at the nutrition comparing equal weights of food.

One of those differences is the net carb load. You will end up with carbs in your blood stream with 100 gms of broccoli just as you will 100 gms of white bread or Snickers bars. But with the 100 gms of broc, you will get 34 calories which will include 6.6 gms carb minus 2.6 gms un-digestible fiber for a net carb load of 4 gms or 16 calories, plus 2.8 gms of protein.

100 gms of white bread will be 265 calories, with 49 gms of carb minus 2.7 gms fiber or about 46 gms of net carb(about 11 times the net carb load for the same amount of Broc). So you can see you could eat 2 or 3 times more(6 to 9 ozs!) of the gut stuffing fiber filled broccoli and still have less than 1/2 of the net carb of 100 gms of white bread. But if you could some how force down 33 ozs( about 1100 gms) of the broc, you would theoretically end up with the same blood sugar load and insulin response as with the 100 gms of white bread.

But wait! That's not all to be considered. The 1100 gms(38 ozs!) of of broc needed to equal the 46 net gms of carb in the 100 gms bread, would contain 28.6 gms of fiber, more than in 2 servings of Kellogs All Bran cereal(1 serving a day is great for curing constipation). That is a lot of fiber for one meal for most folks. And very filling along with whatever else you would eat( family sized Bird's Eye 6 servings is 19 ozs) So obviously you are very unlikely to be able to eat enough Broc to ever approach the carb load of Wonder Bread.

Also, the fiber slows down the absorption of whatever carb is in the broc, lessening the spiking of blood sugar and insulin.

Lastly, the broc and other vegies have all of those vitamins, phyto-nutrients, etc, many of which people claim fight heart disease and cancer.

So IMO, a carb is a carb once it reaches your blood stream and your pancreas starts reacting to it by dumping insulin into the blood stream.. But the food that we eat vary vastly in the net carb load, fiber and nutrients they will provide. For all practical purposes, if your meal is steak and all the broc and other vegies you can eat, you are very close to a zero net carb meal, or close enough for it to work it's magic. But start adding bread, potatoes, pasta or desserts and you will quickly be consuming a massive carb load. Delicious, though! YUM!
med baked potato: net carb 34 gms (fries 40)
2 slices bread 30 net gms
Outback Blooming Onion 122 gms(split by X # of folks?)
Outback Chocolate Thunder from down under: 138 gms carb

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 1/1/2016 2:19:46 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 1/1/2016 10:01 PM (GMT 0)
Foods that contain Complex carbs though (vs Simple carbs), like whole wheat bread, Steel Cut Oats, have a higher fiber content, thus a lower net carb load.

Here is a link i came across today, from Dr McDougalls newsletter (Dr McDougall was called to my attention by Franklen in one of his posts above),


/www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2003nl/030100putamingelevatedtriglycerides.htm

In it, he states....

One study looked directly at the effects of substituting sugar for starch in normal volunteers. The diet of simple sugars raised triglyceride levels; however, when starch was substituted for the simple carbohydrate, the triglyceride levels did not increase.2 Therefore, on a healthy diet, high in complex carbohydrates (starches and vegetables), total and LDL “bad” cholesterol decrease and triglycerides do not increase. In fact, combining a diet high in complex carbohydrates with exercise, as we do in our program, results in dramatic reductions in the triglyceride levels.6 More specifically, results from our program show an average reduction in triglycerides of approximately 10 mg/dl in 11 days of healthy eating. Furthermore, people starting with high triglycerides – say over 600 mg/dl – accomplish, on average, over 300 mg/dl reduction in triglycerides in 11 days of our diet and daily exercise program.
Posted 1/1/2016 10:41 PM (GMT 0)

Pratoman said...

I wonder if the data is published by Ornish. I have seen photos of arteries in his works, before and after going through the program, but who knows, and it's not very scientific.

Re the 1998 study you cite in JAMA, do you have a link? Or is the OrnishSpectrum link you provided, a link to that study? That link does not work, takes me to a,page on his website that is invalid.

I a little surprised you haven't read both of the Ornish studies, yet are seriously considering spending a significant amount of time, gas, money and energy doing the program.
It may be great for you. In that line, you should know every detail about that which it is based on.
In addition to his study on prostate cancer, you should read cover to cover...several times each, the three studies that are the basis of his heart program that is now funded by Medicare.

His first two heart studies... are really a one year report on the same group, followed up by a 5 year report on the same group. The first was published in Lancet and the second in JAMA

I"ll give you the same links to his pdfs and then independent links to the same studies.
I'm not sure why you weren't able to get them the first time as I just retried the link I gave you and it seems to work fine.

1... the 5 year study
http://www.ornishspectrum.com/wp-content/uploads/Intensive-lifestyle-changes-for-reversal-of-coronary-heart-disease1.pdf

2... the 1 year initial study of the same group
http://cducoiz.ornishspectrum.com/wp-content/uploads/can-lifestyle-changes-reverse-coronary-heart-disease.pdf

3... the independent link to the 5 year
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=188274

4... right now I can't seem to find the independent link ot the 1 year study, but see if you can't get it from that above link I gave you.. I don't understand why you had trouble with those at the Ornish site.

Now, it really takes time to go through the precise details, tables... and especially Figures 1 and figure 2, to see what is meant by reversal.
I have read, calculated, and re-read each of those studies several times.
I really don't think the general Ornish interested individual fully understands the details.
Many of them are off in never-never land, thinking they are going to take a 90 blockage back to under 50%.
They are often misled by the like of Esselstyn who keeps "salting" his articles with a single image of a single patient...(who was not a part of any of his studies).. who got what is a massive reversal.
That single guy is very misleading for any number of reasons.

But don't get me to be negative.. I am not. I follow the Ornish style of eating 99%...a real 99%.
I just insist on dealing with actual facts, not some wild ideas about reality.
One really needs to study...no just read... but study, over and over, the actual details upon which the entire program is based.
By the way, it is not Ornish that I often hear, allowing exaggerated ideas to be tossed about.
It is others, perhaps well meaning, who mislead the naive public.

That is another reason why you should also listen to that video link I gave you.
In the first couple minutes it deals with percentage makeup of blockages and what is reversible and what is not reversible in most patients.

That link again
https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/videos/advanced-study-weekend-experts/william-c-roberts-md-macc/
I correct myself.. that guy has not over 40 years of looking at arteries... but actually over 50 years of experience. I think he knows reality. First couple minutes he lays it out.
No ax to grind.. no book or program to push. Reality of what is and is not possible.
Posted 1/1/2016 10:55 PM (GMT 0)

sheepguy said...
Let's hope any nutritionist worth anything is familiar with that study :) As far as diet and lifestyle being major factors preventing progression of CAD....maybe, to a degree. There has never been a real study prospective or retrospective that shows that..anecdotal evidence and some indication, yes, but not a lead pipe cinch. The real culprit in CAD is probably genetics as much as we hate to admit it.
Changing the composition of plaques with statins? That's an interesting "study", more like a "finding" acutally ,Franklen, on ONE patient. I don't know that we could take that to the bank.
.

Uh, that "finding" is only a "finding" because I used it as a example... a picture. I could give you a study if you like, but I wasn't trying to do that.

As to your statement
" As far as diet and lifestyle being major factors preventing progression of CAD....maybe, to a degree. There has never been a real study prospective or retrospective that shows that."
You might spend some time to read the details of the 5 years study by Ornish
Figure 1 shows charts of those in the experimental groups vs those in the control group.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=188274

Your friends...that they did not progress... is what doctors would be most interested in, because the vast majority of similar patients do in fact progress, and often at a rapid pace... due in part to the way in which blood flow works. Small progressions lead to very large prevention of blood flow.
At a ratio of 4 to 1..
Thus a 1 percent reduction in lumen (opening) leads to a 4 percent reduction in blood flow.
Very rapidly a patient can go from being OK to experiencing angina on a regular basis.

A study of the following calculator would be useful

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ppois4.html#c1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ppois2.html#bl
Posted 1/1/2016 11:29 PM (GMT 0)
Franklin,

Your posts would be a bit more useable if you made your links clickable. To post a clickable link:
1. Click the "url" button above the box in which you are composing your post.
2. Paste the link.
3. Click the "url" button a second time.
It really helps the reader .... Especially if they are on an iPad and find it hard to cut and paste your links.
Thanks
Posted 1/1/2016 11:59 PM (GMT 0)
A summary from the 5 year link that Franklin provided:
www.ornishspectrum.com/wp-content/uploads/Intensive-lifestyle-changes-for-reversal-of-coronary-heart-disease1.pdf

Somebody said...
Results.—
Experimental group patients (20 [71%] of 28 patients completed
5-year follow-up) made and maintained comprehensive lifestyle changes for 5
years, whereas control group patients (15 [75%] of 20 patients completed 5-year
follow-up) made more moderate changes. In the experimental group, the average
percent diameter stenosis at baseline decreased 1.75 absolute percentage points
after 1 year (a 4.5% relative improvement) and by 3.1 absolute percentage points
after 5 years (a 7.9% relative improvement). In contrast, the average percent diam-
eter stenosis in the control group increased by 2.3 percentage points after 1 year
(a 5.4% relative worsening) and by 11.8 percentage points after 5 years (a 27.7%
relative worsening) (P= .001 between groups. Twenty-five cardiac events occurred
in 28 experimental group patients vs 45 events in 20 control group patients during
the 5-year follow-up (risk ratio for any event for the control group, 2.47 [95% con-
fidence interval, 1.48-4.20]).

Conclusions.—
More regression of coronary atherosclerosis occurred after 5
years than after 1 year in the experimental group. In contrast, in the control group,
coronary atherosclerosis continued to progress and more than twice as many car-
diac events occurred.

So a slight(? maybe not slight?) improvement vs significant worsening, about 3% better vs about 12% worse. Not too shabby.
Posted 1/2/2016 12:03 AM (GMT 0)
Franklen,
Thank you. You've obviously done the work, which i am in the process of doing. I am not sure i will go forward with the Ornish on site program, just considering it. I have a lot of reading still to do, and first want to read his most recent book, Spectrum, to get a good feel for his approach. I will of course, also read the links and do what it takes to understand them.
If i do go forward with this, having an understanding of the science is going to be key for me to get to the level of commitment that it will take for it to work.

Re the link that didnt work, it got me to the Ornish website, but produced one of those "oops - you've reached a pageon Ornishspectrum.com that is no longer avaialble" messages. I will try it again.

It's obvious from your posts both here and some of the older posts in the Heart Disease section of this site. that you have a high level of knowledge on the issue of CAD in general, as well as Ornish. I had wanted to email you, but saw the envelope next to our screen name is not active. If you are up for an offline conversation, email me. If not, i understand.

For anyone who is interested in reading Franklens links referred to, here are clickable versions....

1... the 5 year study
www.ornishspectrum.com/wp-content/uploads/Intensive-lifestyle-changes-for-reversal-of-coronary-heart-disease1.pdf

2... the 1 year initial study of the same group
cducoiz.ornishspectrum.com/wp-content/uploads/can-lifestyle-changes-reverse-coronary-heart-disease.pdf

3. The independent site of the 5 year study
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=188274

Calcualtors...

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ppois2.html#c1

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ppois4.html#c1
Posted 1/2/2016 12:13 AM (GMT 0)

BillyBob@388 said...
A summary from the 5 year link that Franklin provided:
www.ornishspectrum.com/wp-content/uploads/Intensive-lifestyle-changes-for-reversal-of-coronary-heart-disease1.pdf

Somebody said...
Results.—
Twenty-five cardiac events occurred
in 28 experimental group patients vs 45 events in 20 control group patients during
the 5-year follow-up (risk ratio for any event for the control group, 2.47 [95% con-
fidence interval, 1.48-4.20]).

Being the pessimist that i am, (and i have not yet gone through the studies, only read your summary), what caught my eye, is the the above. Seems to me that the endpoint here is to get better (in plain English). And yet, even in the experimental group, there was almost one cardiac event over the 5 years per person. Which to me is discouraging. What is the definition of a cardiac event?
Posted 1/2/2016 2:18 AM (GMT 0)

Pratoman said...

Being the pessimist that i am, (and i have not yet gone through the studies, only read your summary), what caught my eye, is the the above. Seems to me that the endpoint here is to get better (in plain English). And yet, even in the experimental group, there was almost one cardiac event over the 5 years per person. Which to me is discouraging. What is the definition of a cardiac event?

Now I know we'd all like to believe in clean pipes and perfect outcomes but almost all improvements in medicine are in incremental steps, relative to doing the same old thing we've been doing, the "control".

Unless I am mistaken, the number of cardiac events being 25 in 28 individuals, does NOT mean that all but three people had events. There could have been and most likely were multiple events in some and zero events in others. We don't know the exact breakdown, except in the case of deaths, where they are limited to one per person. Also remember that 12 of the 20 in the experimental group who completed the 5 years, had previously had heart attacks (MI).
Like I said, this journal article and others need close study to figure out all the details and definitions.

Unless you have not done so, you should also read the most recent journal article publishing Esselstyn's study of some 198 individuals. He suggests that less than 1% of his final group had poor heart related events.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Results X Of the 198 patients with CVD,
177 (89%) were adherent. Major cardiac
events judged to be recurrent disease totaled
one stroke in the adherent cardiovascular
participants—a recurrent event rate of .6%,
significantly less than reported by other studies
of plant-based nutrition therapy."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keep in mind his study patients were mostly also on statins, whereas the experimental group in the Ornish study were not. Careful reading and re-reading of each study is required.
Neither study is perfect but you do what you can with the information you can get.
The lack of perfection in such studies is not reason to entirely throw them out.

dresselstyn.com/JFP_06307_Article1.pdf

Please note the gratuitous use of a angiogram image in Fig. 2, showing amazing reversal.
Long story behind that image. The individual had nothing to do with the study, but Esselstyn throws it into every article and speech he gives. My pet peeve with Esselstyn.
Posted 1/2/2016 2:48 AM (GMT 0)

Pratoman said...

BillyBob@388 said...
A summary from the 5 year link that Franklin provided:
www.ornishspectrum.com/wp-content/uploads/Intensive-lifestyle-changes-for-reversal-of-coronary-heart-disease1.pdf

Somebody said...
Results.—
Twenty-five cardiac events occurred
in 28 experimental group patients vs 45 events in 20 control group patients during
the 5-year follow-up (risk ratio for any event for the control group, 2.47 [95% con-
fidence interval, 1.48-4.20]).

Being the pessimist that i am, (and i have not yet gone through the studies, only read your summary), what caught my eye, is the the above. Seems to me that the endpoint here is to get better (in plain English). And yet, even in the experimental group, there was almost one cardiac event over the 5 years per person. Which to me is discouraging. What is the definition of a cardiac event?

Yep, that pessimism, LOL! I guess the optimist would say 2.25 per person vs .89 per person, or 2.52 times worse for the non-Ornish. Of course, I get where you are coming from. Especially if you are going to give up so much that gives you pleasure, you would really like a flat out unequivocal reversal, something to take you back 10 years or more. I don't blame you. Plus, this is one somewhat small study, so there is that.

I was really feeling frustrated today when reading that book I said you might like(since that author would def be an Ornish fan), when I got to the section on diabetes. (still related to your subject, since diabetics have more CV disease than non-diabetics on average. Naturally enough considering the high sugar and insulin) But Dr.Gregor is making a strong argument that is exactly the reverse of all of those studies(and so many more) I linked to, and again my experience and probably yours. He is putting the blame- for diabetes mind you- directly on the fats that come from meat- IOW saturated fat. I am reading it on Kindle where it is not convenient to find footnotes and then try and find those studies on the net. I knew I should have ordered a hard copy for that very reason. But WTH? I am of the opinion- and plenty of studies seem to confirm- that if I ate a 100% fat diet, my insulin would be slashed as well as my blood sugar and it would be almost impossible to develop diabetes. This guy is saying just the opposite, saying that the fat causes the diabetes. Who to believe?

Aren't triglycerides simply circulating blood fats? Well then if a low carb, which is usually also relatively high fat, slashes triglycerides- and it certainly appears to do just that according to many studies and our experience- then wouldn't that mean it is also slashing circulating blood fat, six of one 1/2 dozen of the other? If so, that would be a good thing, right?

But this doc mentions free floating fat in the blood, which may or may not be something different from triglycerides, and says that when you eat fat it increases this blood fat(dif from triglycerides? ) and the fat you carry on your body spills over into your blood. And which is supposedly caused by the fat you eat/or carry ending up in the bloodstream and blocking the ability of insulin to get the sugar out of your blood and into the cells, hence diabetes. This is th 1st time I have ever heard such proposed, and is opposite of what I have normally seen in studies. Really frustrating to read such opposites of opinion. Somebody is bad wrong.

On the subject of reversal, there is this:
www.medscape.com/viewarticle/451762_5

Somebody said...
Reverse cholesterol transport refers to the process by which cholesterol is removed from the tissues and returned to the liver.[19] HDL is the key lipoprotein involved in reverse cholesterol transport and the transfer of cholesteryl esters between lipoproteins.......................In the context of cardiovascular disease risk, it is established that higher levels of HDL are associated with lower levels of heart disease, therefore higher levels of HDL are considered to be protective.

So does "Reverse cholesterol transport" lead to reversal of blockage down the road? I don't know. But it seems to be considered a good thing, i.e.raising HDL and we know how to raise HDL and dramatically cut TGLs while we are at it.
Posted 1/2/2016 3:00 AM (GMT 0)
@Franklen, thanks for the additional link I read it and will re read it with the others. You make good points re incremental steps.
I'm curious, what is your background, are you in a healthcare related /research profession, or are you a patient that's taken it upon himself to get as educated as possible. You've obviously invested a lot of time in this topic.
Posted 1/2/2016 3:07 AM (GMT 0)
@Billybob - all very confusing and conflicting. Which is why I probably won't read Dr Geigers book LOL.

The bottom line for me, and what I cannot seem to get the answer to is this....
With a Calcium score of 937, and two stents, I realize that I've got a heavy plaque load that I may or may not be able to reverse somewhat. What I am not clear on is what it means. Does it mean that my chances are say, 1 in 10 of having a heart attack in the next 10 years, vs a healthy persons chance being say 1 in 20? Or does it mean that I have say a 7 in 10 chance of heart attack in the next ten years.
The answer may not exist. But if I found out that it was the former, it would be a lot easier to live with while I try to reverse it. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that at a score of 937, the chance of an adverse event are better than 50/50. Which is why I am so preoccupied with this, even with my next PSA coming up,this week. I hope I'm wrong. I guess time will tell. Meanwhile I'll continue to read, study learn and do what I can to help myself.
Posted 1/2/2016 3:15 AM (GMT 0)

Franklen said...

Pratoman said...
..............................

dresselstyn.com/JFP_06307_Article1.pdf

Please note the gratuitous use of a angiogram image in Fig. 2, showing amazing reversal.
Long story behind that image. The individual had nothing to do with the study, but Esselstyn throws it into every article and speech he gives. My pet peeve with Esselstyn.

I am indeed noticing that. It has nothing to do with the study? "Following 32 months of a plant-
based nutritional intervention without cholesterol-lowering
medication, the artery regained its normal configuration (B)"
Posted 1/2/2016 3:31 AM (GMT 0)

Pratoman said...
@Billybob - all very confusing and conflicting. Which is why I probably won't read Dr Geigers book LOL.

The bottom line for me, and what I cannot seem to get the answer to is this....
With a Calcium score of 937, and two stents, I realize that I've got a heavy plaque load that I may or may not be able to reverse somewhat. What I am not clear on is what it means. Does it mean that my chances are say, 1 in 10 of having a heart attack in the next 10 years, vs a healthy persons chance being say 1 in 20? Or does it mean that I have say a 7 in 10 chance of heart attack in the next ten years.
The answer may not exist. But if I found out that it was the former, it would be a lot easier to live with while I try to reverse it. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that at a score of 937, the chance of an adverse event are better than 50/50. Which is why I am so preoccupied with this, even with my next PSA coming up,this week. I hope I'm wrong. I guess time will tell. Meanwhile I'll continue to read, study learn and do what I can to help myself.

Prato, my guess is between 1 in 10 an 2 in 10, but certainly NOT 7 in 10. But then again I know nothing. try these calculators:
www.mesa-nhlbi.org/cacreference.aspx
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
123456