Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Way to Reverse Coronary Artery Disease? [pdf]

jfponline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–65 of 65 posts

Re: A Way to Reverse Coronary Artery Disease? [pdf]

#61

Post by lingben »

PerfectElement wrote: post #45
lingben wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are 2 things which influence CAD: omega 6 intake and stress. Arterial plaque is formed not as a result of a high fat diet (even animal fat) but as a result of inflammation which kickstarts the plaque building process. The myth that high cholesterol or high fat is the culprit of CAD is difficult to kill, even when study after study shows no correlation whatsoever between them and CAD. The correlation though does…

>>The myth that high cholesterol or high fat is the culprit of CAD is difficult to kill, even when study after study shows no correlation whatsoever between them and CAD. It's hard to kill because it's not a myth. Despite of all the blogs and books the paleo-opportunists are selling you, the best science available today shows a very strong correlation between cholesterol and CAD. Even the all mighty cattle industry w…

> a very strong correlation between cholesterol and CAD

to imply a causation between high cholesterol and CAD is categorically and demonstrably false

Re: A Way to Reverse Coronary Artery Disease? [pdf]

#62

Post by Wade147 »

A good portion of people who come to the Esselstyn way of eating, do so to hopefully "reverse" their cardiovascular disease. The name of this study is "A Way to Reverse CAD"

We are told that 39 participants (22%) had documented reversal of CAD. But we are given zero data or information about those patients. What was the average reversal? How many of those patient were on statins as well as the diet? We don't have even the most basic definition of how "reversal" is defined for that 22%.

My gosh, the name of the study is about "reversal" Yet we are given no data at all similar to that seen in both the Ornish studies. At least Ornish gave precise percentage reversals in the arteries with blockages. Average reversal for tertiles of aherence in percentage terms. Something we could analyze in terms of effectiveness. Something that could be measured. In this study all we are told is that there was reversal in 22%, with no further information. Not even a clear definition of the word "reversal".

Something is very wrong with that. Many Esselstyn followers are in it for the long haul. Sure, its nice to know there were less cardiac events over the 3.7 years, but we're looking for a process lasting 20 or more years into the future. What the heck does reversal mean if you don't define it and don't give any data about those who got reversal.

Totally disappointed in the details, apparently chosen to be omitted. As though the reader, the patient, will just blindly accept the "22% reversal" claim with no data given.

Does anyone have knowledge of if that data will ever be released, or a definition of "reversal" given?

Re: A Way to Reverse Coronary Artery Disease? [pdf]

#63

Post by ghkbrew »

justin66 wrote: post #54
ghkbrew wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would a control group consist of? It would be an equivalent population who weren't asked to change their diets. There are multiple reasons the patients in this study might not be comparable to participants in other studies or to the general population. Age, gender, average disease severity all need to be controlled for. And if nothing else the simple fact the patient knows they're being monitored could have an…

> It would be an equivalent population who weren't asked to change their diets. Which is actually an ethical quandary when you think about it. A doctor's ethics are really tested when he has to say to some patients "sure, I think you should change your diet and you'll probably die if you don't, but you're part of the control group!" One more ethical (and still statistically somewhat interesting) way of administering…

> Which is actually an ethical quandary when you think about it.

You're right, of course. But whether a study is scientifically valid and whether it is ethical are two orthogonal questions. Similar concerns are why most cancer therapy trials end up looking more like A/B testing than classic experimental/control experiments. The point I was trying to make, though, is that you need at least two groups which differ only by a small set of (ideally one) known variables to draw any real conclusions

Re: A Way to Reverse Coronary Artery Disease? [pdf]

#64

Post by dtuuri »

I started following this diet three years ago after receiving a coronary stent. People always tell me they could never eat like I do, giving up all their favorite meats and dairy. This study shows that motivated people really can do like I did, which is something doctors like the doc in a hat two days ago don't apparently believe. As to the criticisms based on statistical merits, I'll defer to this passage from the report, "The Cleveland Clinic Institutional Review Board determined that these were acceptable outcome measurements to evaluate the nutrition program." If it's good enough for the Cleveland Clinic, it's good enough for me. If you folks want a controlled study, do one yourselves.
Post reply on HN