|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Wednesday, May 14, 2003As he reviewed research, he found what he described as a ``virtual absence'' of coronary artery disease in certain cultures where plant-based diets are standard. These include certain populations of northern Mexico, New Guinea, rural China and central Africa. The life expectancy in central Africa is in the mid-30's. In New Guinea, it’s 52. Overall life expectancy in Mexico is around 68, but northern Mexico is one of the most impoverished regions of that country. And, although I wasn’t able to find a life expectancy number for that region, you can bet it’s lower than the nation’s overall age. Ditto rural China. Of course they’re going to have low rates of coronrary artery disease. They don’t live long enough to develop it. The doctor’s own study isn’t very encouraging, either: During his study, Esselstyn followed 18 patients who had collectively experienced 49 coronary events in the eight years prior to going on his eating plan. These events included everything from heart attacks to worsening stress-test results. Originally, 24 patients had joined the study. But in six months to a year, six were released because they didn't comply with the diet. Here is what happened: The six people who left the study had a total of 13 new coronary events over the next 12 years. Of the 18 who stayed with the diet, and took cholesterol-lowering medication, only one -- a man who had strayed from the diet and needed bypass surgery -- had a new problem. Commented Esselstyn: ``We had 100 percent annihilation of disease progression in all compliant patients.'' All those who followed the regimen, plus took cholesterol-lowering medication, he said, met the study goal of a cholesterol level no higher than 150, and an LDL cholesterol of no higher than 80. Not only is it a very small study - too small to make any generalizations about diet and heart disease - but it’s impossible to say whether the better outcome is from diet or from cholesterol medication. It’s a very strict diet, too, requiring patients to consume far less fat than is typically found in our food. So strict, that the doctor feels compelled to state on his website: Consultations with Dr. Esselstyn are limited to patients who are committed to abolish disease progression, and are not merely seeking a temporary solution. He must have had a lot of contentious patient encounters over his recommendations. He isn’t too charitable to his fellow physicians, either: Esselstyn's diet is far more limited in fat than guidelines you typically see for heart patients, who commonly eat lean meat and cheese, for example, with their doctor's approval. Esselstyn's response is that most doctors aren't literate in nutrition and that agencies that issue guidelines might agree more with him, if not for political and industry pressures. Sure sign of junk science - the belief that the establishment is trying to suppress one's theory for ulterior motives. But this nutritionist’s take on the diet sounds about right: ”It's very hard for people to turn into grass-eaters. You can't put people in plastic bubbles when they're trying to maintain a lifestyle and work. I don't have the absolute truth. I look at what's the best fit, both eating and exercising, to improve a person's health. It's like giving them both a healthy and a happy heart.'' And that, in the end, is what matters. Striking the balance between a healthy and a happy heart. posted by Sydney on 5/14/2003 08:42:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
