To attack the study directly;
The study included 22 patients with angiographically documented,
22 patients is a small sample size. Also no control group used.
These patients took cholesterol-lowering drugs and followed a diet that derived no more than 10% of its calories from fat
The study used statins, you cannot therefore make your own conclusions as to what would happen if they hadn't used statins.
Of the 22 participants, 5 dropped out within 2 years, and 17 maintained the diet, 11 of whom completed a mean of 5.5 years of follow-up
11 completed the study for 5.5 years. Very small sample.
All 11 of these participants reduced their cholesterol level from a mean baseline of 246 mg/dL (6.36 mmol/L) to below 150mg/dL (3.88 mmol/L).
So far we know that taking a statin drops cholesterol, no mention of the dosage used, the statin used etc. For all we know the 11 people could have been on high dose statins, which would achieve this cholesterol lowering effect without dietary intervention.
. Analysis by minimal lumen diameter of 25 lesions fotind that 6 regressed, 14 remained stable, and 5 progressed.
Lets remember here, 25 lesions, 11 participants. NOT 25 people. We are still dealing with 11 people.
25 lesions over 11 people is 2.27 lesions average per person. 6 lesion regressions is
2-3 people.So 2-3 people got better, 2-3 people got worse, and 5-7 people stayed the same.
Is this supposed to be ground breaking?
ANY positive benefits from this study are down to;
- Avoidance of sugar (thus reducing glucose intake, insulin/glucose levels, adipose tissue, possibly impacting activity levels)
- Increase in dietary magnesium intake (thus increasing arterial relaxation, thus decreasing risk)
- Increase in vegetable intake (thus increasing C intake, antioxidant status, mineral status)
- Possible anti inflammatory effect of statin (aside from the other shocking drawbacks)
I was disappointed that nobody came forth to refute or explain his outstanding clinical results. His results stand unscathed by any post in this thread
This is the second time your precious study has been attacked. Read the thread, and make sure you read my post properly.
I thought the massive brainpower on this forum could easily answer, like, why do we need to eat saturated fats if our bodies synthesize all we need?
Again I have answered this, but because you don't read you may have missed it.
De Novo Lipogenesis. The body will meet saturated fat minimum requirements from carb intake. Minimum isn't optimum.
The results are the results and they are good.
Reasons listed above. Again. Read.
Sorry if I offended any true believers of diet dogma that is substantially different from what Esselstyn advocates
Adopting a low fat diet with a statin is the currently accepted dogma. You seem confused.
But, if you ever get to the point where you have run out of options in dealing with CAD, I humbly suggest that you remember Esselstyn.
Appreciated. But remember that your diet will lead to malnurishment on very basic levels.
The Happy Troll
I'm glad your happy. Though it may be short lived, depression risk for low fat diets is high. The link between omega 3 and serotonin levels is well established. Still I'm sure you've already thought of that.