Is it not a fact that the reason you needed the stents was the plaque was causing blockages?

In folks with plaque blockages a plant based diet excluding all oils will IN FACT clear the soft plaque blockages. Moreover, in just in few months the reduction can be detected with ultra sound exam and other tests.

There is before and after pictures in the book & movie "forks over knives" :read:


Primarily - but not exclusively..............it is or it isn't! Yes it is all plant based, but if you follow the recipes the food is not what you make sound like.

Nuts are not excluded for example almonds are fine other nuts are ok if you don't eat ton of them.

I haven't seen anyone reporting that their heath did not improve do you know of anyone?

those studies are old school thinking, our gran parents ate worse than we all do today, your siblings likely eat a poor diet also.

A plant diet is guaranteed to drop triglyceride and cholesterol levels, easy to accomplish.

You really can't be serious believing that :mmmm:

multiple stents means what your doing isn't in fact working, to say nothing of what I assume is list meds just trying to maintain your condition from deteriorating IMO.

U my friend are a prime candidate to make the change, but that of course is your choice, do you know that you can call Dr. Esselstyn for a brief discussion about the benefits, he gets on the phone quicker than your regular MD to answer questions.

see How to Deal With Digestive Difficulties on a Plant-Based Diet | One Green Planet

Yes you have. I have already reported twice on this post about my friend--AGAIN, in case it was "overlooked," the non-smoking, daily runner who ate nothing but plants and no oils PERIOD--who had a heart attack anyway due to blockage. This was a familial genetic thing. (In case you were ignoring it...)

Your extreme, inconvenient (I guess you don't spend much time in airports, on long flights, or visiting developing or second-world countries) diet, even if you pledge to give up any cultural eating experiences, does not IN FACT always work.

Sorry for the caps, but I'm on an iPad (in an airport) and don't know how to italicize on it.

Italicize is between the bold and underline icon.

I don't see those either, Dougbee. Just a windows person, I guess.:sad:

Jared ate at Subway every day for a year, walked a lot and lost 200 pounds. His blood pressure is perfect as are his cholesterol and triglycerides.

This proves that eating at Subway is the way to good health.

:thumbup:

Good point CFrance!

It is far to easy to latch onto the latest pseudo-science book regarding what to eat. Discussions regarding cholesterol may be dumbed down and ignore the fact that most cholesterol is manufactured by your body. Some people do show a response to diets low in cholesterol but many don't. There does seem to be some consensus on what constitutes a good diet but, as we have all seen, this may change with more research and studies - real studies with well thought out experimental designs, solid statistical analysis, and published in real journals after peer reviews.

The following appears to reflect the current understanding and represents guidelines that are relatively easy for everyone to follow (i.e. not extreme):

- Eliminate trans fats from partially hydrogenated oils. Food labels should say “0” (zero) on the line for trans fat; also scan the ingredient list to make sure it does not contain partially hydrogenated oils (food labeling laws allow food makers to have up to 0.5 grams of trans fat in a product but still list “0” on the line for trans fats). Fortunately, most food manufacturers have removed trans fats from their products. In restaurants, steer clear of fried foods, biscuits, and other baked goods, unless you know that the restaurant has eliminated trans fat (many already have).

- Limit your intake of saturated fats by cutting back on red meat and full-fat dairy foods. Try replacing red meat with beans, nuts, poultry, and fish whenever possible, and switching from whole milk and other full-fat dairy foods to lower fat versions, or just eating smaller amounts of full-fat dairy products, such as cheese. Don’t replace red meat with refined carbohydrates (white bread, white rice, potatoes, and the like).

- In place of butter, use liquid vegetable oils rich in polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats, in cooking and at the table. Olive oil, canola oil, sunflower oil, safflower oil, corn oil, peanut oil, and the like are great sources of healthy fat.

- Eat one or more good sources of omega-3 fats every day. Fish, walnuts, canola or soybean oil, ground flax seeds or flaxseed oil are excellent sources of omega-3 fats.

It was hinted at but not hammered home: sugar is probably something you should avoid.

I tired this diet for about two months and I gained quite a bit of weight, especially around my belly.

I always gain a lot of weight when I eat carbohydrates. The problem that I had with this diet was that if I can't eat, cereal, rice, pasta, bread, potatoes and all other forms of starchy foods, there is very little to eat. I felt that my choices were basically lettuce and broccoli.

And yes, I was eating quinoa and all whole grains.

It's also extremely difficult to go out to dinner. Almost everything in a restaurant contains some of the forbidden ingredients. Again, you can order a big salad but you have to ask that for no dressing, no cheese and not meats. Then you sit there and much on your lettuce while all of your friends are enjoying wonderful tasting food.

Like I said, my objection is not so much whether the diet works, it may, but it hasn't been proven. My primary objection is that it is an extremely difficult diet to stay on and that makes it ineffective for 99.999% of the population.

Although you point about trans fats is very valid, this represents very old school thinking. Most nutritionists, cardiologists and doctors who know will tell you that it's not the fats so much as it is the sugar in your diet that causes most of the problems.

All food contain some degree of sugar. Starchy carbs like potatoes, pasta, bead etc. contain carbohydrate molecules that they easily converted over to sugar. This excess sugar in your system causes your pancreas to secrete more insulin than is need. This excess insulin removes more sugar than it should from your bloodstream and converts it to fat for storage. Not only do you add fat to your body, but this sugar, (in the form of glycogen at this point) is no longer available for fuel. Because your body is sensing that it needs more food, you become tired and hungry again very soon so you eat more carbs and sugars which starts the whole process over again.

I addition to this, the excess sugar in your bloodstream cause inflammation to you arterial wall which allows cholesterol particles to embed themselves in the walls creating plaque build up which leads to blockages.

Sugar is the real enemy and foods that contain high levels of carbohydrates which are very quickly converted to sugar are what is making us fat and unhealthy.

It has not been proven that this is the case will ALL people. It is simply the biased opinion of one doctor. The photos in his book are of the success. No one knows if there have been failures because he wouldn't show them in his book.

Nothing old school about any of it. It's been scientifically proven that these problems run in families and that genetics are at least partially responsible. How about the billions of people over time that have eaten a meat based diet that have not had any coronary problems? man has eaten meat from almost he beginning of time. The upswing the obesity and coronary artery disease is fairly recent. Billions of people, over time, have eaten meat and oils and have not had any coronary problems.

And again, you use the terms guaranteed and IN FACT when none of this has been scientifically proven.

More importantly, what has not been determined are any adverse effects of this diet. Again, man is an omnivore and has been so since the beginning of time. Human bodies are designed to eat both plants and meat. We have no idea what harm we may be doing by eliminating meats, dairy and oils. Again, no long term scientific studies have been done.

I've talked Dr Esselstyn. What's interesting about him is that most of the people who are involved in nutritional studies have great respect for one another. People like Agatston, Perlmutter and Davis will have rational discussions with Haas, Ornish, Pritikin and other vegetarian proponents and give each other the respect they deserve.

Esselstyn is sort of out there by himself. People other than maybe Ornish refuse to get into discussions with him. He shows no respect toward anyone else's work and gets no respect from anyone in return. He feels he's right and will not enter into discussions with any other nutritionists. he's walked out of nutritional conventions when people questioned and/or disagreed with him.

Like I said, I'm really happy that this program works for you. But, I do wish that people who have under the spell of Dr Esselstyn would stop using words like "fact" and "guarantee" when they have no scientific data to back up claims.

Like I said, every proponent of every diet out there has anecdotal evidence to show that his program works. None of it is backed by legitimate scientific studies.

The other problem with this diet, as I have pointed out, is that it is not, for the vast majority of people "easy to accomplish". For most people living in our society it is extremely difficult. We have lived out lives doing certain things. We have always eaten meat and used oils. To tell people that it is easy to stop that is just not right. Even if this diet were proven to be 100% successful and without a downside, I don't believe that most people are willing to do something so extreme. Which brings us back to your original question. Is this diet "extreme". In today's society in most developed countries of the world eliminating all animal based products and most nuts from your diet will be viewed as extreme. Even if it 100% effective with no adverse effects, it will considered extreme by over 90% of the people because extreme has nothing to do with whether or not it works. It has to do with how different it is from what we are currently doing. It has to do with how much work or sacrifice people have to put in to be successful.

A 100% plant diet with zero oils is extreme.

One of the recommendations was NOT to replace red meat with carbohydrates. I don't see how these recommendations clash with what you posted.

That was only one point. Many scientists today feel that red meat poses no danger and that in fact contains vital nutrients that are important to one's health.

There are basically two schools of thought in nutrition today. Eliminate or reduce fat, or eliminate or reduce sugar (carbs).

It could be that each of these ideas will work for different people.

There are just as many scientists that support both theories. I use the word "theories" intentionally because neither position has been proven in long term scientific studies. One of the reasons, as both sides claim, is that the AMA is not interested in helping people to get healthy through nutrition as that may out them out of business. Mostly what we have is the proponents of each of these sides citing cases where their theory has worked. Generally in the science of medicine in order to be approved a medication or procedure has to be tried in a double blind study of at least 1,500 people over many years. As far as I know, there have been no studies of this kind on any kind of diet. That is why with few exceptions, you don't hear nutritionists use the words "guarantee" or "fact". Carl Esselstyn and his followers are the only group that I know of that use these kinds of terms.

Politics also plays a big part in all of this. There are lobbies for just about every type of food. There is wheat lobby, a beef lobby, a pork lobby, a dairy lobby and vegetable (growers) lobbies. None of these lobbies wants a study done that might show that their product is causing obesity or poor health. So studies don't get sone. Usually one of these groups will pay to have a study done in order to prove the benefits of it's product. If the study begins to go int he wrong direction, they will withdraw funding citing financial concerns.

Anyroad, I have no problem with anyone who wants to follow Dr Esselstyn's program. It's probably very good. I don't know that there are not some dangers in this extreme way of eating, but that will not be known until a lot of people do it for a long time. Like I said, the biggest problem I have with it, is that it is extremely difficult to stick with. The few people who have done it and are doing it like Jimbo and VPL will talk about how easy it is. Well, quitting smoking actually came very easy for me. Does that mean that it's easy for everyone? Dr Ornish who also advocates this type of eating plan, (though not as extreme as Dr Esselstyn's program) has admitted that this is not an easy way to eat in today's society. It requires very strong will power and what many people consider to be huge sacrifices.

In nutshell, here is Dr Esselstyn's program. No meat, fish or fowl. No animal products of any kind including dairy. No oils of any kind. No fish oil, olive oil coconut oil, flaxseed oil or any other oils that most nutritionist believe are beneficial. I remember also that nuts are not allowed, but Jimbo says that small quantities of almonds are allowed. I don't know if that's a change since I read the book or if I just missed it. No sesame or soy, if I recall correctly. No tahini. I don't know why this sticks out but I recall humus being mentioned and he said it's OK as long as there is no tahini. But, try to find humus without oil.

Once you decide to do this, you start reading labels and begin to discover that there is some kind of oil in almost every thing. You'll find yourself at the health food store looking for certain kinds of bread and cereals. It's amazing how many of our foods have oil in them. So almost no processed foods. Everything is prepared from scratch.

And as you ask questions, you are told that this or that is not allowed either. I asked Dr Esselstyn about olives. I love olives. I was curious about why olives were not listed in the banned foods but olive oil was. The answer I got was, "There is a lot of salt in olives. You shouldn't be eating food with that much salt." Salt?? Nowhere in this book was salt mentioned.

So is it easy? Will it work for most people? If you asked 1,000 people, how many of them do you think would be willing to do this even if it were known 100% to work? Of those how many of them do you think would be able to keep it up for the long term?

I asked the question on this board a while back and Jimbo and VPL answered in the affirmative. No one else answered and as this is not a scientific study, I have to assume that no one else would be willing to follow this plan. Can I assume that a non answer is a no?

I think that most people are willing to cut back on certain things. some might even be willing to eliminate some categories of food. But don't believe a lot of people are willing to go to this extreme no matter what the results.

Thanks so much for your well thought out response. I also find any recommendation to eliminate oil (or any kind) to be troubling and question how that can possibly be healthy.