There is little meat to your argument. Still I will respond. My comments in
red This has not been proven for Esselstyn protocol, which features the plant diet with no added oils. On the other hand, those patients using Esselstyn's protocol were not reported as presenting malnourishment symptoms anytime during the 12 year study.
Esselstyn didn't test for nutrient deficiencies and other disease rates. As I've mentioned numerous times, people following his diet regime will most likely suffer from various vitamin/mineral deficiency simply because their diet doesn't contain the adequate amounts even by the RDA's standard eg Iron and B12. How on earth can you argue that a diet without iron/b12 won't leave someone deficient in iron or b12? People will have to supplement, the diet isn't optimal.This is believed by some practitioners of the Religion of Evolution. Practitioners of other religions believe that man was a created being and that he was a created thousands (not millions) of years ago and that he was first created as a plant eater and the consumption of animal flesh came later. Different strokes for different folks. In any event, the particulars of one's belief system are irrelevant to a scientific critique of Esselstyn's study.
Evolution isn't a religion. Your point is irrelevant, you're confusing belief and faith (religion) with fact (evolution). Our ancestors consumed meat (and fat), fish and some plants. No bread, no rice, no pasta, no cereals.His model may be flawed but not his clinical results. His patients probably cared little about the model but cared greatly about the results. Esselstyn's protocol may be unnecessary but it certainly was sufficient.
Correct his method is flawed, a small handful of people got better eating lots of vegetables and avoiding trans fat. The other parts to his diet are drawbacks and unnecessary. The Framingham study also showed that nobody had heart attacks when their total cholesterol was 150 or less.
No it doesn't it shows that CVD events were lowered,probably due to the fact that people with such low cholesterol levels have received aggressive treatment from cardiologists that will reduce heart attack risk.
Statins do have some positive effects such as lowering inflammation, lowering CRP, slight anti clotting effects, some antioxidant effects, this is where any lowering of CVD risk has come form. They also have a huge amount of negative effects.
Back the Frammingham results'
It also shows that these "lucky" people in the sub 150 group have nearly DOUBLE the total mortality from all causes.
The exact stats are;
CVD risk for 140-199 is around 30-35 people per 10,000 men
CVD risk for sub 140 is around 25 people per 10,000 men
Total death for 140-199 is around 180-190 per 10,000 men
Total death for sub 140 is around 310 per 10,000 men This was the WHI of NIH study reported in 2006 in JAMA. The devil is in the details, as some of the Vitamin C studies have revealed. In the WHI study, those on the "low fat" diet actually ended up getting 29% of daily calories from fats/oils (according to Esselstyn) while the others got a little more.
The data I have read for the study says 20% cals as fat. Where has the figure of 29th come from?The main conclusion is thus not surprising. However, in any case, to extrapolate the WHI conclusion to an Esselstyn protocol wherein 10% of calories are derived from fat is not legitimat
You'd expect that such a large reduction in fat (from 39% to 20%) would bring about some positive changes though would you not? But nothing. I wonder what's so magical about the 10% figureFrom what I can tell, Esselstyn asserts that his protocol simply restores the health & integrity of the endothelium as a whole and that when total cholesterol, driven by diet, is below 150, people don't have heart attacks. Perhaps not exactly theory but certainly defendable observation.
His idea is that a reduction in dietary fat (like the extreme measures in his diet plan) and a reduction in total cholesterol (with an added statin!) bring about the reduction in cardiovascular incidents.
Cholesterol is an antioxidant. It's logical to assume that people who have elevated chlolesterol levels suffer from significant oxidative stress, this would be due to poor diet, smoking etc. This is the reason that high cholesterol can correlate occasionally with CVD risk. Correlation does not equal causation. It's almost like saying someone is suffering from a cold, and they have an elevated white cell count, ergo white cells cause colds. It's faulty logic that has been proven wrong time and time again.
He's totally off the mark with a large amount of his diet advice, it will lead to undernourishment and increase disease risk.
Why is it the inuit tribes had no observable cardiovascular disease when their populations were studied in the past? Considering they ate a plant free carbohydrate free diet of fish and fat. It doesn't make sense and you know it.
Why is there a French paradox?
Why is it that the frammingham study proves him wrong? Researchers showed in 1987 after data analysis that for over 50's there is no releationship between total cholesterol levels and cardiovascular disease or total mortality/
What about the masai tribes studied and their low heart disease rates considering they eat up to 300 grams of animal fat per DAY?
What about pacific island populations (Pukapuka and tokelau islands)? Shown to eat very high sat fat diets (some 35% of daily calories) with average cholesterol levels of 240, next to no CVD observed in the populations.Get your head of out of Esselstyn's book and do some thinking for yourself.