The Dietary Delusions of Dean Ornish

[Guest guest]

The Dietary Delusions of Dean Ornish.

 

Why Ornish's writings are far closer to science fiction than science.

 

http://www.theomnivore.com/Ornish.html

 

Anthony Colpo,

August 9, 2004.

 

***************

Anthony,

 

I can tell you're not shy about getting stuck into critics of

low-carbohydrate eating, but I noticed you haven't written much about Dean

Ornish, who has to be one of the most outspoken low-carb detractors out there.

 

I've included links to a WebMD article that he wrote a few years back and

an interview that PBS's Frontline did with him earlier this year. You'll

see Ornish claims that diets like Atkins are dangerous, and that they cause

everything from bad breath to sudden death!

 

I'd appreciate your thoughts...

***************

 

 

I guess the reason I haven't yet bothered to address the rantings of Dean

Ornish is that they are usually so far out in left field I have trouble

believing any of my readers would even begin to take them seriously.

 

I have previously read the WebMD article you refer to; I came upon it a few

years back whilst researching low-carbohydrate diets. I didn't know much

about Ornish at the time, and after reading his fulminations I quickly came

to the conclusion that he must have been a few cents short of a full

dollar. The article came across like the fanatical ravings of yet another

rabid vegetarian activist who would say and do anything to discredit

high-protein diets.

 

The following passage is representative of the unscientific and illogical

nonsense that fills Ornish's WebMD piece:

 

" When you eat a lot of meat, it takes a long time for it to make its way

through your digestive tract. As it putrefies and decays, your breath

smells bad, your sweat smells bad, and your bowels smell bad. Not very

attractive. You may want to lose weight to attract people to you, but when

they get too close, it becomes counterproductive. "

 

It's anyone's guess as to how Ornish arrived at these utterly bizarre

conclusions. As meat passes through the gastrointestinal tract it does not

simply " putrefy " and " decay " like a pile of week-old garbage--it is being

actively digested by gastric enzymes, with its constituent vitamins,

minerals, trace elements and amino acids being broken down to fuel growth

and repair in the body.

 

Maybe all the meat-eaters Ornish has encountered have been members of some

bizarre cult that eschews washing or bathing, or maybe Ornish is simply

high on his own bodily emissions. After all, diets that are high in whole

grains and legumes--the very kind that Ornish espouses--are famous for

their anti-social gastrointestinal effects. In fact, I'll bet good money

that wherever Dean is right now, he's struggling to hold back a really

nasty, crowd-scattering bolus of wind…

 

I'm sure glad Ornish's comments are utter nonsense, because I met my

beautiful wife soon after commencing a low-carb diet. As forgiving as she

can be, I don't think our relationship would have progressed very far had I

smelt as bad as Ornish's mythical meat-eaters!

 

The 'no fruits and vegetables' myth

 

Ornish, like so many other low-carb critics, seems to be under the mistaken

impression that high-protein diets are comprised primarily of pork rinds

and sausages, and devoid of fruits and vegetables. I have a special message

to Ornish and all those other misguided authors, dietitians, health

authorities, and politicians who insist on perpetuating the myth that high

protein and/or low-carbohydrate diets are lacking in fruits and vegetables:

 

If you are going to comment on high-protein/low-carbohydrate diets, read

the damn literature on them first!

 

If you did so, you would learn that virtually all of the authors in this

genre that you so enthusiastically decry wholeheartedly recommend the

consumption of fruits and vegetables!

 

Consider the following examples;

 

" DO EAT: Meats and fish, fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds, berries. "

Neanderthin, by Ray Audette and Troy Gilchrist, p 71.

 

" Let us sing a song of veggies. Such beautiful, health-enhancing, varied

foods. "

Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, by Robert C. Atkins, M.D., p. 84.

 

" Choose green leafy vegetables, tomatoes, peppers, avocados…broccoli,

eggplant, zucchini, green beans, asparagus, celery, cucumber, mushrooms,

and salads. "

Protein Power, by Michael R. Eades, M.D., and Mary Dan Eades, M.D., p. 91.

 

" …divide your plate at each meal into three equal-sized sections. Whatever

the volume of protein you plan to eat, put it one of these sections. The

other two sections you will fill primarily with low glycemic vegetables,

and then always have a piece of fruit for dessert. "

The Anti-Aging Zone, by Barry Sears, Ph.D., p. 63.

 

" When it comes to foods that are naturally low in carbohydrate and high in

fiber, vegetables are king. "

The Secret to Low Carb Success!, by Laura Richard, B.S.N., M.H.A., p. 225.

 

When disgruntled low-fat crusaders whine about high-protein and/or

low-carbohydrate diets being devoid of antioxidant-rich plant foods, they

reveal to us the following;

 

1) that they are ignorant, reactionary dolts who don't bother to read the

very books they criticize, or;

 

2) if they have read the popular high-protein/low-carbohydrate literature,

they are deliberately and dishonestly omitting crucial information

contained within it.

 

Either way, they are demonstrating a highly questionable ability to deliver

accurate nutrition information, and their admonitions should therefore be

treated with only the greatest skepticism.

 

More outlandish claims

 

Ornish goes on to claim that high-protein diets cause impotence--a

ludicrous claim with absolutely no foundation in scientific reality--and

that those who recommend these diets are being " irresponsible and

dangerous " . According to the fanatical physician;

 

" There is a large body of scientific evidence from epidemiological studies,

animal research, and randomized, controlled trials in humans showing that

high-protein foods, particularly excessive animal protein, dramatically

increase the risk of breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, and

many other illnesses. In the short run, they may also cause kidney

problems, loss of calcium in the bones, and an unhealthy metabolic state

called ketosis in many people. "

 

For starters, there does not exist a single randomized, tightly-controlled

trial to show that high-protein foods cause breast cancer, prostate cancer,

heart disease, nor " many other illnesses " . Even the epidemiological

evidence fails to support such outlandish claims.

 

Let's start with breast cancer. Recently, a team of investigators led by

Harvard researchers analyzed the data from eight long-term studies which

included a collective total of over 351,000 women. Almost 7,400 of these

were diagnosed with breast cancer during follow-up periods extending to 15

years. Among this massive sample of women, the researchers found no

association between red, white, or total meat consumption (nor diary

products) and the occurrence of breast cancer.(1)

 

Prospective epidemiological studies claiming a positive association between

meat consumption, saturated fat intake, and prostate cancer are eagerly

cited by folks like Ornish.(2-5) For some strange reason, they don't

mention the similar number of prospective studies showing no

association,(6-11) nor the studies that have actually found a protective

association between meat, saturated fat, and prostate cancer.(12,13)

 

Ornish and his ilk are also strangely silent on the numerous studies

showing increased animal food consumption actually appears to protect

against heart disease and stroke.

 

Take the Nurses Health Study, in which fourteen years' follow-up of over

80,000 initially healthy women revealed that high protein intakes were

associated with a lower risk of CHD. Both animal and vegetable proteins

contributed to the reduced risk. The researchers concluded: " Our data do

not support the hypothesis that a high protein intake increases the risk of

ischemic heart disease. In contrast, our findings suggest that replacing

carbohydrates with protein may be associated with a lower risk of ischemic

heart disease. " (14) The potential public health benefits of such a finding

are immense, but you won't find the Nurses' Health Study mentioned in any

of Ornish's articles, nor in the scribblings of any of his vegan buddies at

the so-called Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM).

 

These outspoken proponents of vegetarianism, who are fond of citing Asian

populations in support of their erroneous theories, also appear to suffer

writer's block when it comes to reporting the fact that increasing animal

food consumption in Japan has been accompanied by a marked decline in both

the overall incidence of and the mortality from one of that nation's

biggest killers--stroke. This increase in animal protein and animal fat

consumption has also occurred alongside Japan's rise to the top of the

longevity ladder.(15,16)

 

If you're tempted to write this off as merely a consequence of improved

living standards and medical technology, keep in mind that long-term

follow-up studies with both native and migrant Japanese populations show

that those who eat the most animal protein and animal fat enjoy greater

longevity and a lower incidence of stroke than those who eat lesser

amounts.(17-20)

 

As for the tired old claim that high-protein diets cause kidney disease,

again there exists no evidence to support such a claim.

 

In a study with highly trained athletes, some of the subjects were found to

consume up to 2.8g/kg of protein daily (210g protein daily for a 75kg

individual). Such intakes would no doubt have folks like Ornish gagging on

their soy nuts, but all measures of kidney function fell within normal

ranges.(21)

 

A comparison of healthy omnivores eating 100 grams or more of protein per

day with long-term vegetarians eating 30g or less of protein per day

concluded that both groups had similar kidney function. The subjects were

aged 30-80 and both groups displayed similar progressive deterioration of

kidney function with age.(22)

 

In 2003, Californian researchers published the results of a study examining

the effect of a low-iron, phenol-rich, carbohydrate-restricted but ad

libitum protein diet in patients with kidney failure. During a follow-up

period of almost four years, those who followed the unrestricted protein

diet were only half as likely to progress to the point where they either

died or required dialysis, when compared to patients following the

low-protein, high-carbohydrate diet recommended by most health 'experts'.(23)

 

Given the poor prognosis typical of advanced kidney disease, one would

think that any truly concerned health commentator would be alerting as many

people as possible to the findings of the Californian researchers. The

response of Ornish and his vegetarian colleagues to this study and others

showing that white-meat-rich diets may be of benefit to kidney patients has

simply been to ignore them.

 

The well-worn claim that high-protein diets can cause osteoporosis is also

a bad joke, considering that it is a well-established fact that protein is

an essential component of bones and that epidemiological studies repeatedly

show that it is low-protein intakes, not high protein intakes, that are

associated with reduced bone density.(24)

 

It is typically claimed that high protein intakes will cause an increase in

calcium excretion. Researchers recently examined this premise by performing

a series of experiments in which intestinal calcium absorption was measured

in pre- and postmenopausal women who were fed diets of varying protein

content. Unlike a number of similar previous experiments, the diets of the

women were tightly controlled, and the wide variations between individuals

in calcium absorption were countered by using each women as her own

control. Under these well-controlled conditions, the researchers found that

calcium absorption was significantly lower during periods of low protein

consumption (0.8g/kg and below) than during periods of high protein

consumption.(24)

 

If you listen to those who encourage the consumption of low-protein diets,

chances are you will end up with weaker, not stronger, bones!

 

Ornish's assertion that high-protein diets may cause " an unhealthy

metabolic state called ketosis in many people " is also rather fanciful.

First of all, merely eating more protein will not kick your body into

ketosis. Even lowering your carbohydrate intake may not necessarily induce

ketosis; most people generally will not become ketotic until their daily

carbohydrate intake falls below 50g.

 

But what if you do drop your carb intake to below 50g per day and slip into

ketosis--can you expect to fall prey to all sorts of horrible health

maladies? To answer that question, we need to look a tad more closely at

the phenomenon of ketosis.

 

Ketones are an intermediate product of fat breakdown, and can serve as an

alternate source of energy to glucose. Ketosis is characterized by a

measurable increase of ketones in the bloodstream, and occurs during

fasting and when carbohydrate intake is very low. There is nothing

mystical, nor dangerous, about ketosis--it merely indicates a heightened

state of fat-burning, something most people would assume to be a positive

development.

 

Critics of low carbohydrate diets, however, attempt to instill fear among

those not familiar with basic biochemistry by likening dietary-induced

ketosis with ketoacidosis. The latter occurs when diabetics produce high

levels of ketones in the presence of elevated blood sugar levels.

Insufficient insulin means this elevated blood sugar cannot be delivered to

the cells for energy. Consequently, ketones must be formed as an alternate

energy source.

 

Ketone bodies are slightly acidic, and excessive levels can decrease the

blood's pH. Under normal circumstances the body can efficiently buffer

against any decrease in pH, but in diabetics the body is often unable to

efficiently cope with the increased acid load and ketoacidosis occurs,

increasing the acidity of the blood. Needless to say, this complication of

diabetes--a condition most often induced by high consumption of refined

carbohydrates--has nothing to do with the benign ketosis induced by very

low-carbohydrate diets.

 

Having said that, I must state, as I have done many times before, that I am

not a big fan of ketogenic diets. The undeniable reality is that their

extremely low carbohydrate content leaves many people feeling tired,

irritable, and mentally foggy. They can also cause a phenomenon known as

'ketosis breath'; in some people this manifests itself as a rather neutral

metallic odor and in others as plain old bad breath. These effects are not

seen with non-ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets, so anyone who experiences

them after trying a ketogenic regimen should gradually bump up their carb

intake until they disappear.

 

Folks like Ornish do not appear to comprehend the difference between

high-protein, ketogenic and non-ketogenic low-carb diets--or maybe they do,

but neglect to relay the distinction to their readers. While it might be

easier to sell their cherished brand of vegetarianism by issuing

scare-mongering generalizations about meat-rich eating plans, they are not

doing any favors to those who are seeking factual nutrition information

free of partisan histrionics.

 

Spewing BS on PBS

 

In the PBS interview, Ornish claimed that research has shown diets like

Atkins to worsen blood flow to the heart. His source for this frightening

allegation? None other than Nebraska's Dr. Richard Fleming, the same Dr.

Richard Fleming who came under attack earlier this year after he obtained

the late Dr. Atkins' confidential death report under dubious circumstances

and then passed it onto to his publicity-hungry associates at the PCRM.

 

Like Ornish, Fleming is an outspoken critic of high-protein diets. Fleming

also appears to have a special knack for obtaining negative findings about

these regimens that no other researcher has ever been able to duplicate. In

2002, for instance, he presented the only published study to have ever

found greater weight loss in individuals randomized to follow a

high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet than those following a low carbohydrate

diet. I have written at length elsewhere why this study is unlikely to be

worth the paper it is written on.

 

The validity of Fleming's research that allegedly shows high-protein diets

to impede blood flow to the heart is also extremely doubtful.

 

In August 2000, the journal Angiology published the results of an

eight-month study by Fleming in which nineteen people " without prior

history of documented heart disease " were assigned to a multi-faceted drug

and dietary intervention, the aim of which was to halt the progression of

atherosclerosis. Fleming wrote that, " …despite our best efforts, patients

within the study subgrouped themselves unintentionally with three

individuals deciding to go on a high-protein diet for varying periods of

time during these 8 months. " (25)

 

According to Fleming, those following his 15% protein, 70% carbohydrate,

and 15% fat diet experienced reductions in homocysteine, triglycerides, and

C-reactive protein (CRP), while the disobedient on-again, off-again

high-protein dieters allegedly experienced an increase in all these

variables. Furthermore, while the low-fat dieters reportedly experienced a

regression of coronary artery disease (determined by echocardiography and

myocardial perfusion imaging), the intermittent high-protein dieters

allegedly experienced continued progression of atherosclerosis.

 

In October 2000, Fleming presented another paper reporting the twelve-month

results of the same study. In this new paper, the study group had suddenly

expanded to twenty-six individuals, with seven additional patients

surfacing in the high-protein group. Why these additional high-protein

dieters were never mentioned in the earlier paper was not explained,

despite the claim that all twenty-six were followed for one year. Again,

the hapless high-protein dieters were reported to fare much worse than the

low-fat group; the low-fat dieters were claimed to have reduced the extent

and severity of their atherosclerosis, while the high-protein group

allegedly experienced a worsening of these variables.(26)

 

According to Fleming, increased CRP levels in the high-protein group were

indicative of increased inflammatory activity, while the increase in

homocysteine levels " …no doubt reflects an increased dietary loading of

protein (methionine) and possibly increased physiologic stress " . Exactly

what Fleming means by the term " physiologic stress " , and why a high-protein

diet would cause an increase in this vague and all-encompassing syndrome,

is anyone's guess.

 

His assertion that increased dietary methionine increases blood

homocysteine levels is pure bunk; researchers have shown that dietary

methionine has no effect upon homocysteine in humans.(27) What does raise

homocysteine levels is deficient levels of vitamins B6, B12, and folic acid.

 

The richest source of B6 and B12 is meat (and organ meats in the case of

folic acid). Not surprisingly, researchers have repeatedly found that

omnivores display lower homocysteine levels than vegetarians.(28-30)

 

As for his alleged finding of increased CRP levels among the high-protein

dieters, other researchers comparing high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets

with low-fat diets have found no difference in CRP levels at maintenance

calorie intakes, and greater reductions on low-carbohydrate diets at

restricted calorie intakes.(31,32)

 

It is interesting to note that Fleming claims the renegade subjects went on

and off the high-protein diet during his study, which effectively means

they were alternately following multiple dietary patterns. Despite this,

Fleming ascribes the blame for the alleged harmful changes solely to

high-protein dieting.

 

Until someone who is not a fervent critic of high-protein and

low-carbohydrate diets can replicate Fleming's extremely questionable

findings, the Omaha cardiologist's research should not be cited as 'proof'

that these diets are harmful.

 

It is most revealing that Ornish cites Fleming's doubtful research every

chance he gets, but remains silent on the multitude of studies that totally

contradict the latter's unusual findings.

 

Why does anyone listen to this guy?

 

According to the Center for Consumer Freedom, Ornish sits on the advisory

board of the PCRM, which in reality is little more than a medical front for

the extreme animal rights group PETA.

 

PETA has given documented financial aid to individuals and organizations

involved in green terrorism, including Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty

(SHAC), a subset of the terrorist Animal Liberation Front. SHAC members

have bombed cars and office buildings, threatened the lives of innocent

Americans, and beaten at least one medical researcher while his family

watched in horror.

 

A February 23, 2004 Newsweek article reported that PCRM president Neal

Barnard co-signed a series of intimidating letters in 2001 with SHAC

president Kevin Jonas, who has subsequently been indicted for acts of

terrorism. Newsweek reported that Barnard also chairs the PETA Foundation,

and that PCRM spokesperson Jerry Vlasak recently encouraged activists to

murder doctors whose clinical disease research puts them at odds with the

animal rights movement

 

Given that so much of Ornish's rantings appear to be more firmly based in

fantasy than scientific reality, and his connections to the extremist PCRM,

one might wonder how he has come to be so widely quoted in the media, and

why he is featured so prominently on a respected web site like WebMD.

 

That question can be at least partially answered by Ornish's frequent

references to his own Lifestyle Heart Trial, the results of which have been

published in respected publications like The Lancet and the Journal of the

American Medical Association.

 

The fact that Ornish has conducted what, on the surface, appears to be a

successful intervention trial, and had the results of that trial reported

in the aforementioned journals, helps him attain an air of credibility

among many of his conservative medical colleagues that would otherwise

prove to be very elusive for such a fanatical proponent of vegetarianism.

As a result, he has been able to win the ear of medical professionals,

media outlets, and even a sizable segment of the general population.

 

It's a pity that the members of these groups have not more closely

scrutinized Ornish's published papers; if they had, they would quickly

realize that Ornish's research fails to support most of his very public claims.

 

The Lifestyle Heart Trial

 

In a 1990 issue of The Lancet, Ornish and several of his colleagues

published the one-year results of the Lifestyle Heart Trial, which

initially involved forty-eight patients with coronary artery disease (as

determined by quantitative coronary arteriography).(33) Twenty-eight of

these had been randomized to follow a multi-faceted intervention program

that included the following:

 

-a minimum of three hours' exercise per week.

 

-stress management tactics for at least one hour every day. These included

stretching, breathing techniques, meditation, progressive relaxation, and

imagery.

 

-a vegetarian diet that contained around 10% of calories as fat, 15-20%

protein, and 70-75% carbohydrates. The diet included fruits, vegetables,

grains, legumes, and soybean products without caloric restriction. The only

animal products allowed were egg whites and one cup of non-fat milk or yogurt.

 

-twice weekly group support sessions.

 

Those in the control group were not asked to make any diet or lifestyle

changes, although they were free to do so if they wished.

 

At the start of the study and after 12 months, each patient was to undergo

a coronary arteriogram to determine whether advanced arterial plaques had

progressed, regressed or remained unchanged.

 

After one year, the researchers reported that 82% of those in the

experimental group had experienced regression of arterial plaque, compared

to only 42% of those in the control group. The experimental group subjects

also experienced significantly less chest pain.

 

Ornish has repeatedly inferred that these improvements underscore the value

of a low-fat, vegetarian diet.

 

Actually, they do no such thing.

 

Control your variables

 

One of the most basic rules of science is to control all possible

variables. The experimental group in the Lifestyle Heart Trial underwent

multiple interventions; exercise, stress management, and a multitude of

dietary modifications. Average bodyweight also decreased in the treatment

group during the study, but remained unchanged in the control group.

 

The treatment group therefore differed in several ways to the control group.

 

Ornish is justified in claiming that his collective assortment of

treatments reduced chest pain and increased the incidence of

arteriographically-determined coronary plaque regression. However, he can

in no way claim that fat restriction or the avoidance of meat was a

contributing factor--such a claim is precluded by the multi-faceted nature

of his intervention program.

 

Exercise, weight loss, and plant-based antioxidants have all been shown to

significantly improve arterial function and/or structure--any of these

factors, either alone or in combination with each other, could easily

account for the changes observed.(34-38) No properly-controlled study has

ever shown that drastically reducing fat intake or eliminating meat

consumption will bring about such improvements.

 

Before Ornish proclaims to the world that restricting fat and avoiding meat

will reduce the incidence of heart disease, he--or preferably some more

neutral party--should conduct properly-controlled trials that actually

demonstrate this contention. In other words, trials in which;

 

-two groups eat a diet identical in every respect except that one derives

its protein content primarily from meat, the other from plant foods;

 

-both groups eat a diet identical in every respect except that one is much

lower in fat (especially animal fat) than the other.

 

Until such trials are conducted, Ornish and his like-minded vegetarian

colleagues should refrain from slandering meat and animal fat. To do so

without any properly-controlled evidence to fall back on is to show a

complete disregard for the scientific method.

 

Do Ornish's interventions actually save lives?

 

When all is said and done, the most telling data in any intervention study

is the survival rate of the control and treatment groups. It's all well and

good to lavish praise on a treatment's ability to lower chest pain, improve

angiogram results, and even reduce the incidence of cardiac events, but

these are all outcomes whose diagnosis is open to a substantial amount of

subjective interpretation. Doctors can argue about the interpretation of

test results and the necessity of surgery until the cows come home, but

death is final and indisputable.

 

So while I am not real keen on the whole idea of dying, I have to admit

that death is a great yardstick by which to judge the efficacy of an

intervention--especially one that is highly-touted for its alleged

life-saving qualities.

 

In 1998, the Journal of the American Medical Association published the

five-year follow-up data for the Lifestyle Heart Trial.(39) While the

experimental group experienced a significantly reduced overall incidence of

cardiac events (a classification that included angioplasty, bypass surgery,

heart attack, and hospitalization for any cardiac cause), the treatment

group actually experienced one more death than the control group (two

people in the intervention group died compared to one person in the control

group).

 

According to Ornish, one of the treatment group deaths was in a participant

who had stopped following the intervention. Another intervention subject

reportedly got a little too enthusiastic whilst exercising, exceeding his

prescribed target heart rate with fatal consequences.

 

Let's give Ornish the benefit of the doubt and ascribe the unfavorable

mortality outcome in the small Lifestyle Heart Trial to unfortunate

circumstances. Let us instead look to a larger study by Ornish and his

colleagues to see if his treatment program has demonstrated any ability to

actually save lives.

 

The Multicenter Lifestyle Demonstration Project

 

The Multicenter Lifestyle Demonstration Project sought to apply the

intervention in Ornish's original trial to a larger group of patients

recruited from clinics across the US.(40) Practitioners from eight medical

centers around the country were trained in all aspects of the Lifestyle

program, which they proceeded to administer to patients with coronary

artery disease. The study was not a randomized, controlled trial; instead,

outcomes in the 194 patients who completed the intervention were compared

with 139 patients who did not take part in the Lifestyle program.

 

After 3 years, there were no significant differences in cardiac event rates

nor mortality between patients in the intervention and control groups. The

number of cardiac events per patient year of follow-up when comparing the

experimental group with the control group was as follows: 0.012 versus

0.012 for myocardial infarction, 0.014 versus 0.006 for stroke, 0.006

versus 0.012 for non-cardiac deaths, and 0.014 versus 0.012 for cardiac

deaths (none of the differences were statistically significant).

 

To be fair, there is always the possibility that the treatment group fell

prey to unfavorable confounding factors. The treatment subjects reportedly

had a higher incidence of previous myocardial infarction and a longer

history of coronary disease, although the angiographic severity of artery

disease was similar between the two groups. Patients in the experimental

group were required not to have undergone coronary artery bypass grafting

(CABG) within six weeks or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty

(PTCA) within 6 months of the start of the study, while all the control

subjects had recently undergone either of these procedures. While some

might argue that the higher incidence of surgery may have favorably

affected survival in the control group, the longevity benefits of

revascularization procedures are highly questionable; most trials have

shown no benefit for CABG or PTCA when compared to standard medical

therapy.(41)

 

In their favor, the intervention participants lost weight and improved

their exercise tolerance. No corresponding data were given for the control

group, but given the absence of the intense counseling afforded to the

intervention group, it is unlikely that the former would have experienced

such changes--a contention supported by the original Lifestyle trial.

 

Whether confounding factors acted in favor of the treatment group, the

controls, or neither, is nigh impossible to ascertain with any certainty.

Regardless, the fact remains that there currently does not exist any hard

published data to show that Ornish's Lifestyle program--touted as " The Only

System Scientifically Proven to Reverse Heart Disease Without Drugs or

Surgery " (42)--can actually save even a single life.

 

In contrast, trials involving subjects following omnivorous diets who were

instructed to exercise, take fish oil supplements, or consume more fish

and/or fruits and vegetables, have produced marked reductions in cardiac

and overall mortality. The Lyon Diet Heart Study, for example, found that a

Mediterranean-style diet featuring increased omega-3 intake (from both fish

and plant sources) and increased fruit and vegetable intake produced a

whopping 81% reduction in coronary mortality and a 60% decrease in overall

mortality.(43) The participants of the Lyon study were followed for an

average of 2.25 years.

 

In the Diet and Reinfarction Trial, which ran for only two years, men who

were instructed to eat more fish slashed their risk of CHD and overall

mortality by a third.(44) The results of projects such as the Lyon Diet

Heart Study and DART trial should be kept firmly in mind when assessing the

exuberant but unfounded claims of outspoken vegetarian advocates like Ornish.

 

Show us the data…

 

It is most ironic that when the PBS interviewer asked Ornish about the

famous What if it's all been a big fat lie? article by Gary Taubes (New

York Times Magazine, July 7, 2002), Ornish claimed it was based on purely

circumstantial evidence and challenged Taubes to " show me the data " .

 

If only more people asked the same of Dean Ornish…