The Dietary Delusions of Dean Ornish: Why Ornish's writings are far closer to science fiction than science.

[Guest guest]

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…

 

 

References

 

1. Missmer SA, et al. Meat and dairy food consumption and breast cancer:

a pooled analysis of cohort stduies. International Journal of

Epidemiology, 2002; 31: 78-85.

 

2. Snowdon D et al. Diet, obesity, and the risk of fatal prostate

cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology, 1984; 120: 244-250.

 

3. Giovannucci E et al. A prospective study of dietary fat and risk of

prostate cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1993; 85:

1571-1579.

 

4. Le Marchand L, et al. Animal fat consumption and prostate cancer: a

prospective study in Hawaii. Epidemiology, 1994 May;5(3):276-82.

 

5. Gann PH, et al. Prospective study of plasma fatty acids and risk of

prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994 Feb 16;86(4):281-6.

 

6. Schuurman A, et al. Animal products, calcium and protein and prostate

cancer risk in The Netherlands Cohort Study. British Journal of Cancer,

1999; 80 (7): 1107-1113.

 

7. Key TJ, et al. Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed

findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies. Am. J.

Clinical Nutrition, September 1, 1999; 70(3): 516S - 524.

 

8. Michaud DS, et al. A prospective study on intake of animal products

and risk of prostate cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 2001 Aug;12(6):557-67.

 

9. Mills PK, et al. Cohort study of diet, lifestyle, and prostate cancer

in Adventist men. Cancer. 1989 Aug 1;64(3):598-604.

 

10. Severson RK, et al. A prospective study of demographics, diet, and

prostate cancer among men of Japanese ancestry in Hawaii. Cancer Res.

1989 Apr 1;49(7):1857-60.

 

11. Hsing AW, et al. Diet, tobacco use, and fatal prostate cancer:

results from the Lutheran Brotherhood Cohort Study. Cancer Res. 1990 Nov

1;50(21):6836-40.

 

12. Rohan TE, et al. Dietary factors and risk of prostate cancer: a

case-control study in Ontario, Canada. Cancer Causes & Control, 1995

Mar; 6 (2): 145-54.

 

13. Gronberg H, et al. Total food consumption and body mass index in

relation to prostate cancer risk: a case-control study in Sweden with

prospectively collected exposure data. J Urol. 1996 Mar; 155 (3): 969-74.

 

14. Hu FB, et al. Dietary protein and risk of ischemic heart disease in

women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Aug, 1999; 70 (2): 221-227.

 

15. Tanaka H, et al. Secular trends in mortality for cerebrovascular

disease in Japan, 1960-1979. Stroke, 1982; 13: 574-581.

 

16. Nakayama C, et al. A 15.5-Year Follow-up Study of Stroke in a

Japanese Provincial City: The Shibata Study. Stroke, Jan 1, 1997; 28(1):

45-52.

 

17. Iso H, et al. Fat and protein intakes and risk of intraparenchymal

hemorrhage among middle-aged Japanese. American Journal of Epidemiology,

Jan 1, 2003; 157 (1): 32-39.

 

18. Abbott RD, et al. Effect of dietary calcium and milk consumption on

risk of thromboembolic stroke in older middle-aged men: The Honolulu

Heart Program. Stroke, May 1996; 27: 813 - 818.

 

19. Sauvaget C, et al. Intake of animal products and stroke mortality in

the Hiroshima/Nagasaki Life Span Study. International Journal of

Epidemiology, Aug 1, 2003; 32 (4): 536-543.

 

20. Sauvaget C, et al. Animal Protein, Animal Fat, and Cholesterol

Intakes and Risk of Cerebral Infarction Mortality in the Adult Health

Study. Stroke, 2004; 35: 1531.

 

21. Poortmans JR, Dellalieux O. Do regular high protein diets have

potential health risks on kidney function in athletes? International

Journal of Sports Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, Mar. 2000; 10 (1):

28-38.

 

22. Blum M, et al. Protein Intake and Kidney Function in Humans: Its

Effect on Normal Aging. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1989; 149 (1):

211-212.

 

23. Facchini FS, Saylor KL. A Low-Iron-Available, Polyphenol-Enriched,

Carbohydrate-Restricted Diet to Slow Progression of Diabetic

Nephropathy. Diabetes, 2003; 52 (5): 1204-1209.

 

24. Kerstetter, et al. Low protein intake: The impact on calcium and

bone homeostasis in humans. Journal of Nutrition, 2003; 133: 855S-861S.

 

25. Fleming RM. The effect of high-protein diets on coronary blood flow.

Angiology, Oct, 2000; 51 (10): 817-826.

 

26. Fleming RM. Reversing heart disease in the new millennium--the

Fleming unified theory. Angiology, Aug, 2000; 51 (8): 617-629.

 

27. Haulrik N, et al. Effect of protein and methionine intakes on plasma

homocysteine concentrations: a 6-mo randomized controlled trial in

overweight subjects. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Dec, 2002;

76 (6): 1202-1206.

 

28. Mann NJ, et al. The effect of diet on plasma homocysteine

concentrations in healthy male subjects. European Journal of Clinical

Nutrition, Nov, 1999; 53 (11): 895-899.

 

29. Herrmann W, et al. Total homocysteine, vitamin B(12), and total

antioxidant status in vegetarians. Clinical Chemistry, Jun, 2001; 47

(6): 1094-1101.

 

30. Obeid R, et al. The impact of vegetarianism on some haematological

parameters. European Journal of Haematology, Nov-Dec, 2002; 69 (5-6):

275-279.

 

31. Volek JS, et al. An isoenergetic very low carbohydrate diet improves

serum HDL cholesterol and triacylglycerol concentrations, the total

cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio and postprandial pipemic responses

compared with a low fat diet in normal weight, normolipidemic women.

Journal of Nutrition, Sep, 2003; 133(9): 2756-61.

 

32. O'Brien KD, et al. Greater reduction in inflammatory markers with a

low carbohydrate diet than with a calorically-matched, low fat diet.

Circulation, Nov 5, 2002; 106 (19, Suppl. II): II-564.

 

33. Ornish D, et al. Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart

disease? The Lifestyle Heart Trial. Lancet, Jul 21, 1990; 336 (8708):

129-133.

 

34. Vona M, et al. Impact of physical training and detraining on

endothelium-dependent vasodilation in patients with recent acute

myocardial infarction. American Heart Journal, Jun, 2004; 147 (6):

1039-1046.

 

35. Watts K, et al. Exercise training normalizes vascular dysfunction

and improves central adiposity in obese adolescents. Journal of the

American College of Cardiology, May 19, 2004; 43 (10): 1823-1827.

 

36. Karason K, et al. Weight loss and progression of early

atherosclerosis in the carotid artery: a four-year controlled study of

obese subjects. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic

Disorders, Sep, 1999; 23 (9): 948-956.

 

37. Raitakari M, et al. Weight reduction with very-low-caloric diet and

endothelial function in overweight adults: role of plasma glucose.

Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, Jan, 2004; 24 (1):

124-128.

 

38. Maron DJ. Flavonoids for reduction of atherosclerotic risk. Current

Atherosclerosis Reports, Jan, 2004; 6 (1): 73-78.

 

39. Ornish D, et al. Intensive lifestyle changes for reversal of

coronary heart disease. Journal of the American Medical Association, Dec

16, 1998; 280 (23): 2001-2007.

 

40. Koertge J, et al. Improvement in medical risk factors and quality of

life in women and men with coronary artery disease in the Multicenter

Lifestyle Demonstration Project. American Journal of Cardiology, Jun 1,

2003; 91 (11): 1316-1322.

 

41. Hueb W, et al. The medicine, angioplasty, or surgery study

(MASS-II): a randomized, controlled clinical trial of three therapeutic

strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease: one-year results.

Journal of the American College of Cardiology, May 19, 2004; 43 (10):

1743-1751.

 

42. Ornish D. Dr. Dean Ornish's Program for Reversing Heart Disease: The

Only System Scientifically Proven to Reverse Heart Disease Without Drugs

or Surgery. Ivy Books, 1995.

 

43. De Lorgeril M, et al. Mediterranean alpha-linolenic acid-rich diet

in secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Lancet, 1994; 343:

1454-1459.

 

44. Burr ML, et al. Effects of changes in fat, fish, and fibre intakes

on death and myocardial reinfarction: diet and reinfarction trial

(DART). Lancet, 1989; 2: 757-761.

 

Anthony Colpo is an independent researcher and certified fitness

consultant with 20 years' experience in the physical conditioning arena.

To contact: contact (Please note: Reader feedback is

always welcome, but please read TheOmnivore.com Correspondence Policy

before writing).

 

This article is presented for information purposes only and is not

intended as medical advice. Persons with medical conditions should

institute dietary changes whilst being monitored by a competent medical

practitioner.