|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "Natural" (plant-based) Health Solutions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
No, standard clinicians are NOT prescribing plantbased diets, no they are not. You are starting to rant. Calm down. Mainstream clinicians advise their patients to eat less saturated fat, and take on fewer calories. Cross did exactly that and his health improved. This is no surprise.
They prescribe meds and treat diet as an adjunct This is simply false. There are thousands of professional dietitians around the world who practise dietary interventions on a daily basis. Numerous maladies are treated through diet. There is nothing remarkable or "alternative" about this.
and it's not anything like the diets I'm talking about. The diets you recommend are low in saturated fats, high in fruit and veg, low in refined carb's, and high in fibre. That is exactly what your mainstream doctor would recommend. That these fad diets go way beyond what doctors recommend is a flaw, not a badge of merit.
Maybe you are turning a lot of people away from this idea and that's too bad. I certainly hope that I might dissuade people from thinking that they can treat their cancerous tumours with carrot juice. I would not wish to dissuade anyone from improving their diet. I would simply urge them to stick to scientifically plausible, evidence-based regimes which they can actually manage long-term, rather than wasting their efforts pursuing pointlessly punishing quack regimes.
Your stickler mentality doesn't convince me of much though. Your apparent reluctance to engage with any form of evidence is very persuasive either. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Re Esselstyn's study;
Seventeen followed it and had no heart problems for twelve years... Not quite true, even as per Esselstyn's own accounts, although it has to be said that Esselstyn seems to have trouble keeping his accounts consistent in the first place. In "Forks Over Knives" he says he had twenty-four patients. In the write-up of the study that Esselstyn presents on his website, it is twenty-two patients, five of whom dropped out completely, with a further six failing to keep up with reporting their results, leaving him with just eleven patients. This drop-out rate is troubling; the patients who drop out of studies tend to be those for whom the regime isn't working. By leaving only those patients who improved, the drop-out rate greatly distorts the results. When you say "no heart trouble" it's true that none of the patients who followed Esselstyn's diet had no further coronary events, but Esselstyn himself notes that some of their lesions got worse;
quote: A Strategy to Arrest and Reverse Coronary Artery Disease: A 5-Year Longitudinal Study of a Single Physician's PracticeCaldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr, MD; Stephen G. Ellis, MD; Sharon V. Medendorp, MPH; and Timothy D. Crowe Welcome heartattackproof.com - BlueHost.com So whilst they weren't having heart attacks, they were not completely untroubled. It's also worth noting that when he first started his study Esselstyn was content to include small amounts of dairy. Now he says to eliminate all dairy. He seems to have changed numerous parameters of his diet over the years. This is incredibly bad form. You can't change the test parameters half-way through a test. That would invalidate the test, as ought to be obvious. So all told, we have a study with a pathetically small sample size, no control group, inadequate and inconsistent reporting and multiple changes in procedure during the test period. This is junk science. Esselstyn may well be sincere and well-meaning, but he is a terrible researcher.
If it worked he couldn't very well object. But I'm thinking of someone else doing the study. Somebody competent perhaps.
Improvements over twelve years would not be the result of that sort of surgery in people whose diet was unchanged, or even when the diet was minimally modified. He didn't bother to include a control group, so how can we know? Besides, the important comparison is between Esselstyn's diet and a less stringent healthy diet. Comparing Esselstyn's diet only against the random awful diets his patients had before is meaningless. For example, Evelyn Oswick, who apparently appears in "Forks Over Knives", clearly had an appalling diet;
quote: All that this woman's experience demonstrates is that Esselstyn's diet is an improvement over a primarily doughnut and gravy based diet. Forgive me, but that is not an astonishing revelation.
Yes, because that's the aim of all this dietary treatment and in case after case you see them getting off their meds as the diet frees them of the need for them. It just wasn't specifically mentioned for this experiment. It wasn't mentioned because it's not true. It's just some silliness you made up for yourself. All Esseystyn's patients were on statins.
quote: So not diet alone. Drugs too. No mention of discontinuation. So basically, this is a terrible study and your faith in it is misplaced. It might be interesting to see it replicated, but it would have to be done with a much larger sample group, a proper control group, follow-up on drop-outs and, most of all, a consistent regime to test, rather than constant modification. Until then, I really don't see that there's any meat on these bones. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
And how often does that mainstream diet radically change the patient's health for the better? I don't really know how to respond to that, other than resorting to an outbreak of Rrhain-esque blinking. Do you seriously doubt that a low-fat calorie controlled diet can improve health? To keep score; Leprechauns - Plausible, probably demons. Improved health through diet - Suddenly implausible, despite the fact that that is exactly what you've been promoting throughout this thread. It seems that when internet videos tell you something, you believe it wholeheartedly, but when actual doctors are involved, you refuse to believe even the most obvious facts. Scepticism; you're doing it wrong.
No, Cross specifically benefited from the nutritive value of the foods he was taking in. Or he simply improved through swapping his diet of deep-fried lard for a healthier diet with more fruit and veg, with his specific dietary strictures adding little or nothing to what amounts to a low fat calorie controlled diet. Without a control group or a sample size greater than just one dude, there is no way to know.
Sure they "treat" them but they have no expectation of curing them, or even getting them off their meds; and they aren't reporting the radical cures of the totally plant-based regimes. Not a single one of Esselstyn's patients was cured. They all still had coronary artery disease. So no cure there.
Funny they don't cure anything then while the radical alternative diets do make that claim, They make that claim, but I'm still waiting to see some actual evidence of that. Anyone can make claims...
The athletes who are on such diets are maybe the best evidence since they claim actual improvement in their strength and stamina and general performance. They claim... Athletes actually tend towards extreme gullibility with regards to anything that claims to aid their performance. The craze for the mediaeval practise of cupping that swept through the Rio Olympics attests to that. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Hi Phat,
Here is a talk that he once had. Read it if you dare, and tell me that his science is not on point. Okay. His science is not on point. You did ask. Seriously though, this talk is packed with nonsense. I read as far as this before I lost the will to live;
quote: That is absolutely moronic. We eat carbohydrates because most foods contain them. Attempt to cut out all carbohydrates for any length of time and you will die. And as for the conspiracy theory angle, that is moronic and disgusting. Rosedale is fear-mongering. And seriously, some of the inane drivel in this thing...
quote: What utter bullshit! Does Rosedale think that plants are not multi-celled organisms? He seems to imply that here. Cyanobacteria are not plants. Rosedale is out by about three billion years.
quote: Yeah, about 8.5 billion years later! Even if we assume that what he's trying to say is that multicellularity emerged after the oxygenation of the atmosphere, he is still talking about a gap of around 1 billion years. But that doesn't quite fit the narrative he's trying to sell.
quote: Rubbish. Earth's atmosphere contained no free oxygen, but there was oxygen, albeit in compound. Apparently Rosedale's research on this subject didn't run as deep as Wikipedia;
quote: Geological history of oxygen - Wikipedia And what has this garbled retelling of the history of oxygen got to do with anything anyway? His only point in raising it appears to be that... oxygen is highly reactive... which we knew. His talk is full of stuff like this; irrelevant, inaccurate asides that serve to do little beyond bamboozling the audience. And this was originally not presented in written form remember, this was a talk, so his audience would not have been able to fact-check this rubbish on the fly. This is the Gish gallop in full swing. Some of Rosedale's claims are out-and-out lies. Take this for example;
quote: For cancer reduction there is nothing? That is simply a lie. And let me be clear, it is not an error or a difference of opinion. Rosedale did not misspeak. He is lying. There are numerous drugs that reduce the risk of cancer recurrence. Rosedale cannot possibly be so ignorant as to be unaware of this. He is lying. Worse, he is deliberately telling a lie that endangers peoples' lives. To those participants who value the supposed good character of their alt-med gurus, I leave you to draw your own conclusions as to what this behaviour says about Rosedale's character. Beyond Rosedale's general bad science, I see only a string of meaningless case studies, some of which are astoundingly vague. What exactly are we meant to conclude from this little parable?
quote: That's it! As far as I can tell, that's all there is on that "case". That isn't a "case history". It doesn't even amount to a vague synopsis. He doesn't even say whether this woman actually got breast cancer or not! This is truly pathetic stuff.
quote: What science? There is no science here. Rosedale has precisely zero clinical research to back up his claims. His recommendations are entirely unsupported. He projects an aura of confidence but the truth is that he's running with a hunch. It may be a well-informed and even plausible hunch, but there's no evidence here.
Yes, I know it is on Mercolas website No reputable clinician would partner with a fraud like Mercola.
but Rosedale himself is not selling anything. Apart from his book. And his e-book. But worry not!
quote: In the case of my own health, I will no longer listen to my Endocrinologist who does nothing for me but prescribe more insulin, Trulicity, and statin lowering drugs. That sounds like a dangerous gamble to me and I am concerned to hear you say that. Despite the fear-mongering efforts of Dr Rosedale, statins have well-proven beneficial effects. I would hate to see you place your health in jeopardy on the basis of questionable advice. If it's a second opinion you're after, I recommend seeking a reputable physician who's willing to talk nutrition with you. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Isn't it rather amazing that ANY got better? I thought it was pretty standard knowledge that if the diet isn't radically changed the plaque will just go on building up even after bypass surgery. It is pretty standard knowledge that poor diet exacerbates artery disease. The point is that a study like this really requires at two control groups; one with no intervention and one with an improved diet, just not Esselstyn's uber-strict diet. That would be the only way to test if all of Esselstyn's extreme protocols are really necessary or if just any sensible diet could have done as well.
The man who was seen by Lederman in "Forks over Knives" got off most of his meds. None of Esselstyn's patients seem to have dropped their med's. That was not the point of the study.
Yes it wasn't a very good study, (though to be fair he didn't even really present it as a study, *AHEM*
quote: And by the way, if the standard doctor-prescribed diet changes hadn't already helped these people doesn't that show the inadequacy of that diet? They weren't following any doctor-prescribed diet. That one woman was following a doughnut and gravy based diet. Diets only work if you follow them.
Or even the fact that doctors really don't know much about nutrition? I quite agree that doctors typically don'y know enough about nutrition and that more could and should be done to integrate nutrition into everyday practise. When I say that nutrition is already part of medical science, I mean that nutrition is a standard part of our scientific understanding. How well that understanding is applied in clinical practise is a slightly different issue. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Its not just Rosedales idea. Oh no. There are reputable people working on diet-based approaches to treating diabetes. I don't dispute that and never have.
There are reputable studies that tote the effectiveness of reduced insulin and low carb diets fior diabetics. Did you even read the study you cite? None of those patients were even on insulin. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Come argue with me in my thread. There's nothing to argue. Idon't dispute that diabetes can be treated by diet.
I have science on my side regarding the approach to tackling Type II Diabetes, unless you can find information which disproves Dr.Jason Fung---which I doubt you will find. You haven't presented anything to refute. I don't argue bare links or Youtube videos.
Just because someone sells books does not automatically qualify them as being a quack. I didn't say it did. You claimed, quite wrongly, that Rosedale wasn't selling anything. I pointed out that he was and that he is planning on re-entering the supplement industry.
Take this over here at Health 4 Life~The Science Behind Consumption and I again challenge you to refute dr.Fung. You haven't presented anything to refute. What do you want me to say? Fung seems more sensible than Rosdale, sure.
Unlike Mercola, Dr.Fung is an actual practicing Doctor. I have no idea whether he practises or not, but Mercola is a qualified osteopathic doctor for whatever that's worth. He is still a quack. I have no opinion on Fung.
You got me a little on Rosedale, but I still believe his science is sound---apart from his ignorance in his talk which you found. This is a man who will lie to your face and tell you that there are no drugs to reduce cancer risk when in fact there are many such drugs. Lies are not sound science. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024