A good portion of people who come to the Esselstyn way of eating, do so to hopefully "reverse" their cardiovascular disease. The name of this study is "A Way to Reverse CAD"
We are told that 39 participants (22%) had documented reversal of CAD. But we are given zero data or information about those patients. What was the average reversal?
How many of those patient were on statins as well as the diet?
We don't have even the most basic definition of how "reversal" is defined for that 22%.
My gosh, the name of the study is about "reversal"
Yet we are given no data at all similar to that seen in both the Ornish studies. At least Ornish gave precise percentage reversals in the arteries with blockages. Average reversal for tertiles of aherence in percentage terms.
Something we could analyze in terms of effectiveness.
Something that could be measured.
In this study all we are told is that there was reversal in 22%, with no further information. Not even a clear definition of the word "reversal".
Something is very wrong with that. Many Esselstyn followers are in it for the long haul. Sure, its nice to know there were less cardiac events over the 3.7 years, but we're looking for a process lasting 20 or more years into the future.
What the heck does reversal mean if you don't define it and don't give any data about those who got reversal.
Totally disappointed in the details, apparently chosen to be omitted. As though the reader, the patient, will just blindly accept the "22% reversal" claim with no data given.
Does anyone have knowledge of if that data will ever be released, or a definition of "reversal" given?
We are told that 39 participants (22%) had documented reversal of CAD. But we are given zero data or information about those patients. What was the average reversal? How many of those patient were on statins as well as the diet? We don't have even the most basic definition of how "reversal" is defined for that 22%.
My gosh, the name of the study is about "reversal" Yet we are given no data at all similar to that seen in both the Ornish studies. At least Ornish gave precise percentage reversals in the arteries with blockages. Average reversal for tertiles of aherence in percentage terms. Something we could analyze in terms of effectiveness. Something that could be measured. In this study all we are told is that there was reversal in 22%, with no further information. Not even a clear definition of the word "reversal".
Something is very wrong with that. Many Esselstyn followers are in it for the long haul. Sure, its nice to know there were less cardiac events over the 3.7 years, but we're looking for a process lasting 20 or more years into the future. What the heck does reversal mean if you don't define it and don't give any data about those who got reversal.
Totally disappointed in the details, apparently chosen to be omitted. As though the reader, the patient, will just blindly accept the "22% reversal" claim with no data given.
Does anyone have knowledge of if that data will ever be released, or a definition of "reversal" given?