Dr Dean Ornisch

I've always wondered about these types of programs, and the claims they make, to the effect that they've actually reduced coronary blockages, and that they can reduce risk for prostate and other cancers. I've always been a skeptic when I see such claims.
But I ran across the fact that Dr Ornisch program (at the sites he has set up across the country) which costs $7200, is covered by Medicare. That caught my attention. While he does not have any sites near me, I was interested enough to buy his book, "Program for Reversing Heart Disease" and I'm about a third of the way thru it. It's not just about diet, and exercise, but also about retraining your mind to reduce stress.

It would seem to me, from what I've read, that what he expounds, could be beneficial to PC patients as well. Just using logic, not science. I did see some published studies on his program on Pubmed.gov. But they were all focused on Heart Disease.

The diet part of his program is tough to follow, it's pretty much Vegan. I'm very motivated right now, but not sure if I could do it to the letter.

I'm curious if anyone's ever gone on his program, live or thru the book on their own. Or any other thoughts anyone has.

Pratoman,

It seems to me that all the diets that have been around for many years have elements in them that are useful. Some elements of the Ornish Diet have been discounted due to new, solid studies on good fats and protein, and as you say, it's a drastic diet. The best diet is the one that works for you. I hope you find something that will reverse your circulatory issues. The best news is that (1) you are already at a healthy weight and eat nutritious food (2) you have stents in place that open up the the two (50% and 80%) narrowed arteries. Take care and hang in there and let us know your progress....Tim

Tim , thank you for your post. I know the book I am reading was published quite a while ago, but did not find any of his more recent books. And it did confuse me to read that he proposes no olive oil, which is supposedly heart healthy in moderation. Btw, as it turns out, after reading the report after the Angiogram, my blockages were 80 and 85%, not 80 and 50 as I originally mentioned.

I am going to finish his book, but I am afraid that the dietary restrictions he proposes are just not sustainable for me. I am definitely getting something out of the reading in both diet, and stress reduction. My one sore spot right now is blood pressure, which is in the 135/85 range WITH meds. Way to high. My doc says its stress and I should take a Xanax. As much as I like my doc, I didn't like that answer.

I'm hoping with exercise to get it down to 110/70, and to lose another 10, down to 170

@Robert
Thanks for the response. I admire that you are able to do vegan. I think I'm very motivated, but think it's beyond my capability, iunlessI am satisfied with being miserable, but that's me.
Went out for dinner tonight, and had arugula salad with some oil, broiled halibut cooked dry, with braised zucchini and squash, and mixed berries for desert. Not at all what Ornisch would recommend, but still about 1000 calories and 50 grams of fat less, than I used to eat at a restaurant on a Saturday night.
Can't say I really enjoyed it. But I'll learn to, and hope it does some good

Post Edited (Pratoman) : 6/27/2015 10:32:36 PM (GMT-6)

I am pretty sure Tony Crispino knows something about Dr. Ornisch.
I heard him talking about him at the GFMPH Florida gathering at Sonny's last year. Maybe he will be popping in soon to give his input.

Bill from Florida

In one of the Ornish prostate trials, patients could have egg white every day.

A lot of people are doing meatless Mondays using vegetarian chili for example. Chipotle has a veggie bowl and Sofritas texturized soy. Burger King has a veggie burger that is mediocre, a minority of Subway places have veggie patties. There are gourmet vegan places in Cleveland but they are expensive. Ethnic restaurants have cheaper options.

Thanks for that article RCS, Im going to read up on that device and its theory, some more

Robert, I've , at least for the moment, sworn off red meat. Maybe after I calm down, I'll allow myself a steak twice a year, but for now my mindset is no red meat.
What sux is that I now find that Shrimp which is my favorite food and along with lobster, the only flea food I really like, is loaded with cholesterol.
I'm thinking I'll be eating a lot of Prafgers soy and veggie burgers. Ugh

Your last sentence says it all, Billy. I'm coming to realize, we'll probably never know what's right. Too many conflicting studies (and interests)
I'm just going to minimize my bad fats, sugar and cholesterol intake, without becoming celibate, and work my f'n *** off in the cardio department. Then just hope for the best.

I may also have to seek some professional help in the mental department, because I'm having a really tough time with this.but I'll give myself some time first.

On the other hand, "science" simply tells us that for the population under study there appears to be a statistical relationship between various factors and allows us to infer that that result tends to support or to cast doubt on certain theories about cause and effect. The correlation is "statistical" because it doesn't necessarily hold for all members of the study population nor is it any guarantee that the correlation will hold for some other population that might have been suggested. Science simply tells us where the smart money would look for the best odds of finding the answers.

What anecdote can do is remind us that individual responses may differ from the statistical norm. For things like diet, where there are a number of individually measurable endpoints such as weight, cholesterol, triglicerides, blood pressure, etc., it is possible to do one's own "research" to try to find things that work for one's own self. Certainly, one should follow the science for the first thing to try but it is not a rejection of the scientific method to come eventually to suspect that one may be an outlier from the point of view of some particular study.

Tim G said...
@BillyBob--Anecdotal evidence is not science. And the scientific jury is still out about butter, though trans fats have been proven harmful, thanks in large part, to the efforts of Walter Willett, MD and nutrition researcher at Harvard ("Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy").

Oh, I was not trying to present science, I'm just stating my personal experience(anecdote), as well as the experience of my friend, for a study of 2(N2). But, of course, there are others with studies out there that claimed it would work in that fashion, which it turned out it did for us, so good enough for me. But I would never try and convince others to go that route, heck I rarely do it myself--- just giving my anecdotal past experience FWIW. Still, if one wanted to research it, a fair amount of evidence could be found. But of course there are probably not going to be any large scale studies of the types that some folks require in order to listen to a claim.

But I would be interested to know if there is any more scientific evidence for Ornish or whatever than there is for what I did for my anecdote? In the mean time there is no doubt that, even though the jury might still be out on butter, it- as you say- is in for transfats, and no doubt that this was pushed on us by the scientific community and that good old conventional wisdom for 30 years. Do any of Y'all recall when McDonald's was badgered, back around 1990, into stopping their tradition of frying in Lard and switched to soaking their fries in transfats? I think everyone, all of the authorities, knew that had to be healthier, though I doubt they had the science to prove it.

I'm not trying to discourage a vegan or Ornish type approach. I am saying that there are studies both ways, as Prato says making it hard to know what the science actually proves. As usual. However, I can add 2 anecdotes to the studies that support low carb. At least in the parameters that were measured as mentioned in my previous post, no nutrition approach could beat- and would be lucky to touch- our results, and for myself I will happily accept that evidence. Again though, I am only referring to the parameters I already mentioned, which is not to say it might not be harmful in some unmeasured way.

Speaking of science, here is a quick randomized trial I found comparing a LCKD=Low carb ketogenic diet vs O+LFD= prescription drug orlistat+ Low fat diet in the battle against high blood pressure, a major cadiovascular threat to health. Again, let me emphasize, this is pitting one diet PLUS prescription drug(with probable/possible SEs) against just a diet. And a type of diet that I have often heard is bad for you at that:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20101008

Somebody said...
The LCKD had a more beneficial impact than O + LFD on systolic (-5.9 vs 1.5 mm Hg) and diastolic (-4.5 vs 0.4 mm Hg) blood pressures (P < .001 for both comparisons). High-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride levels improved similarly within both groups. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels improved within the O + LFD group only, whereas glucose, insulin, and hemoglobin A(1c) levels improved within the LCKD group only; comparisons between groups, however, were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION:
In a sample of medical outpatients, an LCKD led to similar improvements as O + LFD for weight, serum lipid, and glycemic parameters and was more effective for lowering blood pressure.

WOW! The low carb diet was more effective for lowering blood pressure. than was the drug + low fat diet. Plus "LDL improved ONLY in the O+LFD group, whereas glucose, insulin, and hemoglobin A(1c) levels improved within the LCKD group ONLY" though apparently not significantly between groups in either any case.
I'm surprised that was not headline news with at a minimum huge demands for further studies, I wonder why it wasn't? Interestingly, this study matches my personal anecdotal study N2, except my results were even better as my BP stopped rising and came down from 140/90+ to 110/60. EDIT: question. Does "systolic (-5.9 vs 1.5 mm Hg) and diastolic (-4.5 vs 0.4 mm Hg)" mean that BP actually increased very slightly after 48 weeks of the drug + LFD?

Here is a study of old fashioned conventional low-calorie, high nutritional value diet(LCD) vs low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet (LCKD):
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22673594

Somebody said...
METHODS:

Three hundred and sixty-three overweight and obese participants were recruited from the Al-Shaab Clinic for a 24-wk diet intervention trial; 102 of them had type 2 diabetes. The participants were advised to choose LCD or LDKD, depending on their preference. Body weight, body mass index, changes in waist circumference, blood glucose level, changes in hemoglobin and glycosylated hemoglobin, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, uric acid, urea and creatinine were determined before and at 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 wk after the administration of the LCD or LCKD. The initial dose of some antidiabetic medications was decreased to half and some were discontinued at the beginning of the dietary program in the LCKD group. Dietary counseling and further medication adjustment were done on a biweekly basis.
RESULTS:

The LCD and LCKD had beneficial effects on all the parameters examined. Interestingly, these changes were more significant in subjects who were on the LCKD as compared with those on the LCD. Changes in the level of creatinine were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION:

This study shows the beneficial effects of a ketogenic diet over the conventional LCD in obese diabetic subjects. The ketogenic diet appears to improve glycemic control. Therefore, diabetic patients on a ketogenic diet should be under strict medical supervision because the LCKD can significantly lower blood glucose levels.

This again is similar to my anecdotal experience, in that all parameters studied were improved, and more so with the LCKD. Plus, notice "some antidiabetic medications was decreased to half and some were discontinued at the beginning of the dietary program in the LCKD group.". What? They were able to reduce or do away with drugs for type 2 diabetes by just switching to a low carb diet? So they improved or cured type 2 diabetes with this diet? I am also surprised that is not big news.

But like I said earlier, no doubt there are studies, and science, somewhere, that show the opposite. But this science matches my experience, so I will go by that. But that's just me.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 6/28/2015 9:28:48 PM (GMT-6)

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19082851

Somebody said...
We recently proposed that the biological markers improved by carbohydrate restriction were precisely those that define the metabolic syndrome (MetS), and that the common thread was regulation of insulin as a control element. We specifically tested the idea with a 12-week study comparing two hypocaloric diets (approximately 1,500 kcal): a carbohydrate-restricted diet (CRD) (%carbohydrate:fat:protein = 12:59:28) and a low-fat diet (LFD) (56:24:20) in 40 subjects with atherogenic dyslipidemia. Both interventions led to improvements in several metabolic markers, but subjects following the CRD had consistently reduced glucose (-12%) and insulin (-50%) concentrations, insulin sensitivity (-55%), weight loss (-10%), decreased adiposity (-14%), and more favorable triacylglycerol (TAG) (-51%), HDL-C (13%) and total cholesterol/HDL-C ratio (-14%) responses. In addition to these markers for MetS, the CRD subjects showed more favorable responses to alternative indicators of cardiovascular risk: postprandial lipemia (-47%), the Apo B/Apo A-1 ratio (-16%), and LDL particle distribution. Despite a threefold higher intake of dietary saturated fat during the CRD, saturated fatty acids in TAG and cholesteryl ester were significantly decreased, as was palmitoleic acid (16:1n-7), an endogenous marker of lipogenesis, compared to subjects consuming the LFD. Serum retinol binding protein 4 has been linked to insulin-resistant states, and only the CRD decreased this marker (-20%). The findings provide support for unifying the disparate markers of MetS and for the proposed intimate connection with dietary carbohydrate. The results support the use of dietary carbohydrate restriction as an effective approach to improve features of MetS and cardiovascular risk.

Wow,
Some terrific discussion in this thread. The input is amazing.

First I met Dean Ornish in passing, but he'd never remember me. Same with Dr. Andrew Weil and Dr. Donald Abrams. The guy I know very well is a really good friend who has written chapters in their books. Dr. Brian Lawenda, and he is very much aware that clinical trials in these programs are not only lacking but likely impossible. It is, however, highly supported through the medical community that bad dietary habits are contributing complexities in overall survival statistics. The overwhelming opinion is that a heart healthy diet and a prostate healthy diet are the same diet.

I agree with it.

But, after smoking 15 lbs. of back ribs today for our July 4th getaway this weekend in Southern Utah 8,000 feet up. Shut up Dean. I know already!.

I highly recommend this website. I have a great friendship with the site founder but don't let that distract you. He is Temple, Cambricge, Harvard trained and chief resident. All while serving our country for 13 years in the Navy as an officer. I'm biased...

integrativeoncology-essentials.com

Tony, thank you. So are you saying that it is because of the difficulty of finding a large enough population wiling to participate and comply, that these clinical trials are lacking.

I've pretty much decided I just can't follow his program strictly, but can take cues from it.
It's only been a few weeks since this atherosclerosis came on the radar for me, but I've made big changes and don't intend to have a short memory on this. I've eliminated red meat, fried foods, a am eating a lot more fish for protein (and polenta, which I'm not sure is good but intend to find out). I've also gone to decaf coffee, from half caf, which is what I went to right after RALP. AND IM walking brisk pace 40-60 minutes most days, at least 30 on days when rareI'm pressed for time.

Thanks for your input

Tim G said...
@BillyBob--Thanks for the clarification. One of the difficulties with an Internet forum is that it is not as nuanced as in-person conversations. I appreciated your mention of Ignaz Semmelweis, who was a practitioner of the scientific method before it was broadly accepted. I read the recently written book about him.

Hey Thx back at you, Tim! Semmelweis is indeed a fascinating study in how things can work in the world of medical authorities and medical conventional wisdom(maybe even in all aspects of life where profits or power are concerned). True, that was an awfully long time ago, and it was before the scientific process was really a dominant force in medicine. Still, that is not to say that we can not still run into similar attitudes these days(maybe including even hostility) whenever evidence is presented that might go against the current conventional wisdom, whatever that might be.