heart disease reversal

Garlic may be good for your arteries and pitching tents, but it's not much good if you can't get someone under the tent with you.
Yay, more free time to spend online! :rolleyes:

He told the doc that all he needed was to eat better and exercise. He fell over dead later that year with a heart attack. He was only 55. Looking at him you would have thought he was a picture of health. I miss him, he was a very smart person but not quite smart enough.
I'm sorry about your friend. Whatever you try, talk to your doc and get regular checkups but also watch how you live.
My dad had advanced atherosclerosis and one day the doctor told him there was nothing they could to do stop it. It was too late for another operation. I will always keep wondering if a healthier lifestyle could have saved him.
 
Here are my latest blood lipid numbers. As I have posted before, prior to my left main trunk plaque rupture and consequent bypass x6, I had been "off my guard" b/c of a decade or more of low risk lipid numbers and heavy exercise, but this is a new chapter with new parameters. So here are the latest numbers: total cholesteerol 130, ldl 55, hdl . . . 61. An inverse ldl/hdl ratio! I take Zocor and have adopted a plant based diet. I have read most of the studies and know that one cannot mess around with the statistics re closure of vein grafts. (triglycerides 70).
 
I just went back and read your Bypass thread and now going over this thread. What I don't understand is you had to have the bypass despite good LDL/HDL/trig numbers. How could it be?

I wonder how much cholesterol has to do with heart health?

You said you were not eating refined carbs, and were eating whole foods/plant based diet. What do you eat say for breakfast? Lunch? (I imagine you eat some complex carbs like brown rice or you mainly eat veggies and fruit? What about fat? Some avocados?) How are you getting the protein?

Sorry for so many questions.
 
I just went back and read your Bypass thread and now going over this thread. What I don't understand is you had to have the bypass despite good LDL/HDL/trig numbers. How could it be?



Sorry for so many questions.

I'm on my way out for the day and will give you a response later on. I don't mind the questions and surely don't have many answers-just some theories.
 
I just went back and read your Bypass thread and now going over this thread. What I don't understand is you had to have the bypass despite good LDL/HDL/trig numbers. How could it be?
In some studies up to 50% of men admitted with a heart attack have a normal cholesterol. Coronary disease is a complicated one; current knowledge tells us that lipids (chol, HDL, LDL, triglycerides, etc.) play a definite role but do not explain everything. A typical 50 y.o man with normal lipids might have a heart attack risk for the next 5 years of 5%, whereas with bad lipids that risk may be 10%. That's double the risk, but certainly does not paint the whole picture.

Other issues such as genetic susceptibility, persistent stress, chronic inflammation, secondary smoke and pollution and no doubt a zillion unknown variables are at work.

So perfect lipids and lifestyle go a long way to reduce the risk but will never eliminate risk altogether.
 
I just went back and read your Bypass thread and now going over this thread. What I don't understand is you had to have the bypass despite good LDL/HDL/trig numbers. How could it be?

I wonder how much cholesterol has to do with heart health?

You said you were not eating refined carbs, and were eating whole foods/plant based diet. What do you eat say for breakfast? Lunch? (I imagine you eat some complex carbs like brown rice or you mainly eat veggies and fruit? What about fat? Some avocados?) How are you getting the protein?

Cholesterol is one of about 17 factors associated with risk. It just happens to be one of the consequent constituents of plaque, carried as it is into arterial cell walls by low density lipoprotein (ldl) which is most dangerous in an oxidized form (creating inflammation). Stats show and Rich made the point, I think, that there is much heart disease found in folks with seemingly "normal" cholesterol levels (b/c it isn't the only risk factor). My concern with cholesterol at this point is that there is research showing that if the body is denied saturated fat through a plant-based diet, ldl readings plummet and the lipid pool in plaques can shrink a bit causing a proportionately larger and very significant increase in arterial flow. I am also hoping that this results in a prevention of the blocking of the vein grafts used for five of the six bypasses in my surgery (one was an internal mammary artery, re-directed from the chest wall to the LAD-widow-maker as it's called. The arterial grafts tend to stay patent much longer than veins used for arteries.)

My present diet is evolving. One of the proponents of cardiac reversing diets (Edellstyn) advises to avoid all fats including oils. Others like Ornish and Fuhrman are a bit more permissive but not much (e.g. Ornish eschews olive oil advising that it is not really cardio-protective per se-just to the extent it replaces saturated fat). Ornish does advise fish oil (which I take). Right now, I am still using a bit of olive oil on a salad and I eat fish once or twice a week. I also make a veggie omlet or fritatta with egg whites once a week. I do eat some avocadoes but not as much as before my surgery. I have been doing my best to avoid most refined carbs for years. I still think that is critically important to keep glucose and insulin in good control (diabetes and pre-diabetes are huge cardiac risk factors). I try to not rely on grains or rice much but will use some whole grain products- e.g. sprouted grain bread and sprouted corn tortillas. I am eating a lot of beans in different forms and discovered the utility of fermented soy in the form of tempeh which is great with sauteed peppers and onions (using spray in my iron skillet rather than a puddle of oil). For breakfast I often eat left-overs or steel cut oats with a handful of blackberries, blueberries or strawberries-no milk. One's taste changes. As long as I have been avoiding refined carbs, something like a Rainier cherry has the sweetness of candy tome and the latest sweet delicacy here in Ohio right now is sweet corn. I eat mine with no salt or butter and, again, it is so sweet that it seems like a dessert. I fill up on veggies prepped in various forms and stay away from things like rice, potatoes and pasta as bulky parts of the diet. There is a pasta (Dreamfields) that is made in a way that prevents absorption of most of the carbs and we do use that a couple of times a month- tastes great. I will say something that may be obvious- many people who adopt what they call a vegetarian diet default to tons of rice, cereal, energy bars, sweet drinks and the like and don't get enough plant-based nutrients and way too many cheap calories. That is a bad diet. Even when not obese, they often have insulin resistance and/or are "skinny-fat." In the spinning class that I did for seven months prior to my MI (I thought that the class proved my cardiac system was in great shape) were a group of serious athletes (triathletes, bike racers). Some of them ate energy bars and drank a lot of sweet energy drinks. They had more fat on them than you would expect because of that, I think.If you haven't guessed, I think those products are a big mistake for everybody. Earlier in life, I used a lot of that stuff while running obsessively and I think that period was probably contributory to my disease- I know I was becoming insulin resistant until I chucked the refined carbs. Of course there were many other dietary indiscretions going back to the teen-age years even. As to protein, that is not a problem when eating a variety of foods during the day. You've probably read about the complimentary aspects of plant protein from variant sources (corn/beans e.g.). I still eat small amounts of lean turkey breast or skinless/boneless chicken breast when my wife wants to have some for dinner, but it is a small amount, infrequent, and I expect that I will eliminate it almost altogether very soon.

My approach is not for everyone-it's for me b/c I am in no position to play roulette with my new plumbing.
 
windsurf,

Thank you for such a detailed explanation on your diet. When you said you adopted a plant based diet, I couldn't imagine what your food intake consists of but now I have a much better picture. Still, don't you lose so much weight eating like that? (unless you eat a lot of oatmeal/sprouted bread/sprouted tortillas, but that would negate your whole purpose, so I'm sure you are not doing that.) Without fat and not much protein (except for the egg whites, tempeh and very occasional small amount of turkey and some fish) or fat, do you feel you are losing strength/energy/weight? I was on a modified macrobiotic diet (I ate some fish, but this diet tends to be very low on protein as well as fat) at one point in my life, but I just wasn't getting the strength.

So the main difference between what you are doing now and what you did before your surgery is the amount of animal protein and oil (You said you hadn't been eating refined carbs in years)?

I am from Japan and I hear you about some fruit tasting like candy sweet. I can only eat about 4 cherries at one sitting. I only eat about 1/4 of any kind of medium sized fruit like an apple at one sitting. I eat 1/2 corn on the cob with my meal and that is plenty because the corn nowadays taste too sweet to me. Since you seem to know a lot about diets, you probably know the Japanese don't consume sweet treats as much as the Americans. I tend toward hypoglycemia even with a small amount of sucrose/fructose or even white rice, so I am careful consuming even fruit. Only way to avoid the hypoglycemic reaction seems to be to eat tons of protein and fat with it. That's probably why I am asking you if you feel you are losing strength/energy/weight with your diet.

You mention skinny-fat. If you ever have a chance to go to Japan, go to Onsen (japanese style hotels where they have community baths with hot spring water) one day and see the Japanese people there. I have been living in the US for 25+ years and I guess I forgot. I went to Onsen with my mom and I was shocked to see young Japanese people being, I guess, skinny fat. They were very very thin, but with not much muscle mass and were very very flabby looking. I wondered then if it was the result of eating tons of refined (white) rice with not much protein and very little fat...

Sorry I am totally rambling here, but your thread (and your bypass thread) made me think about a lot of things...

tmm
 
Rich in Tampa,

Thank you for your explanation. You mentioned in an earlier post a book called Good Calories, Bad Calories (and I thank you for that). I got the book ordered and I have it with me now, so I will start reading it. That hopefully will give me some more insight into the cholesterol myth/facts.
 
windsurf,

Still, don't you lose so much weight eating like that? (unless you eat a lot of oatmeal/sprouted bread/sprouted tortillas, but that would negate your whole purpose, so I'm sure you are not doing that.) Without fat and not much protein (except for the egg whites, tempeh and very occasional small amount of turkey and some fish) or fat, do you feel you are losing strength/energy/weight? I was on a modified macrobiotic diet (I ate some fish, but this diet tends to be very low on protein as well as fat) at one point in my life, but I just wasn't getting the strength.

Only way to avoid the hypoglycemic reaction seems to be to eat tons of protein and fat with it. That's probably why I am asking you if you feel you are losing strength/energy/weight with your diet.
tmm

I am glad that I lost some weight- I was about 15 pounds heavier than i shoud have been. As to muscles, I think that maintaining muscle mass has a lot to do with hormone drives and I try to maintain mine by lifting weights and avoiding foods that drive up my insulin. I seem to be getting adequate protein as I am regaining some tone and mass that I lost during the first month post-op where I was more restricted in what I could do Even then, I was lifting light weights (very) the first week home from the hospital. While I was ding curls with 50 lb. dumbbells prior to the MI, I am back to using 35 lb. bells already and would be using heavier but for the drag they cause on my still healing chest. I think eating nutrient dense plants provides more than enough protein, though, as I mentioned, I eat a bit of animal protein as well.
 
A nurse discovered that I had sugar in my urine in January 2005. The Doctor did not seem concerned about it as he had been doing the A1C on me fortwo years prior to this. I went home that day and out to walmart for a Glucose meter. What a shock I had after my first test. I eat spaghetti that night and the numbers shot up around 190. What I did after that I would not recommend to anyone but I did it. I started a low carb diet to try and get the B/S numbers normal. In six months I lost 40 pounds which was way to much for me. I looked old and wrinkled. My A1c dropped to 4.9 but my energy also dropped. I stopped the diet last year and now I have added some weight but I still do not have much muscle. I feel much better but I am not sure if I have the B/S in the normal range. I do not check much anymore. Maybe I am doing things that might harm me later but I am living a little and eating good food. oldtrig
 
A nurse discovered that I had sugar in my urine in January 2005. The Doctor did not seem concerned about it as he had been doing the A1C on me fortwo years prior to this. I went home that day and out to walmart for a Glucose meter. What a shock I had after my first test. I eat spaghetti that night and the numbers shot up around 190. What I did after that I would not recommend to anyone but I did it. I started a low carb diet to try and get the B/S numbers normal. In six months I lost 40 pounds which was way to much for me. I looked old and wrinkled. My A1c dropped to 4.9 but my energy also dropped. I stopped the diet last year and now I have added some weight but I still do not have much muscle. I feel much better but I am not sure if I have the B/S in the normal range. I do not check much anymore. Maybe I am doing things that might harm me later but I am living a little and eating good food. oldtrig

Why was ~7lb/month over 6 months too much for you? This is what I did a few years ago over 6 months to lose 40lb and I felt great then and now. Is your new weight too low for your height and age?

Are you exercising enough? That is a good way to build muscle and increase your energy levels.
 
A high fiber diet can reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases according to the most recent studies today. Include fiber rich foods in your every day meal.
 
I exercise everyday by walking two miles. I have been doing this for five years. I weight 170 now but I got down to 158. I am 5ft 11. I just looked skinny when I was at 158 and everyone was asking me if I was sick. I did not feel any better than when I weighed 198.
 
I exercise everyday by walking two miles. I have been doing this for five years. I weight 170 now but I got down to 158. I am 5ft 11. I just looked skinny when I was at 158 and everyone was asking me if I was sick. I did not feel any better than when I weighed 198.

170 is a good weight for your height. When I lost my 40 lbs, coincidentally to get to 170, I also added a variety to my daily walk the dog exercise, including stationery bike, some strength training etc to tone up as I was concerned I'd end up with loose skin since all my weight was around the middle.
 
windsurf - Do you know approximately what your waist-to-hip ratio is/was? I found this interesting article about WTH ratio.

Waist-to-hip ratio a better marker of subclinical atherosclerosis than BMI and waist circumference

Aug 13, 2007Michael O'Riordan
Dallas, TX - The waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is independently associated with prevalent atherosclerosis as measured by coronary artery calcium imaging and is a better discriminator of subclinical disease than other common measures of obesity, such as body-mass index (BMI) or waist circumference alone, a new study has shown [1]. Those with the largest WHR were almost twice as likely to have calcium deposits in the coronary arteriescompared with those with the lowest WHR, report investigators.
"These data confirm what others have shown for clinical events—that is, when you link these data to some of the large outcome studies, it really does establish a consistent message that these measures of body shape—waist and the waist-to-hip ratio—predict not just clinical events but also atherosclerotic burden," senior investigator Dr James de Lemos (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX) told heartwire. "It also suggests that part of the mechanism in which central adiposity contributes to increased risk is through this increased atherosclerotic burden."
The results of the study are published in the August 14, 2007 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Data from the Dallas Heart Study

Speaking with heartwire, de Lemos said the large INTERHEART study, previously reported by heartwire, showed that the WHR and waist circumference were excellent predictors of cardiovascular events. With this in mind, the group sought to determine the underlying mechanism responsible for this increased cardiovascular risk. Some part of this risk is likely driven by atherosclerosis in the coronaries and the aorta, although high blood pressure, left ventricular hypertrophy, or inflammation and thrombosis have all been proposed as risk factors explaining the increased morbidity and mortality risk associated with obesity, explained de Lemos.
In addition, de Lemos noted, there is a complex relationship between BMI and cardiovascular risk, an almost J-shaped relationship, where those with a very low BMI having greater atherosclerotic burden than those with a higher BMI. Also, BMI doesn't reflect obesity, but rather mass, and is not a measure of central adiposity and cardiovascular risk. The purpose of this study, he said, was to evaluate the association between different measures of obesity and atherosclerosis in addition to determining whether obesity was associated with subclinical cardiovascular disease.
Investigators obtained data from the Dallas Heart Study, a large, multiethnic urban population of patients who successfully completed electron-beam computed tomography (EBCT) to detect coronary artery calcium and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to detect aortic plaque. They found that the likelihood of coronary calcification grew in direct proportion to increases in the WHR. In multivariate analysis, after adjustment for standard risk factors, prevalent coronary artery calcium was more frequent in the fifth vs first quintile of WHR. Those with the largest WHR were nearly twice as likely to have calcium deposits in their coronary arteries as those with the smallest WHR. There was no independent positive association observed for BMI or waist circumference.
"The finding that was most striking to me was the linear association with the waist-to-hip ratio," said de Lemos. "We don't have huge statistical power here, so this will need to be confirmed in other studies, but it is interesting that this is a linear, stepwise association across the quintiles. From a public-health perspective, this is not the sort of thing where we look only at the guy with the biggest beer belly and say this guy is the one to worry about. This may have broader implications in the sense that the average person, even though they are average by US standards, still appears to have more atherosclerosis than people with the lowest waist-to-hip ratio."
Among those who underwent MRI, the investigators also showed that the risk of atherosclerotic plaque in the aorta was three times as high in those with the largest WHR compared with those who had the smallest WHR.

The associations between obesity measurements and atherosclerosis in this study, said de Lemos, mirror those observed between obesity and cardiovascular mortality and suggest that obesity contributes to the risk via increased atherosclerotic burden. As to why WHR is a better measure of subclinical disease, de Lemos said it is an indexed value to lower body girth and provides a more precise assessment of relative central adiposity across the body sizes compared with waist circumference. In addition, there is some evidence that fat accumulated in the hips might be cardioprotective.
"That appears to be the case in this study," said de Lemos. "Large hips seemed to be protective if you had a normal or smaller waist. On the other hand, it didn't appear protective if the waist was greater than the median value. Having big hips doesn't protect you if you let your belly get too big."

Source


  1. See R, Abdullah SM, McGuire DK, et al. The association of differing measures of overweight and obesity with prevalent atherosclerosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 50:752-759.
 
windsurf - Do you know approximately what your waist-to-hip ratio is/was? I found this interesting article about WTH ratio.

Waist-to-hip ratio a better marker of subclinical atherosclerosis than BMI and waist circumference

My hips (about 40 inches) were always significantly greater than the waist which was several inches- give or take- less. I have always been very active-some belly fat from time to time- but nothing like the obesity that you see everywhere now. Despite appearances, most of the portly gents probably won't have an MI at a relatively young age. I don't know exactly what caused it, but I am sure motivated to prevent it from happening again, If I can.:cool:
Atherosclerosis develops over decades. You have heard, I am sure, that military autopsies show widespread atherosclerosis in young soldiers (Viet Nam through present). That indicates, I think, a very substantial dietary link-not cholesterol per se- also inflammation and insulin resistance, e.g.
 
windsurf - You may have answered this question already but what are your doctors saying to you? I don't think they really know the root cause of what happened but are any of them offering you an explanation and/or saying they "know" what it must have been?
 
windsurf - You may have answered this question already but what are your doctors saying to you? I don't think they really know the root cause of what happened but are any of them offering you an explanation and/or saying they "know" what it must have been?

In so many words, they've indicated that it's tough to know what caused the atherosclerosis but maybe they're just being polite and not saying something like, "You must have eaten a lot of really bad stuff for quite a few years!" I did, but I thought I was getting away with it b/c I always worked out, felt wonderful and was generally more fit looking than the average trial lawyer. And, as I have written here before, my diet for quite a few recent years was such that my lipid scores put me in the low risk class. As to what caused the MI, it was definitely a plaque rupture. These very often occur in arteries that are not substantially blocked b/c the plaques, while not substantially occluding the vessel, can less stable than heavier plaques and rupture so to speak causing a clot to form which functions to cork off the artery. :( p.s. It was very strange to read the diagnosis in the ER report that I obtained a couple of days ago from my hospitalization: "Sudden cardiac death with spontaneous return of circulation." When I was out on the roads on my bike yesterday, a hot, sunny day here, going up hills, getting my heart rate up, I felt that intense feeling of gratitude for just being alive that we so often suppress behind the seeming urgency of the press of business.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
windsurf - Would you ever do one of those scans which can supposedly tell you how much stuff is buried in the walls of your arteries? I think you get some sort of score out of it. Would you want a baseline to know if what you are doing is improving your situation?

I understand your explanation about not having what people think of typically blocked arteries. I think many people still picture heart disease as a pipe with crud collecting on it over time blocking the flow of blood. Your arteries may have been completely clear of crud on the inner diameter but the deadly stuff was collecting in the walls waiting to "burst" onto the scene! I keep thinking of Tim Russert and what happened to him. He wasn't in the right place at the right time like you were.

Trial lawyer? Maybe a little stress over the years?
 
windsurf - Would you ever do one of those scans which can supposedly tell you how much stuff is buried in the walls of your arteries? I think you get some sort of score out of it. Would you want a baseline to know if what you are doing is improving your situation?

I understand your explanation about not having what people think of typically blocked arteries. I think many people still picture heart disease as a pipe with crud collecting on it over time blocking the flow of blood. Your arteries may have been completely clear of crud on the inner diameter but the deadly stuff was collecting in the walls waiting to "burst" onto the scene! I keep thinking of Tim Russert and what happened to him. He wasn't in the right place at the right time like you were.

Trial lawyer? Maybe a little stress over the years?

You're probably tlaking about a high speed CT scan looking for calcification which would require symptoms for a doc to order and the test is not benign in that it gives you a pretty good dose of ionizing radiation. I've had my share lately (the cath lab). Yup, the career included huge stress that one internalizes.
 
You're probably tlaking about a high speed CT scan looking for calcification which would require symptoms for a doc to order and the test is not benign in that it gives you a pretty good dose of ionizing radiation. I've had my share lately (the cath lab). Yup, the career included huge stress that one internalizes.

Major heart attack not enough to justify/trigger the test? :)

Is there any other test which can "see" the stuff hiding in the walls of the arteries that jumped out and bit you?

stress = inflammation?
 
Major heart attack not enough to justify/trigger the test? :)

Is there any other test which can "see" the stuff hiding in the walls of the arteries that jumped out and bit you?
Not really. Plaques can cause irregularities in the inner wall which can be seen on cath, though not always. More to the point, a normal cath indicates a very good prognosis for at least 5 years, regardless.

So he knows he had the heart attack, is doing everything he can to prevent another, has a good idea of his prognosis, and will be followed up closely with occasional stress tests, etc. Not sure that yet another expensive, high radiation exposure test will change a thing.
 
Not really. Plaques can cause irregularities in the inner wall which can be seen on cath, though not always. More to the point, a normal cath indicates a very good prognosis for at least 5 years, regardless.

So he knows he had the heart attack, is doing everything he can to prevent another, has a good idea of his prognosis, and will be followed up closely with occasional stress tests, etc. Not sure that yet another expensive, high radiation exposure test will change a thing.

It would be torture for me if I didn't have evidence I was reducing the deadly plaque with my actions.

The additional radiation is troublesome but I would want to get the test as soon as possible so I had a baseline of the artery walls as close as possible to the time of the heart attack. If I had the test done a year later and found no plaque, is that because what I was doing was good or there was never any significant plaque there to start with?

windsurf - Did the results from other tests already tell you that you have lots of plaque in your artery walls? I know you did in at least one spot that burst. Sorry for asking again if the answer is in a previous post.
 
Just for the record, using coronary artery calcium scores, and depending on the risk background of the patient, about 10% of patients with significant stenosis (>50%) will be missed, and about 25% to 50% with positive calcium scores will be wrong (patient does not actually have important coronary stenosis). Bottom line is that if you are low risk and have a negative scan, you are very unlikely to have coronary disease. If you are at high risk (such as a history of heart attack or angina, diabetes, etc), a positive scan will likely be accurate, for what it's worth in that setting. I would add that the test involves the injection of x-ray dye into a vein, with a small risk of allergic reactions.

Many believe that technologic advances will overcome many of these imperfections but at an exposure comparable to perhaps 20 chest x-rays every time, the risks are there, too.
 
Back
Top Bottom