Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home

From: EV (
Subject:         Re: Sorry I'm not a cheerleader. . .
Date: October 6, 2011 at 6:45 am PST

In Reply to: Sorry I'm not a cheerleader. . . posted by Grundig on September 8, 2011 at 8:00 pm:

You weren't doing the program properly if you were hungry all the
time. Having an empty stomach is definitely not part of any whole
foods plant-based program that I'm aware of. Esselstyn, McDougall,
and even Ornish all say to eat when you're hungry, just eat the right
things. My experience is that I can eat as much as I want and I won't
gain weight as long as I remain 100% compliant. Even small
wanderings off the path seem to show up on the scale, so for the last
couple of years I've pretty much been at the 99% level or more.

It's a tricky thing this reversal and heart attack proofing business. I
see people like in this thread who say they reversed and then let it
slip, but they're still fine, and all I'd ask is: how do you know you're
fine? Heart attacks are rarely caused by large blockages. Just
because you reduced a blockage when you went 100%, doesn't mean
you're out of the woods and can feel safe by reintroducing animal

Most heart attacks are caused by sudden ruptures of small plaques,
and there is no test to tell you whether you are vulnerable to this kind
of attack. Yes, you may have reduced some mature blockages, but
you may be starting up a bunch of even more dangerous ones by
going off diet.

The fact that you're still here doesn't mean anything. It's long term
studies like Esselstyn's that start to show the differences in people
that stay on course and those that waver. I'd put more stock in those
results, where compliance seems to be the long term determinant, vs.
whether you happen to still be around on a 75% diet.

Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home

Follow Ups:

Post Reply

E-mail: (optional)


Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: