Image Credit: Rob Swatski / Flickr. This image has been modified.

How to Improve Artery Function

Endothelial dysfunction is the initial step in the development of peripheral artery disease, heart disease, and stroke. As I discuss in my video Plant-Based Diets and Artery Function, the remarkable finding is that progressive endothelial dysfunction—the decline in the functioning of our arteries—is not an inevitable consequence of aging. We can retain the arterial function we had in our 20s into our 60s, like the elderly Chinese in my video Tea and Artery Function. This may be due in part to green tea intake, but “[o]ther important dietary differences relating to increased consumption of vegetables and fish, with lower consumption of [other meat and dairy] in the traditional Chinese diet, may be contributing to the protection observed in older Chinese arteries.”

It’s probably not the fish. Pooling all the best double-blind, placebo-controlled studies found that fish oil supplementation has no significant effect on endothelial function. In by far the largest study done to date, a comparison of doses of fish oil equivalent to one, two, or four servings of fish per week found no effects of these long-chain omega-3 fats. This is consistent with studies that have looked at whole fish consumption as well.

Overall, there was no significant association between fish intake and endothelial function. In fact, in women, those eating the most fish had the worst arterial function. Women who ate fish more than twice a week had significantly impaired endothelial function compared to those who never or only rarely ate fish.

So, if it’s not the fish, could it be the plants? Vegetarian diets appear to have a directly beneficial effect on endothelial function. Indeed, vegetarians’ arteries dilate four times better than omnivores’ arteries. But, could that simply be because vegetarians tend to smoke less? Within five minutes of smoking a single cigarette, our endothelium is brought to its knees, completely clamped down, and this happens if you’re a smoker or simply breathing in second-hand smoke. But the diet study excluded all smokers completely. The beneficial effects were independent of non-dietary risk factors. In fact, a healthy diet may even trump smoking. The preservation of endothelial function in older Chinese may help explain why they have such low heart attack rates despite their high prevalence of cigarette smoking. And, the improved arterial function was well correlated with the duration of eating vegetarian: The longer they ate healthy, the better their endothelial function appeared to be.

That was a cross-sectional study, though, a snapshot in time, so you can’t prove cause and effect. What we need is an interventional trial—put people on a plant-based diet and see if their arterial function improves—which is exactly what Dr. Dean Ornish did, showing a significant boost in arterial function compared to control.

Is this just some intangible risk factor test result, though, or does it actually have real world implications? Are their arteries naturally dilating so much better that their chest pain actually improves?

Ornish showed that on his plant-based diet and lifestyle program, cardiac patients had a 91 percent reduction in angina attacks. In contrast, control group patients, who instead were told to follow the advice of their personal physicians for diet and lifestyle advice, had a 186 percent increase in reported angina attacks. This “marked reduction in frequency, severity, and duration of angina [chest pain with the plant-based lifestyle intervention]…was sustained at similar levels after 5 years. This long-term reduction in angina is comparable with that achieved following coronary artery bypass surgery or angioplasty,” but without the knife.

But that was back in the 1990s, when Ornish was only studying a few dozen patients at a time. How about a thousand patients put on a healthy lifestyle track with a whole-food, plant-based diet? Within three months, nearly three-quarters of angina patients became angina-free.

Wait a second. The Ornish program involves a number of other healthy lifestyle interventions, such as exercise. How do we know it was the diet? That’s precisely the topic of my Plant-Based Treatment for Angina video.

What would happen if, instead of going on a plant-based diet, you went on a low-carb diet? You don’t want to know. But if you must, check out Low-Carb Diets and Coronary Blood Flow.

For more on green tea, see Tea and Artery Function.

What effects might other foods have? See:

And don’t miss my overview video: How Not to Die from Heart Disease.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:


Michael Greger M.D., FACLM

Michael Greger, M.D. FACLM, is a physician, New York Times bestselling author, and internationally recognized professional speaker on a number of important public health issues. Dr. Greger has lectured at the Conference on World Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the International Bird Flu Summit, testified before Congress, appeared on The Dr. Oz Show and The Colbert Report, and was invited as an expert witness in defense of Oprah Winfrey at the infamous "meat defamation" trial.

130 responses to “How to Improve Artery Function

Comment Etiquette

On, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

  1. I found this article interesting and thank Dr Greger for all the info he puts together on a daily basis. One thing that concerns me is that people might come away with the (incorrect) idea that not suffering angina means they are ok and without disease. I have severe CAD, blockages ranging from 50% to 95%, had bypass surgery and never had angina. I do enjoy salmon once in a while and feel better for it so far. Ty again

    1. “One thing that concerns me is that people might come away with the (incorrect) idea that not suffering angina means they are ok and without disease”


      You mean people actually think that no symptoms means no problem?

      The article is fine and articles like this can’t be filled with disclaimers all the time about how not having symptoms of this or not having some other condition does not mean that you are free from X ailment or Y condition. That would be penning every article for the lowest common denominator and by that point that crowd wouldn’t understand articles anymore or the information in the articles would have to be dumbed down so much as to have no more impact or meaning to people.

      1. Sean is correct Michael. The first indicator of cardiac problems for many is quite unfortunately sudden death by full arrest. Angina does simply not present in many, and as well many do suffer heart attacks, MI’s with no chest pain.

        The way this is stated…”on his plant-based diet and lifestyle program, cardiac patients had a 91 percent reduction in angina attacks. ” infers all cardiac patients have angina attacks.
        They do not.

        1. Sean I personally don’t advocate for a Campbell Ornish Eddelstein approach for those without the disease. I think moderation may be enough. I am vegan in diet mostly but just for ethical reasons.
          However with the disease you must be aware of these docs, are you not following their recommendations?

          I certainly would be strictly adhering to their suggestions if I were in your circumstance. Is there something you may elaborate upon?

          1. I guess there are 2 Seans today. I wrote the forst message simply because I run into folks every day that have no idea that having no symptoms does not equal having no disease. I am fit and not overweight. Guys I hiked with. were shocked I ended up on surgery.

            My diet is excellent. I was told about the same as the person David White and was fed mac and cheese first meal (after the fay of jello) after surgery. I am familiar with the other docs. My rare salmon dinners may not do anything healthwise.. but I physically feel better with a little fish, and it’s in a social setting important to me. Life isnt about food…not for me. Its about relationships and living well. ty again.

        1. Sean,

          I am interested.

          Do you consider yourself a Pesce-vegetarian now?

          Also interested if you use oil.

          Also if you were more “junk food vegan” or “lots of faux cheeses and mayos and transition foods” or closer to “Whole Food Plant-Based”

          Some of us came from what I would call the Seriously SAD diet and now I still eat a lot of transition food. Not so much oil, except in Plant milk. As far as meals go, right now, dinners for me are: chili, beans and rice, lentil loaf, and veggie wraps more than other things. Occasionally, pasta or potatoes. Lunch is either transition food, microwave transition food or salad.

          1. To be fair to Dr. Greger,

            He is saying to go further than you are and never eat fish.

            “Women who ate fish more than twice a week had significantly impaired endothelial function compared to those who never or only rarely ate fish.”

            If he was saying, “It is okay to eat fish occasionally, then your concern that he is talking about getting rid of angina would be more valid. He did say in his video that, often, the first symptom is death, so don’t take risks like eating fish, is his perspective.

            He is already promoting eating an optimal diet and no smoking and no alcohol, and already said in his videos that the only diet which almost gets rid of it is 100% vegan, low fat. He never does say that it gets rid of the risk entirely, and I agree with you and him that you don’t want to minimize that there is still a risk.

            But he is advising a diet past what you are communicating and is warning you about the Salmon.

            Sorry, I just see it as he has brought up the first symptom is death multiple times before and can’t probably bring it up every time, but he is warning people that they probably aren’t doing enough.

            Other doctors are saying, “Don’t worry about milk or salmon” and he is saying, “Drinking milk or eating salmon keeps you less protected.”

            1. This is a quote from Dr. Greger’s video on heart disease:

              “Doesn’t that mean we can eat whatever the heck we want, and then, as soon as we start feeling some chest pain, we can get with the program, eat as healthy as we need to, and open our arteries back up? Getting to enjoy not only our grandchildren, but also happy memories of years of bacon and eggs, cheese, and fried chicken. Here’s the problem with the plan: sudden cardiac death. Our first symptom may be our last.”

              1. Here’s trans fat. There’s no level that’s safe. It’s like a straight line. The lower the better. Any level of trans fat intake above zero increased LDL cholesterol concentration,” the #1 risk factor for our #1 killer: heart disease.

                And same with saturated fat—any intake level above zero, and similar findings for cholesterol.

                So, intakes of meat, eggs, dairy, and junk food should be as low as possible, because there is no tolerable intake.

                1. Oops, I meant to write that Dr. Greger’s dietary guidelines is against moderation because moderation doesn’t bring the risk down low enough.

                  1. Hey Deb, I have been doing well on wfpb for some years as I have mentioned many times before. Since my husband’s surgery, I have researched tirelessly and was lucky to find Dr Greger’s site. My husband does not share my passion about health or cooking, but enjoys active living… Philosophically we dont quite agree on every detail of diet. Thats ok. He decided to comment today because he had the impression people think angina pain will warn them of heart attack in time. Sometimes it will, and sometimes it won’t. The same diet that ‘reverses’ heart disease is the same one that prevents it.

                    1. Barb,

                      Thanks for sharing that. It is a good warning and it is one I wouldn’t have heard if I hadn’t been here.

                      I am glad that he shared it. People do get confused about that.

        2. Being “vegan” just signifies an ethical practice of not eating or using animal products, but… it can also be a diet which consists entirely of junk and processed foods, very similar to the S.A.D. that causes all the illnesses. Simply being vegan is not necessarily an indicator of a healthy diet, (except for the animals) which is why the unwieldy, “whole food plant based” moniker is preferred by those who also consider themselves a worthy creature to treat with consideration, compassion and TLC.

          1. Veg my logic says that this is a stretch…”a worthy creature to treat with consideration, compassion and TLC.”

            WFPB will indeed help one live a long healthy life. But adoption of that has little to do with ones self worth consideration. One may quite be healthy eating a moderate amount of WFPB. Some peoples are most advantaged by a WFPB diet in total, and some are not necessarily. Enjoying what one eats is as well a part of self worth.

            I adopted vegan diet for ethical reasons but enjoy a bit of processed food about every day. Most I think are like me. And assumeing I can eat what I want, vegan, without strict adherence to a particular all WFPB diet and still retain a medium to high degree of health affirms my choice. Most in fact would find adoption of this diet vegan with a strict WFPB is not assumable.

            It is fine with a existent health condition or genetic component which makes it necessary but strict adherence beyond application of the ideas themselves, is not necessary. As evidenced in the 7th day Adventist related studies…they are the vegans amongst them not strict in their adherence to WFPB in general. I have known them, eaten with them, relatives of mine went to school with them, and actually been treated by one of their physicians. WFPB in entireity…I’d say very few are that of the vegans amongst them.

            But they live the longest.

            1. Per example Loma Linda one of the first plant based processed foods was indeed a 7th day Adventist sponsorship and ownership in the initial, till bought out by national main stream concern(forget which one).

              Canned stuff back in the day mostly. A national brand bought it from them. A mass marketed vegan things.

              I ate at one of their restaurants for several years…good healthy stuff lots of grains fake meats this and that, but pretty regular fill your gut working peoples food, a lot on the plate, and oils, and all sorts of stuff….that is real 7th day Adventists vegan stuff what the studies of living longest are based upon…it is not Esselstein diets they are and were on.
              That is the fact….and they lived the longest.

              1. Here from Wiki is a brief on their history..
                ” Loma Linda Foods was preceded by the Loma Linda Sanitarium bakery, officially named The Sanitarium Food Company, which began operations in 1905 in Loma Linda, California.[4][5] The company under the name Loma Linda Food Company was created in 1933, at which time it opened a new production facility near Riverside, California.[4][5]
                The company’s name was changed to La Loma Foods in 1989,[4] and in 1989 the company sold its infant formula brand and line to N.V. Nutricia, a Dutch company.[5] The Seventh-day Adventist Church sold the company to Worthington Foods of Ohio in 1990, and Worthington Foods was acquired by The Kellogg Company in 1999.[1][11] The Kellogg Company sold the company to the Atlantic Natural Foods Company in 2015.[1][10][11]”

                Loma Linda is where the church is headquartered and the place of the university which worked with the scientific community to produce the 7th day Adventists studies and their offshoots.
                It is pretty good stuff I ate it many times back in the day new to vegetarianism 1986 and veganism 1990. It was all we had . But clearly it was processed and fully authorized by the church and eaten as well by church members.
                They eat healthy they do but this notion the vegans in them do not eat processed and are all WFPB is simply not fact. A few I would guess but firmly by majority not…..why would they start a company that processes food if that was fact?

                1. Where is the chief recommendation for long life of vegans..the 7th day Adventist studies.
                  I wonder if perhaps part of the problems with veganism subsequent to B-12 deficiencies and this and that found by study in Europe did not present here as they ate Loma Linda stuff, which to dim recollection some of it was fortified?
                  7th day peoples had been doing this thing since their founders days so knew a bit how to eat is my guess. Like some select Chinese centered Buddhist monastic communities.

                  1. The latest 7th Day Adventist studies show that ‘pesco-vegetarians’ actually have the lowest mortality risk, with ‘vegans’ having the second lowest mortality risk

                    That was both sexes together though. Among men, ‘vegans’ had the lowest mortality risk with ‘pesco-vegtarians’having the second lowest.

                    The risk figures for women were different. ‘Pesco-vegetarians’ had the lowest risk but female ‘vegans’ had a higher mortality risk than not only ‘pesco-vegetarians’ but also ‘lacto-ovo vegetarians’ and ‘semi-vegetarians’.

                    However, in all cases non meat eaters (called ‘vegetarians’ in this study) had a lower mortality risk than meat eaters (called ‘non vegetarians’).


                    To better uderstand these figures in context, I’d suggest that people view Dr Greger’s old (2003) presentation. Note though that when he refers to the 7th Day Adventist studies, he is referring to the old studies. The new 7th Day Adventist studies cited above were now published until 10 years after Dr Greger’s 2003 presentation. However, his comments there still remain highly relevant.

                    1. I am wondering about genetics for the pesce veg group because they had a higher portion of black people in that group.

                    2. Also, the Vegan women were far less iikely to have hormone replacement therapy.

                      Those two things are factors outside of diet, which seriously could affect the results.

                      The hormone replacement therapy issue with the woman could change things if they removed that group.

                    3. Let’s look at the choices of belief systems to come away with:

                      The women died earlier if they didn’t eat fish, so eat fish even if it harms the endothelials so maybe them living means the endothelials don’t matter as much?

                      Or they matter and somethknb like better genetics in the group which was skewed black and maybe vegans feeling safe not doing hormonal replacement therapy affected things?

                    4. Or ate vegan faux meats or enough soy to affect IGF-1?

                      Does one of the charts say what the vegan women died from?

                      I am over my head trying to read studies.

                      Cancer versus heart disease versus Alzheimer’s?

                      That is what I need to know.

                    5. The vegan women didn’t have hormonal replacement therapy may also just be: were they not under medical care? Or did they not obey their doctor? Or is hormone replacement therapy protective?

                      Or is fish protective even if it harms the endothelials?

                    6. I guess my point is that if they died of heart disease, then the endothelial science would need to be questioned, and if the endothelial science is sound then there is an alternate explanation.

                      Dr Greger talked about B-13 and Omega 3.

                      There are other vegan things like raw or friititarisn or heavy soy or salted soy.

                      Salted soy kills Asians.

                      If it is Cancerc I am going to think salted soy.
                      If it is heart disease, then it will be something I suspect that there omega 3 to 6 ratio was off or something.

                    7. Dr Gregerc

                      I know that you have analyzed it.

                      Hormones? Did they die from Cancer?

                      I seem to be the only one grocking with you on this topic.

                      I understand that you are doing a process, which the Adventist studies are warring against right this second. I also understand that it is Adventist versus Essestyn versus England in people’s minds. Mediterranean improved on WFPB.

                      What happened herev

                    8. Deb

                      All this may prove is that ‘vegan’ women ate more refined carbohydrates (white bread, chips/fries, cakes, biscuits/cookies etc) than ‘vegan’ men. Or hydrogenated oils and spreads. All of those things would be worse than say eting steamed or poached fish. But that is only one possible explanation.

                      The fact is that we don’t know and can’t know the reason so I wouldn’t stress or speculate about it . But I would watch that old video of Dr Greger talking about bad ‘vegan’ and ‘vegetarian’ diets increasing mortality risk. It explains what some of those possible explanations might be.

                    9. Wow Mr Fumblefingers! The mortality figues for women on that first link were shocking to me. I had read Adventist results before, but not broken down to differentiate between men and women. This is shocking! Pesco-vegetarians, 0.51, and vegans , 1.18 mortality risk for heart disease. . Hmmmm, maybe I should be adding small servings of fish. Thank you for posting

                    10. Barb, in an earlier post I think you said your doc. suggested that you should include fish in your diet. I heartily agree with him.

                      Those who follow a pescatarian diet don’t scarf it down every day, of course. Talk about overkill! Maybe a couple of times a week at most. They’re (we’re) big on fruits and veggies, etc. too. Some pescatarians include a little dairy and/or eggs.

                    11. I found the death rate statistics for vegan women in the ischemic heart disease category (table 4) shocking. CVD death rates were also somewhat higher but ischemic HD rates really altered the overall mortality rates for women vegans and for all vegans. This very large difference cries out for an explanation/further analysis. The study you referenced shows general categories like vegan, etc. are too coarse to base diet decisions on with great confidence. Seems to me gender differences need more focus in nutrition studies.

                    12. Thanks folks.

                      Dr Greger (and other plant-based docs) have been saying for a very long time that many ‘vegan’ and ‘vegetarian’ diets are truly appalling and damage people’s health. So, I don’t regard these findings as either surprising or shocking. To be honest, I was surprised to see that ‘vegan’ men had the lowest relative mortality risk of any of the cohorts since unsupplemented ‘vegan’ diets are likely to be deficient in eg B12, selenium, iodine etc compared to fish eaters. So to me that was a surprisingly good result

                      In the case of women, though, I found the results unsurprising. For example, premenopausal women would have a higher requirement for iron than men and unplanned ‘vegan’ diets can be quite low in this as well as the other nutrients I mentioned earlier.

                      Observational studies like this also have a number of well-known problems, partiularly confounding by uncontrolled variables, that mean they cannot be regarded as ‘proving’ anything.

                      If people do choose to include fish in a whole food plant based diet, the standard mainstream advice is to have several servings of ocean oily fish – but not more (in order to minimise the risk of mercury, PCB etc toxicity).

                      “We conclude that 1 to 2 seafood meals per week be included to reduce the risk of congestive heart failure, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and sudden cardiac death, especially when seafood replaces the intake of less healthy foods.”

                      As I have noted before, eating fish may not be healthy in and of itself. The observed health benefits may simply be the result of replacing calories from meat, dairy, refined carbohydrates, oils etc with calories from fish – as hinted at by the last clause in that AHA scientific advisory statement above.

                      I personally choose to eat a 100% vegetaran plant based diet with B12 etc supplements as recommeded by Dr Greger, but a WFPB diet that includes one or two seafood meals per week would be a good choice also.

                    13. Oh, just one other thing. There were only 203 deaths in total among women from ischemic heart disease, split between non-vegetarians, semi-vegetarians etc etc. We are therefore talking quite small numbers in each category.

                      While I am no statistician, i do have doubts that deriving relative hazard ratios from such small numbers would provide reliable estimates of wider popuation effects.

        3. Sean

          The first video of Dr Greger that I ever saw was his ’40-year old vegan dies of heart attack’ presentation from 2003 (uploaded in 2013 though).

          Greger has bee saying for a very long time that many so-called vegan and vegetarian diets are just as unhealthy as the standard American diet. It is why he advocates a whole fool plant based diet rather than a ‘vegan’ diet.

          1. Tom,
            I don’t know why there is no reply button under your comments about the 7th Day Adventist study you cited (perhaps a depth limit?), so I will post my response here. If I read you right, you are making two basic points re: women vegan ischemic heart disease mortality rates: 1. their diets might have been defective in some unknown way, 2. the group was small, casting doubt on the reliability of the analysis. Both are certainly possible. Nevertheless, the results were one of the few statistically significant findings of the study, and assuming the statistics were well done, they results should at least give one pause. A number of the other results were not statistically significant. Also, the number of women vegans and the large gap in mortality for ischemic heart disease were clearly large enough to pull down the entire vegan category.

            Regarding the possibility that the vegan women might have had a significantly defective diet as compared not just to vegan men but to pesco-vegetarians that could account for the unexpected results, the study authors stated that they found no obvious major diet differences accounting for the differences, and they also make a point of saying that more work needs to be done to explain this result, and that more work needs to be done generally on gender differences.

            I was shocked, in part, because I persuaded my whole-food plant-based pesco-vegetarian wife to drop the pesco-, but it is hard for me to justify this recommendation based on the Adventist studies, which are among the best studies we have. We do supplement with DHA/EPA (as well as some other supplements like D, iodine, B12), which hopefully will compensate for whatever she might lose by giving up eating fatty fish a few times per week
            (and hopefully significantly improve her diet by not ingesting pollutants found in fish). But the fact remains, the result is a mystery that requires a real explanation, at least before I would feel confident in my recommendation.

  2. Enjoyed the article. Makes sense to me. But when I try to discuss this subject with my cardiologist (I have had 4xCABG earlier this year) he simply accepts the studies about Plant Based Foods and says his evidence trumps that! for e.g. he is adamant and says : statistically speaking we KNOW that reduction of saturated fats and a low cholesterol count are far more reliable indicators – and so he tells me to stick to that! Not sure if you have ever found supporting studies that demonstrate that just eating low sat fat and low cholesterol is inferior to a Whole Plant Foot eating diet in CVS compromised persons?

    1. I am unclear David…your doc then omits other fats and salt from recommendation, saying it is all sat fat and cholesterol intake? Please elaborate. What exactly are your docs recommendations?

      1. The advice is …..avoid (only eat it every now and again and never sausage or bacon) red meat (try to eat white meat instead), eat oily fish a couple of times a week, reduce saturated fat generally (little butter, rarely cheese) and keep other fried food to a minimum, don’t add salt to your diet (accept what is already in there), no eggs – and yes I have seen your video about this :), eat whole grains as much as you can and the same with green veg. and fruit. Combine this with a healthy dose of statins and this is good as it will ever get (according to him)

        1. Well I am not affiliated with the site in any manner and am just another commentator like you.

          I think your docs statements on review may require some addition or specification.
          In the first manner processed foods vary significantly on salt in them. While it would be nice to think we could all be at healthy levels by just forsaking the tumbler, that is just not the case.
          A examination of all the salt intake with condiments processed foods, perhaps take out, fast food and this and that, it is certainly quite probable to get well above the considered normal for consumption amount which may be above that of a heart patient.

          Those guidelines your doc mentions seem helpful but I guess it is a matter of degree. And perhaps we should be concerned with degree. I mention this as I have a person I know of on statins for many years who now due to age, has complications, and must get off them.
          AS a standard course I think the aim should be to get off them. Certainly take them until we expect we have enough positive result to do so, but at some point to get off them.
          He was on very low dose but on them for 15 plus years. They do have negative effects. Dietary modification of a significant sort does not,
          I know of another person who suffered a MI and was found to have almost entire coronary artery blockage in one and significant amount in all. He was put on heavy dose statins in the immediate but due to dietary modification of a significant sort is now able to go to a very low dose…so practically it seems diet may significantly affect this,
          It is personal my observations but study seems to support my observations.

          Vegans do indeed at times get plaque in their arteries and develop heart disease. This is identified here by some videos but we all know this occurs.
          A diet of your modification would certainly address some issues of overt sat fat cholesterol and salt consumption, but is it enough?
          If one wants to aim at getting off statins I think a Whole foods plant based diet is a necessity.
          If one does not mind them, and wants to roll the dice with long term effects of them, I would guess his dietary suggestions may suffice.
          Most of your docs patients are probably quite ok which the choice of statins, in his defense.

          1. I will add, one of the drug manufacturers did try high dose statins to attempt to produce the result found in very low fat whole foods plant based diets with statins.
            They found the adverse side effects resulted in the necessity of discontinuance of the study.
            It was apparently reducing the existent plaque in arteries but the side effect on liver and other organs were just to great. If we aim at reducing existent plaque there seems to be no other way than with a WFPB diet.
            But to a extend then it depends on what one wants. To just get along statins may be OK.
            But very long term there may be complications. Or one may be perfectly Ok till one passes.
            The person I mentioned first, is a avid fitness advocate ideal weight no smoking, with a very healthy lifestyle but with a history of always eating eggs and milks and such things. If anyone should have no side effects it should be him…but he did.

            They presented as generalized muscle weakness fatigue and things of that sort. He took them from age 65 to 80.
            And he was one of the advocates of the automatically upon age 50, men should all take them as preventive…..but found sorry it does not work that way.

        2. David

          Your doctor is going on what the available high quality evidence shows. Multiple studies have shown that replacing calories from saturated fat with calories from plant fats significantly reduces mortality risk. There are also mountains of evidence that reducing blood LDL cholesterol levels will significantly reduce mortality risk. If youare interested in checking out the evidence for yourself, I’d suggest reading these:(neither are easy or quick reads though):

          Unfortunately, as the first reference states (page e8):
          ‘ Finally, we note that a trial has never been conducted to test the effect on CHD outcomes of a low-fat diet that increases intake of healthful nutrient-dense carbohydrates and fiber-rich foods such as whole grains, vegetables, fruits, and legumes that are now recommended in dietary guidelines.’

          It can make this statement because neither Esselstyn’s nor Ornish’s studies qualify as high quality evidence since Esselstyn’s study was not a randomised controlled trial (and was quite small) and Ornish’s studies trialled multiple interventions not just diet so it is not possible to attribute those benefits to diet alone.

          However, the Esselstyn diet is a low saturated fat diet that lowers LDL cholsterol. And achieved stunning results. The only real difference between what your doc recommends and what Esselstyn recommends is the fish element. However, nobody is really sure that fish is actually beneficial or whether the benefits just come from fish in the diet replacing even more unhealthy foods like meat, dairy and refined carbohydrates.

          So,, your doc is spot-on in terms of what the high quality evidence currently shows …. but if you eat the Esselstyn diet, you’ll effectively be doing what he recommends with the single exception of the oily fish.

    2. There is more to health than lowered CHD risk. The idea that X trumps Y so one can ignore Y sounds whacky to me. There‘s plenty of evidence that e.g. high fiber diets reduce colon cancer and diabetes risk, etc.

  3. Ornish goes down to 10 percent fat…. but in his book, the Spectrum, he has less strict diets.

    Different strokes for different folks – pun intended!

    I wish I had listened to Dr. Ornish back in 1986 when I went to a lecture of his at UCSD. I’ll bet my CAC would not be in the 700s at age 70. I exercise daily over 60 years and have a BMI of 25.

    My family history on my father’s side and genetic studies support the idea that a whole foods, plant-based diet is good for me. Fortunately, I have few symptoms, at least for now.

    Give thought to whether you might be one of those people who would benefit before the atherosclerosis, diabetes, type 2, and metabolic syndrome sets in. Do you really need all that oxidized cholesterol?

    Thanks, Dr. Greger.

  4. My Granddaughter along with many college-aged kids has POTS (Peripheral orthostatic tachycardia syndrome). I am wondering if Dr. Gregor has done research into this, if not, would he. Any help and finding ways for her to cope with this terrible syndrome would be greatly appreciated.

      1. But the daily dozen recommends five 12 oz servings a day of liquid, which could be water, a day–right? Five 12 oz servings a day of green tea would leave me hanging from the ceiling from too much caffeine!!!

  5. Dear Dr Gregor,
    I think you are terrific, and I refer people to your website regularly. I have donated to NF, have your books, including the cookbook, which is filled with wonderful recipes. Today, I received an email from you that included a recipe for onion rings. Thanks.
    My serious complaint, however, (which I felt was dismissed by your staff when I posted it after first getting the cookbook) is that you do NOT give the “Nutrition Facts” for your recipes! How ironic (hypocritical?) is that. No need to take offense where there is none, just a legitimate criticism. Why not come up with the Nutrition Facts for all your recipes? Some of us actually pay attention and use this important information.
    Thanks so much for your important work

    1. Carold, it’s true that they don’t give nutrition facts for each recipe. They do, however, let you know how many DailyDozen categories you tick off each recipe. I find that very helpful & love the DailyDozen app. I still use it every day

      Dr. G, so sorry I missed your birthday last week. Happy belated birthday, & I will make another donation before the end of this week. My apologies for the delay.

      1. Awww. it was his birthday on the 25th! Missed it.

        Happy Birthday, Dr. Greger!

        (Hope it wasn’t a brutal comments day that day.)

        Thank you for giving all of us presents all year long!

      1. There are two ways of looking at the NYT. I am not asking for a political diatribe on the issue but it has been stated.
        Right side conservative is the most commonly found to hold criticism of NYT….so I can then assume that is the basis? Nothing beyond that is required so as not to grossly deviate.
        N seems to share your opinion. So then I can assume that it is it to liberal is the NYT?

          1. Well no, thanks for answering. Rand Paul Ron Paul Gary Johnson are all conservatives with some nuance to it. All libertarians but all favoring a conservative policy. On social issues they lean more progressive with GJ as most notable in his favorance of pot legalization.

            1. Not so, Ron. For starters, Rand Paul is a republican & not even remotely libertarian. Some lean more to the left, some lean more to the right. For the most part, libertarians tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

              Alan Dershowitz is my hero. He’s the last civil libertarian standing.

            1. That is a technical dictionary expression of what is libertarian. That is not a description of a political issue of current favor NYT and or others having fake news.
              You made the statement so what do you mean? I take libertarian to mean in general conservative with some variance on social issues.
              Providing a dictionary reference is not sufficient when we are relating the issue clearly to a specific… the NYT.

              I do not come close in any manner to a conservative outlook on things. If this is what Dr Gregers philosophy here is part of, as expressed by his most fervent contributors… I will have no part of it. It seems as well coincided with reference to the notion of God and blessings and a soul as well…all which are mostly conservative in leaning. Which me as a atheist am adverse to.

              No problem with any of this… but this is nutrition and you all are adding these things into posts not me. If this is Dr Gregers position..I will not be a part of it.

              1. ron, you’re getting your panties in a twist yet once again. Unbelievable! :-(

                I merely posted two “nutrition-related” articles that I thought would interest people. But look what you pounced on!

                Let’s drop the subject, shall we?

                    1. There have to be many, many, many times he comes back to see what people get out of his hours of work on the videos and blogs and he comes back and the comments are volatile and twisted all together and if the comments weren’t hijacked, it is almost always the opposing team which shows up first and starts calling him a “doctor” and accuses him of being pro-pot or against pot or of using old data.

                      He comes down and shows his face and says something nice like “I aim to please” and the internet sharks start circling.

                1. Well you did not simply post two articles. You posted two articles with a hit on the NYT. Which is fine but this is nutrition, not a political site, and it is followed by other common contributors here adding things of religious specific notation, and it appears a reinforcing of your opinion.

                  All adverse to my religious and political views. So it is fine to state I am getting my panties all in a bunch(which itself is derogatory), when you are not the one being offended by addition of content which is clearly going to have the effect of marginalization of peoples. In this specific… atheists and progressives.

                  You win I guess…I will not participate in such a atmosphere.
                  Dr Greger holds these views, you his most fervent admirers, I assume he must….good luck with your message.There are many of us who are progressive and atheists and will not have a combining of these ideas with WFPB.
                  So I for one know its purpose and its advantages…. but will not suffer this to be a part of that…..and hence remove myself from contribution to this site.

                  AS a aside… my hero if I had one since heros, have as well been introduced..Norman Finkelstein. That is my parting have at it.
                  The more WFPB is aligned with ideology(which appeared to surface a bit with the pot videos) is the more the young will question findings attached to it.
                  Like trying to draw strict lines on how we must be vegan….a majority will not support either, the strict lines drawing it as such, or the idea itself……one or the other will be rejected.

                  I henceforth reject this site and Dr Gregers interpretation of nutritional study ….based upon the conducts of his fervent supporters as represented in this discussion today.

                  1. Ron,

                    None of us represent Dr. Greger at all. He is a nice person and is busy researching nutrition.

                    He is sincerely trying to change lives.

                    YR posted links on sloppy science and that seems relevant as a topic because we keep seeing Meta-Analysis coming from multiple directions.

                    I am not sure what is upsetting you.

                    You have shared your belief systems freely and nobody has attacked them or attacked you for sharing them.

                    I just mostly don’t want you to assume any of us at all represent Dr. Greger. He is not here interacting with us at all.

                    I am going to say that I just posted one joking with Nancy and YR because they are light-hearted, but I wouldn’t have posted it if I knew how upset you are.

                    It is inevitable that each individual on this site has their own belief system about every single topic because that is what modern society is.

                    What can we do to not hurt your feelings right now?

                    I feel like nobody did get offended the times you have talked about Buddhism or Atheism or any topic. I don’t believe people are trying to harm you or argue with you.

                    But, speaking for myself, if we need to just stick solely to the topic, I genuinely can do that and will if it brings peace.

                    1. Deb I will respond to you just out of courtesy. It remains that I will cease participation here.

                      I respond to things other state off topic of this nature, but invariably do not initiate them. I take no personal effect from this, but think I must represent my side in this, progressive and atheists, those who hold minority view. It is not so much my side bears more weight than any other, but clearly no attempt was made to honestly respond to my question, which was honestly asked.
                      I got instead a questionable response and then a gang up, they call it. Basically derided for really in the initial, a open question.

                      So that is fine, I have no problem with it. I am honestly starting to doubt Dr Gregers interpretation of science and study, which is coupled with this type thing here. Which speaks to a problem for me, with continuation on this site.
                      I think if a thing, this thing, was fair and fairly represented, probably there would be a different atmosphere to this place. Usually things coincide.
                      This place it starting to smell a bit of agenda by my read.

                      Does he cherry pick…I am afraid it seems he does. You yourself show that with your selection of a line, which is despite the conclusion of the study, you just posted that .
                      You read the conclusion, I don’t have to repeat it. He selected one line which was adverse to general content…which is a cherry pick, hands down always.

                      I saw it in the pot stuff, saw it here and there, cell study, and I could live with a bit of that. But coupled that with a right wing tilt to this place…it becomes a bit to much.

                      I incorporate some of what he says, a bit, into my daily diet. The whole thing what he is espousing…no, I am starting to reject much of it. I don’t know the impetus, but it appears there is some sort of agenda.
                      Seems cultish.
                      WFPB great, if one has a problem or going that way. And absolutely necessary. And a part of ones diet…certainly. But it seems like those in wheelchairs advocating we must then all be in wheel chairs..not really, only if injured.
                      A bit perhaps, I think we need this thing, daily, I do myself with breakfast always. But the rest the low protein this and that…it makes a person weak is what it does. I am vegan for ethical purpose and look at this nutrition aspect a bit, but really am finding in the main….not much of this site is recommendable. I need strength and the physical it is what I do as well.

                      I will always be vegan unless a choice if vegan or death. That is a ethical choice for me a thing of morality. In even that, some here even one who responded in this group fashion says…no I am not, as I do not meet that standard, someones personal standard or group standard…..who knows really?

                      I know excepting death causes other…. this is what I do… vegan.
                      This place this site…something seems wrong here..cultish. I have been on the internet in this capacity for since the late 90’s, basically since it started, for common peoples…so I get a feel for places…and I do not like this feel.
                      I had governmental high speed access, way back then, when all were still on dial was wonderful. I have run across places like cults, it happens.

                      Now I will again be slammed…against free speech I guess, or some other thing which shows I have a great personal fault of this sort or that….
                      Will I be called crazy…suppose so. Seem to do Ok in the real world, in things and with people, … but I expect I am now fair game and will be told I am all sorts of bad….oh well.

                      Nice to know you. I am long gone now and become set in this. The final abuse….hurled my way as opposed to general compassion….no big deal. I expect your compassion is the real here, and will be what I get then in the end here…and I thank you for that.
                      The rest what follows probably, I in one form or another called names(really what it amounts to)…means not so much. I no longer want to be associated with this site.

                      One or the other I could take…bad behavior and cherry picking….nah.
                      I may as well join scientology if I want to abide such, would be more profitable ;) Joining cults is not what I do. Investigate them,…yes I enjoy finding out things so I do…


                    2. Ron,

                      I will genuinely miss your input to the site.

                      But I respect your right to do what you need to.

                      I will leave the Dr. Greger part out of it because his process is done by a team full of 19 people and I cannot speak on his behalf or their behalf.

                      I do truly mean for you to be well and for you to stay healthy.

                      I hope you find what you are looking for in a community.

                      There are so many communities out there.

                    3. Ron,

                      As far as the science itself, it is complicated because the double-blind placebo trials didn’t get the same results as other trials did and this blog entry only mentions the double-blind placebo studies and the year-long study where people ate 2, or 4 portions of oily fish per week. According to the resource, none of those showed a correlation, but the other studies, which were not double-blind placebo studies did. My mind trusts the double-blind studies more, but it is genuinely frustrating that the studies don’t line up better.

                      Science is complicated and I don’t know if he will always represent every subject as fully as possible. Not sure anybody can.

                      When I was reading up on Cancer studies for my dog, I found whole textbooks with volumes just on Taurine. There are 100,000 studies every single year and he can’t present any of them completely in this format, but he does give useful information.


                      I need you to know that I was not trying to gang up on you before. I started posting before you got upset and didn’t know until too late that you were upset. Sometimes entering this site on the wrong post, I end up missing key things and I need you to know that I sincerely will miss you, but that I just as sincerely understand that sometimes people have to leave.

                    4. Deb the deficiencies are noted in the conclusion of the study which was not what Dr Greger mentions. He chose one specific which represents his view and did not represent that which does not..So what is that..cherry picking.

                      You all ganged up had your fun….so it is over. No problem. This is not the only place I post and rarely does posting things matter a bit, it is a small thing.
                      The main problem I see is this place displays the aspects one finds in cult behavior. No problem with that as well….want to make a religion out of nutrition…..go for it. I’ve seen that in veganism on occasion in the most part, I simply avoid it. Rarely confronting it.

                      I will not be involved in that. I see continual occasions of cherry picking. I had a to do with one poster here from the other side…Pete Granger.
                      Know what…I got Pete to stop throwing up all these nonsense studies and error studies, he knew I meant to communicate..and we arrived at some common ground.

                      Why was he posting the nonsense…it had to be he fully expected none to read the studies he threw up…now why would he think a thing like that… a cult peoples believe they do not challenge. So his challenges/studies would be unread. So he produced half hearted things.. Put to him……after a rant, and he actually produced some good stuff..
                      Half of his studies…they were error response no study there…did any single person here even notice that? Check for yourself it is still there, he made multiple posts of the same stuff. Clicked on errors prompt up, one good study he produced.
                      So it is by my read…few take this place seriously. Both sides throw stuff up and none really read what the other side is putting up…absurd.

                      But how the other side perceives this place say a bit, and it is not good.
                      So no problem. If a response was allowed me, my question..I suppose I most certainly would respond in a different fashion. To be dismissive and not answering… insulting. So the initial was insulting and the behavior continued…oh well. No big thing. Then the gang up……seen that a thousand and one times since 1996 or so….also no big deal.
                      But again I will take one or the other, in general, substance or kindness, I don’t expect to much one or the other does it for me. Absent both…no I will not continue.

                      And this all is in the context of cultish behavior. Which closes the book for me. If I found Dr Greger was actually producing real good stuff with no cherry picking in it…I would likely then stay even then. But he is firmly not.

                      Some of it is good some not so good. I picked on pot as focus as that was what I knew like a book. But I gave it a bit waited and it descended to this….so this is it.
                      You all make up what you want about me I am this or that or matters not a whole bunch. I am not here and this is why.
                      So thanks for your time in reading this. I gave up cults about when was a child. Get fooled occasionally for a while but found out…I do not stay around.
                      This is found out.

                    5. Ron,

                      I had zero concept of the process you and YR were doing at all when I was commenting. Zero.

                      I was focusing on Nancy’s sentence about science versus marketing studies and have zero concept what you and YR and Nancy are fighting about.

                      The article YR posted locked me out after one sentence saying I exceeded my free article limit and need a subscription which ain’t gonna happen.

                      Me laughing with Nancy because she remembered Dr Gregers birthday and supports the cause has zero to do with whatever you and YR are fighting about.

                      YR could yu not escalate right now? Please?

                      Ron thinks we were laughing at him and I was not. I am not involved in it at all.

                    6. YR just posted links so I sincerely don’t know what you are mad at.

                      Did they pick on something scientific that you support and call it marketing?

                    7. I think some of.the confusion is that comments get between other comments and now it looks like a group hug about ganging up on you but your comments weren’t there when we were having light-hearted interactions.

                    1. Nancy,

                      Thank you for giving that blessing to Ron.

                      I echo that if he needs to interact only with people who are likeminded in every single way, that I wish him to be well and to stay healthy.

                      Ron, I have often benefitted from your passion and your helpfulness.

                      I don’t know if it will even be possible for you to find a community as innocuous as this one online, but I recognize that this is the second time in two days that you have expressed wanting to leave and I do wish you well.

                    2. Comical…yes thank you very much for your very good wishes in my direction coupled with a personal attack….which I am very certain you find justifiable.

                      One or the other I could then say..well I respect that…a honest person. Both….seems not. Passive aggression I think they call it.

                  2. Ron, please reconsider and stay. I hardly ever comment, but I do read your comments and would miss them/you.

                    The comment area is an area for discussion and alternative ideas. Without discussion and alternative ideas, how can we fairly discuss topics which could become one-sided, not to mention boring. In my view, the ability to have free speech in all areas is very important. Otherwise, truth might become obscured.

                    In fact, for some reason, the “REPLY” button is missing on many of the comments below here. This happens every now and then–a technical glitch?

                    1. Lisa…this edgeing into fake news is simply not a thing I want to be associated with. It was clearly stated by one here, the NYT is not read, excepting some science pages, and then reinforced. Quaried on that it appears it is a right wing/libertarian effort. Which means it is the fake news thing we are all hearing about.

                      We all question media and doubt some of it, but this is that step beyond…to refuse to read the NYT based on libertarian or views on freedom…is radical to my view. I myself voice on corporate influence on media, most do, but fake news is not that. Fake news is specific to one group and only that.
                      I will simply not have a part of those things. It is not living with a thing, it is asking about it and then being refused, and then subject to all sorts of religious intonations. references to blessing hugs god and this and that.
                      When all firmly know me, to not hold those views, and many others here
                      likely do not as well.This was not a singular effort but a group effort.
                      What if I do not step up and sound off…I will not participate in a fake news site….it is allowed then this place becomes one of those places…crying about fake news and speaking of the theistic god and blessings and all that…that stuff is fine but this is a nutrition site, not a right wing news site.
                      And I was then targeted by a group of them, three, stating the same thing and demonizing me…

                      A one on one discussion of a point of difference..of course that happens all the time. But I was not allowed that and then subject to religious rhetoric in response to my question and then firmly demonized….

                      Ok fine one may play that way and perhaps that is here reinforced….so play that way, I will not participate….it is the only response available for me and I absolutely cannot condone this behavior. Those who act in this way yelling about fake news and such, they must know their behaviors putting that into places it belongs not has result. Or else it continues to spread and spread.

                      It is not a question of free expression of ideals or free speech…this is not a fake news site nor a theistic site…it is about nutrition. We go off topic often but not to join groups and demonize others, spouting off right wing nonsense. This is not the place for that.
                      And that behavior is not one of free speech. Free speech is when asked about a political statement made and unsolicited in public forum…it is answered, not kept only to others who think as they do.

                      You seem a nice person and I respond because of that. Thank you for your comment and no offense…. if you think this is a thing of free speech or acceptance of others it is not that at all. This is a squashing of opinion and a refusal to discuss, then going into religious aspect of a specific kind…..

                      All fine….I am finding the site suspect in then that regard, it is right wing and honestly as mentioned I could perhaps live with all that, but Dr Greger is clearly at times cherry picking. So all combined this, has not a thing to do with accepting others opinions…it is variance from the sites purpose…to provide discussion point for real things of nutrition.

                      So yes I now will be made fun of I came back and answered your question. It is not so important that. You were nice and kind so I did address your issue in statement. I will not participate here..

                    2. And Lisa these things like spiritual hugs, the big to do with Dr Gregers birthday, what a great soul he has, and other things like that….remind me distinctly of cult behavior.

                      Basically it creeps me out. To see all that on Halloween…was particularly creepy ;)
                      But still creepy now as I read it. This is a nutrition site, it is fine to say all that stuff but really does anyone need to hear it all? Coupled with right wings stuff, ganging up, refusal to answer questions, the cherry picking,…..who needs it. Cults who needs them. I will watch the videos on occasion, but only with qualification. The rest of this is unnecessary baggage others may engage…I will not. Free speech free to do and say that…sure they are. Free to be cult members..sure, have at it. Freedom for me to not be here….as well.

                    3. True, this is a nutrition site, and true, people on here talk about other topics from time to time. I say three people talking to you about something not to do with nutrition, ignore them. I do not reply to everyone nor agree with everyone about everything posted on this site.
                      However, one has to figure out where to put one’s time. If I disagree, I may ignore a conversation unless I feel the point is important, but to stop participating is not the answer, I think.

                    4. WFPBLiisa, the Reply button disappears after so many levels in (it looks like about 5 levels in). I think my reply here is on the last level, so the Reply button will disappear.

                    5. Hmmm…. kind of disturbing–one is unable to react to certain things….
                      Thank you for the explanation. I had no idea.

                  3. You know Ron, I am a pretty conservative Christian (love stuff written by old dead guys, same for music by old dead guys) and a couple of times, individuals on these threads have insulted Christians or painted them with a very broad brush ( I don’t think I am personally responsible for the Spanish Inquisition-I think that was Michael Palin) (I do not think the earth is flat, I am not a Luddite and I do not believe in spontaneous regeneration).
                    That being said, take my advice and just glean what you can here and ignore political leanings you do not agree with. That’s what I do. With all respect, if you feel marginalized, then you have done it to yourself-this is only a comment section on a nutrition site-NO ONE is suggesting you should go to jail, lose your home or business, or that you should be covered in pitch and lit on fire in Rome.
                    People were trying to act lighthearted to diffuse the situation and I am sure Dr Gregor is horrified by all of this drama.

    1. Thanks for sharing those articles, YR. I hardly ever read anything from the NYT anymore but I’m happy to see these.

      Dr. Nestle said that “the unstated goal of most company-sponsored studies is to increase the bottom line.” I’m shocked. /s
      I love how she makes a distinction between science and market research. I prefer that to calling it sloppy science, especially when there’s nothing sloppy about it. It’s carefully crafted disinformation made to look like science for the sole purpose of marketing a product.

      What I find hard to believe is that Dr. Nestle could only identify 11 studies under the influence of industry funding in food and beverage research. I’m sure the NF staff could find more than that!

      The 2nd article you posted isn’t really a big shock, either, but I’m glad the NYT is putting it out there.
      I love how Dr. Jonathan Moreno said, “Science at this level is like a battleship, and it’s really hard to turn it around,”. More simply put, it’s called denial. Plain & simple. That’s the state that this Dr. Anversa seems to be living in.

      Again, thanks for sharing these. Will pass them along.

      1. Well-written Nancy!

        I love this: ” I prefer that to calling it sloppy science, especially when there’s nothing sloppy about it. It’s carefully crafted disinformation made to look like science for the sole purpose of marketing a product.”

        You are a breath of fresh air around this place!

        Passionate and kind-hearted and nice to everybody and passionate and remembering Dr. Greger’s birthday and buying the t-shirts and giving money for the cause!

        You are such a blessing!

        Thank you!

  6. The study Dr. Greger linked on fish oil and endothelial function says that fish oil supplementation does significantly improve endothelial function.
    “In this study, by pooling the results of the available randomized controlled trials, we found that fish oil supplementation significantly improved endothelial function, as measured by FMD. However, the results of meta-regression and subgroup analyses suggested the quality of the included studies (evaluated by Jadad Score) may influence the effect of fish oil supplementation on FMD, and the significance of the results seemed to depend mainly on the contribution of the studies with relatively poor quality (Jadad Score <3). Furthermore, complication of T2DM and baseline DBP of the included subjects may also influence the potential effects of fish oil on FMD. Normoglycemic participants and subjects with lower DBP (<75 mmHg) seemed to be associated with significant improvements of FMD after fish oil supplementation, while FMD of diabetic patients or the subjects with higher DBP didn't seem to benefit from fish oil supplementation."

    1. I think this was the sentence he was looking at:

      Sensitivity analysis including only double-blind, placebo-controlled studies indicated fish oil supplementation has no significant effect on endothelial function (weighed mean difference: 0.54%, 95% confidence interval −0.25% to 1.33%, p = 0.18).

    2. Yes BB here is the conclusion…

      “In conclusion, results of our meta-analysis indicated that fish oil supplementation significantly improved endothelial function, as measured by FMD. However, these results seemed to be mainly driven by the studies with relatively poor quality. High quality large scale clinical trials with adequate statistical power are needed in the future to further evaluate the effect of fish oil supplementation on endothelial function in the context of optimized concurrent cardiovascular therapy before we can come to a definite conclusion, especially in patients with high risk of CVD.”

      So in short probably yes..but more study is needed….you are essentially right.

        1. And BB you run across Winston Price who made a similar observation on the sports drink thread before this one in the video section……I said it in a round about way but it was clear in the previous video he was quite right as well…taurine found to lower bp in hypertensive patients by available study on human animal and cell study…..despite the cherry picking in that one. I expect I could find about one in each is my guess…

          Give him a shout out if you run across him….or a hug..I guess we are giving hugs…..oh well!!! Each cherry pick found then…a hug we will give…sounds about right lotta hugs to go around in this place.

            1. (I read where Christopher Plummer referred to “The Sound of Music” as “The Sound of Mucus.” :-) He thought the script, etc. was pretty corny.)

            1. This being Halloween eve ‘n all, maybe we should be referred to as a “coven” rather than clan. :-)

              (Lonie is shining up his broomstick for the big night.)

              1. Hey, it’s 2018. She probably gets about on a nice, shiny, new cordless Dyson now.

                I won’t say what she did with her old broomstick but a certain poster on this site has been walking funny for a couple of days

                1. Lonie, please let us know if you’re a he or a she! I maintain that you’re of the “he” persuasion.

                  Will you ‘fess up? :-/

  7. Deb implored, “YR could yu not escalate right now? Please?”

    Escalate what? You mean, do some ‘splainin’ regarding ron? I had the feeling he wanted to start a political war, and I wanted nothing to do with it. The NYT is well-known for biased reporting. Years ago, I used to like and read it, but wow! has it changed over the years. (I think ron just wanted an excuse to vent about this “cult” and etc.)

    As my moon is in Libra (we hate injustice of any kind), I consider the paper suitable for only one thing. Anyone with an imagination can guess what that one thing is.

    This article was written a coupla years ago, and the NYT has gotten only worse since then.

    And that’s all I’m going to say about this subject.

    1. I believe he said that he was Native American.

      I lost track of which state. He obviously spent time in California.

      It is complicated for me to remember because I traveled to Wounded Knee and other places and that information gets mixed up with what he said. I feel like he spoke about New Mexico, but that could be from my own travels.

      1. Ron

        Forgive me if I got it wrong.

        I want you to know that I respect you and already miss your hovering around trying to help people.

        But I respect your right to do this.

      2. I assumed that he was NA too, Deb. I once told him that I always admired the Native Americans and their philosophy (and jewelry and beat of the drums), and that I was certain I’ve been NA in one or more past lives.

        But he said that he was not NA. Was never too clear on what he claimed to “be” other than that he was an atheist Buddhist. Or something.

        1. He was communicating about the condition of Native Americans and I thought he was one. He and I both interacted with people from many backgrounds.


          I know that you weren’t wanting a political debate and that Ron was offended by something in the links. I feel bad that he thinks we were ganging up on him and laughing at him, when we were doing a light-hearted process aside from him at the same time as he was getting offended by the link.


          You didn’t make a political comment, you posted links, and I am still under the impression that the link was about science, which is a fair topic. I know that Ron felt ganged up on and that I do feel bad about.

          I couldn’t read the link. It said that I had exceeded my free article limit, which is possible because I click on links whenever I research these health and science subjects.

          I genuinely will miss his passion, but I feel like he is being hard on Dr. Greger. They both love Vegan and the Adventists would be an example of common ground so big that there would be something to not let go of, even with other differences.

          When I was in California, there was a woman who talked about her boyfriend and said that she saw the crumbs and had a sense that there would be a loaf there someplace and he saw the loaf and moaned about the crumbs. I am not putting Ron or myself in that equation, I am saying that sometimes when we see the bad stuff about people like Dr. Greger, people throw out thousands of the babies with the bathwater. He has a team of 19 researchers and all that staff and is doing it nonprofit and is writing scripts and blogs and doing videos and posting them all for free on the internet. We are so spoiled.

  8. The New York Times has more truth then some of the comments in this section. Dr. Greger’s wonderful site doesn’t deserve some of the rehtoric that is written here.

    1. Thank you for your take on this. (Perhaps you’re an employee of the NYT?)

      At one time, it was my favorite newspaper. “All the news that’s fit to print.” No longer.

  9. Deb said, “I know that you weren’t wanting a political debate and that Ron was offended by something in the links.”

    No, Deb, it was NOT something in the links, it was my parenthetical remark saying the Science section was the only part of the NYT I read. If you go back and reread, you’ll see what I mean. I had the feeling he was cruisin for a bruisin, and just wanted to start a “Left” vs. “Right” political debate. I wanted nothing to do with it.

    I’m thinking, what with Mercury retrograde looming, I’ll stay away for a while myself. We’re now in the “shadow,” and I’m seeing/feeling the effects already. Am afraid I might make some more “fierce” comments.

  10. Yolobus is one of the best option for you to book Delhi to Manali online bus ticket. Also, Yolo bus Travel Tech is leading online Bus bookings platform in India. Find the best deal and save precious time and money on bus reservations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This