Calder Horseman Stunned

[CryingForTheHorses]

A very sad day for Calder horseman, Our racing secretary Robert Umphrey suffered a massive heart attack at his home last evening, I am told he is being kept alive on a machine until next of kin can be with him.They dont expect him to survive!! Geeze I was just in his office yesterday morning kibitzing with him.This man has helped me very much at Calder and I feel the loss.Calder is like one big family and I am sure many feel this huge loss..God Bless you Robert Umphrey..

[46zilzal]

Might I ask his age??? Strange as it may seem when males suffer their first MI under 55, without some pre-exisitng pre-disposition (Rheumatic fever history or out of control Diabetes mellitus) , it is often fatal.

[Suff]

bad stuff. I wish him a break.


That's why you gotta live. You never know. The way I drink and F' around I have a sneaky suspicion I'm gonna drop like a rock in my late 50's early 60's one afternoon.

[twindouble]

bad stuff. I wish him a break.


That's why you gotta live. You never know. The way I drink and F' around I have a sneaky suspicion I'm gonna drop like a rock in my late 50's early 60's one afternoon.

Suff, if you quit drinking, change your life style, start working out, go on a veggie diet, you won't make 60. Any radical change including your handicapping will put you under. Check your family history, if longevity is there continue to have a good time in moderation and just walk your way to 90 +, a happy heart is a healthy one. :)


T.D.

[DJofSD]

Ya, just remember James Fix.

[toetoe]

I have very fond memories of Umphrey as RS at GGF in Albany, Ca. I also had the horse named for him that Rodriguez moved just a bit prematurely the other weekend. It seems the guy might not make it. I'm gonna guess he is indeed under 55.

[Loosehorse]

53. Would have been 54 10/10/06

[highnote]

Ya, just remember James Fix.

If I recall correctly, Jim Fix's family had a history of heart disease. Had he been taking colesteral reducing drugs he probably would not have died of a heart attack. Also, if the drugs didn't reduce the colesteral he could have gotten a bypass (if they had them back then).

The important thing is to get regular checkups. Heart disease is reversible.

[JustRalph]

If I recall correctly, Jim Fix's family had a history of heart disease. Had he been taking colesteral reducing drugs he probably would not have died of a heart attack. Also, if the drugs didn't reduce the colesteral he could have gotten a bypass (if they had them back then).

The important thing is to get regular checkups. Heart disease is reversible.

Interesting fact, or fiction?

People with high cholestrol don't experience heart attacks any more often than people with low cholestrol..........from what I read........hmmm....makes you wonder?

[46zilzal]

one of many well established factors in a mulit-factoral problem.
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4726

[Lasix1]

I'm afraid that the risk factors for heart disease are more complicated than the puzzles of handicapping.

While it is true that high cholesterol is a risk factor for heart disease, lowering your cholesterol--through statin drugs, exercise, diet, etc---does not reduce your chances of getting a heart attack or even of surviving one if you do. Ask the drug companies and they will admit that while there is no evidence, it "makes sense." I'm afraid that many things which make sense aren't true and vice-versa. (As any good handicapper knows!)

A recent study of abdominal fat shows the same pattern. Excess abdominal fat is a risk factor for heart disease, so you would think that removing it through, let's say, liposuction followed by diet and exercise should reduce your risk factors for heart disease. You'd think so, but that isn't true either. Your risk of getting a heart attack doesn't change just because you paid $3,000+ to have 20 lbs. of fat sucked out of you.

All of this seems to point to genetics being the biggest risk factor, but you can't change that. Risk factor logic has become so commonplace that even doctors offer these illusions of control because they are comforting to patients, it won't get them sued, and they don't know what else to do.

The only thing people can do to increase their chances for longevity seems to be caloric restriction. Eat 700 calories a day and you will---at least if you are a rat---live to be a hundred. Understandably, there aren't many human takers.

So eat what you like, exercise if you wish, be happy, and remember what Shakespeare said: "Like flies to wanton boys are the Gods, they kill us for their sport." ;)

[highnote]

While it is true that high cholesterol is a risk factor for heart disease, lowering your cholesterol--through statin drugs, exercise, diet, etc---does not reduce your chances of getting a heart attack or even of surviving one if you do.

This doesn't seem correct. According to the link above, the higher your cholesterol the greater your chances of having heart disease. Are you talking heart disease or heart attack?

I would think that reducing cholesterol reduces the chances of getting heart disease and therefore reduces the chance of a heart attack.



A recent study of abdominal fat shows the same pattern. Excess abdominal fat is a risk factor for heart disease, so you would think that removing it through, let's say, liposuction followed by diet and exercise should reduce your risk factors for heart disease. You'd think so, but that isn't true either. Your risk of getting a heart attack doesn't change just because you paid $3,000+ to have 20 lbs. of fat sucked out of you.

That probably has to do with the fact that there is still a lot of bad stuff in your body. You also need switch to a vegetarian diet, very low in salt, fat and cholesterol, start walking 5 miles per day, reduce stress and meditate, pray or similar. Then you will see the incredible benefits. But you're probably right, lipo alone ain't gonna get it done.

So eat what you like, exercise if you wish, be happy, and remember what Shakespeare said: "Like flies to wanton boys are the Gods, they kill us for their sport." ;)

You can eat what you like, but if it is full of fat, cholesterol, sodium, preservatives, etc., you'll probably get heart disease. Being in the racing business I think we all understand probabilities. I think it's a better bet that if you watch your diet and exercise regularly, you're less likely to get heart disease.

I highly recommend the book "Reversing Heart Disease -- the Only Scientifically Proven Method to Reverse Heart Disease" by Dr. Dean Ornish.
He lays out a good program for reversing heart disease and also a good program for preventing heart disease.

[46zilzal]

Risk calculator
http://hin.nhlbi.nih.gov/atpiii/calculator.asp?usertype=pub

[cj]

The fact he had to card like 7,652 races in the month of December probably didn't do much for his health.

[twindouble]

So eat what you like, exercise if you wish, be happy, and remember what Shakespeare said: "Like flies to wanton boys are the Gods, they kill us for their sport." ;) quote; Lasix1

Well, we just lost another friend this week, good man, refereed a ball game that afternoon. No history of heart trouble, a slender 6 foot 2, got home, everything was fine, went to his car to retrieve something, reached for the door and had a massive heart attack and was gone within the hr at the age of 61.

I can sight many examples of those we lost over the last 15 years that didn't fit the profiles of those studies, so I agree with you. When they go young as my brother in-law at age 41, a picture of health and not a ounce of fat showed on his body just defined mussle, didn't smoke or drink and I've done both for many years. Well, what can I say at 65? :confused: My last check up I got a clean bill of health Plus the only pill I've taken over my life was an asprin after a bad day at the track or a hangover. There's longgevity in our family, so here again, I agree with you. Not that something couldn't happen.

Just one more note, as a child myself and friends would spend what ever time we could at the GE dumps picking copper for spending money. We got covered with what ever chemicals they dumped there including PCB's as we later learned. Around 78 or 79 we had a neighborhood reunion, all were alive and kicking, with the exception of we lost early on due to auto accidents. The majority were in their late 30's and early 40's. We are talking about doing it again, one is process of locating them and I've heard no bad news as of today. I've checked the OB's over the years so I'm convince we'll have a good turn out. :)

Those young woman out there that don't want to get married but are considering having children should smarten up and use us old ones for live donors, that's one thing we aren't amuned to. :jump: :cool:

T.D.

[Lasix1]

This doesn't seem correct. According to the link above, the higher your cholesterol the greater your chances of having heart disease. Are you talking heart disease or heart attack?

I would think that reducing cholesterol reduces the chances of getting heart disease and therefore reduces the chance of a heart attack.

I know it doesn't seem correct, but it is. That was the point of my post. I'm talking about people with risk factors for heart disease lowering them through diet, exercise, statins, etc. and, yes, I'm talking about both heart disease and heart attacks.

The correlations shown in your link are undoubtedly correct, but they are skewed by the fact that they include people who are not programmed genetically for heart disease in the first place.

The illusion of control to which I referred is the widespread idea that if you have high cholesterol or abdominal fat, or whatever the risk factor of the day is, and you get them back to the norms shown in the risk factor chart through diet, exercise or drugs you will then achieve the same odds of getting heart disease as those who never had high cholesterol or abdominal fat in the first place.

Fortunes have been made by people who exploit this statistical confusion. Ask the makers of Lipitor, under oath, if bringing a person's high cholesterol numbers down to the lower ranges of the correlations shown on the government's charts will correspondingly lower their chances of getting heart disease and they will admit there is no evidence that it will, even though, as you suggest, it would seem so.

On these health-related issues, about which I have written widely, I am reminded of that wonderful quote by Saul Bellow:

"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance
when the need for illusion is deep."

[highnote]

So let me get this straight. Let's say you have a group of people with high cholesterol. This group gets divided into two groups.

Group A gets no cholesterol lowering drugs.

Group B gets cholesterol lowering drugs.

You're saying that people in Group B who lower their cholesterol do not lower their chances of having a heart attack compared to Group A.

----------

What about blood pressure? Do people who lower their blood pressure have a lower chance of heart attack than people who do not lower their blood pressure?

-----------

RE Cholesterol:

It might be the case that lowering your cholesterol is not enough to lower your risk of heart attack. What you really need to do is reverse or prevent heart disease in the first place. I would think that lowering cholesterol is certainly one factor in helping to reverse or prevent heart disease.

[fmhealth]

Very interesting discussion to say the least. One factor that hasn't been brought-up is perhaps the most important. INFLAMMATION. This is truly the cause of not only CV Disease, but Diabetes, Strokes, Alzheimers and many forms of Arthritis.

The reason that overweight folks are subject to a large amount of serious health problems is that their fat cells secrete a toxin that causes a cascading vascular event that raises the systemic level of inflammation. Thus, in the case of Ht Attacks, this inflammation causes the coronary blood vessels to release what is known as "vunerable plaque". Which many times occulds a coronary blood vessel or in the case of strokes a cerebral vessel.

Best test to determine you "inflammatory level" is called CRP. Stands for C-Reactive Protein and is a blood borne marker for inflammation. Cost is about $15.00. Ask your Primary Care physician about it. It could possibly save your life.

[highnote]

Very interesting discussion to say the least. One factor that hasn't been brought-up is perhaps the most important. INFLAMMATION. This is truly the cause of not only CV Disease, but Diabetes, Strokes, Alzheimers and many forms of Arthritis.

The reason that overweight folks are subject to a large amount of serious health problems is that their fat cells secrete a toxin that causes a cascading vascular event that raises the systemic level of inflammation. Thus, in the case of Ht Attacks, this inflammation causes the coronary blood vessels to release what is known as "vunerable plaque". Which many times occulds a coronary blood vessel or in the case of strokes a cerebral vessel.

Best test to determine you "inflammatory level" is called CRP. Stands for C-Reactive Protein and is a blood borne marker for inflammation. Cost is about $15.00. Ask your Primary Care physician about it. It could possibly save your life.


This would explain why a low-fat, low-sodium, vegetarian diet coupled with exercise and stress reducing activities can help reverse heart disease.

[46zilzal]

multiple twin studies where one took an NSAID (Ibuprofen for example) have shown that blocking many of the intermediate chemicals in inflammtion has protected the other twin from the scourges of Alzheimer's

[Lasix1]

So let me get this straight. Let's say you have a group of people with high cholesterol. This group gets divided into two groups.

Group A gets no cholesterol lowering drugs.

Group B gets cholesterol lowering drugs.

You're saying that people in Group B who lower their cholesterol do not lower their chances of having a heart attack compared to Group A.
Group B will very likely lower their level of cholesterol with statin drugs, but if the two groups were selected randomly and are large enough to constitute a proper sample of the population as a whole, then no, Group B will not be at any lesser risk for heart disease than Group A.

I am not suggesting that statin drugs don't work. They lower cholesterol, period. But the assumption that this translates into lower risks of heart disease among people who already have high cholesterol---the very people these drugs are prescribed for---is not true. In other words, if you take the American public as a whole, conduct correlational studies between cholesterol levels and heart disease, such studies will show that people who have higher levels of cholesterol are at greater risk of developing heart disease---just like your risk link shows. But the corollary that if you have high cholesterol and lower it you will fall into the low risk group is not so because that group includes a lot of people whose genetic makeup keeps them from being at high risk for heart disease in the first place.

Uncontrolled blood pressure is more complicated although the norms established by large studies can be misleading because some people's blood pressure is high or low simply because of their genetic makeup and puts them at no higher risk. My tiny wife's blood pressure is normal at 80/60 and after years of watching they have concluded that her 280 cholesterol level is also normal for her. Bringing excessively high blood pressure down through drugs is a good thing and offers some immediate protection from heart attack and stroke, but the sodium compounds in most every blood pressure drug creates it's own set of problems. Moreover, those with "normal" blood pressure and those with "controlled" blood pressure are two very different groups and lumping them together leads to the same problem I mentioned before when it comes to reaching therapeutic conclusions. And we haven't even begun to discuss the side-effects of all of these drugs which can be dangerous and considerable.

Weight is also a risk factor for heart disease, but there are lots of problems in knowing what to conclude from that statistical fact as well. As a person ages, they are actually at lesser statistical risk if they are about 20% overweight. Alcohol consumption is on everyone's list of heart disease risks, but moderate wine consumption clearly seems to offer some protection. Similarly, "everyone" knows that cigarette smoking is bad and exercise is good. On the other hand, if you jog 2-3 miles a day in an urban environment, it is estimated that you have exposed your lungs to pollutants equivalent to smoking two packs a day.

And on and on it goes........

[CryingForTheHorses]

R.I.P Robert Umphrey...WE will miss you.
Mr Umphrey died last nite at 7pm at Hollywod Regional Hosipital at age 53.
This is a very sad day for us Calder Horseman..Please say a prayer for the man and his family.

[46zilzal]

statin drugs have not been around long enough to give any LONG tem assessments. Just because the BLOOD cholesterol is DOWN does NOT mean that the body is NOT making more (genetics at work)

[highnote]

statin drugs have not been around long enough to give any LONG tem assessments. Just because the BLOOD cholesterol is DOWN does NOT mean that the body is NOT making more (genetics at work)

That's right. And it's also important to keep doing the right things to your body to help it deal with the cholesterol.

It's hard for me to believe that doing nothing does not increase your risk of heart attack versus doing something.

[46zilzal]

When I was in my junior year in clinic, an OLD school practitoner warned all of us: THE FEWER meds in the system, the BETTER you are able to manage them

Drugs have the desired effect and OTHER effects a.k.a side effects..

I am very upset with the AGGRESIVE and spurious marketing of drugs today. "Ask your doctor" is getting very old because over 80% of the time there is NO reason whatsoever for a patient to even come close to needing the drugs PUSHED in those ads.

Also, anytime there are TWO meds in the system, we have NO WAY of knowing (exactly) their COMBINED phramacetuical action in that person's physiology. When you get "shoppers," as I call them, going doctor to doctor and NOT informing the preceding one what NEW meds are being added to their system, it is little wonder they get iatrogenic effects (but it is THEIR fault). Many drugs increase enzyme systems which weaken or POTENTIATE the action of other drugs and without KNOWING what is in the mix, NO ONE knows what it going on.

Once treated a guy with diffuse dizziness and balance problems who was taking 54 different meds per day. Out internist on call cut out 10 and LO AND BEHOLD, all his syptoms went away.

[witchdoctor]

You actually talking about something I know a little about(I have been practicing as a cardiologist for 13 years).
Statins DO decrease the risk for heart attacks. There are several large scale trials such as 4 S which were stopped early because the survival benefit was so great. The PROVE-IT trial showed that getting the cholesterol down further than what was being advocated helped lower the risk of heart attack even further. What was interesting about the trial is that it was paid for by the makers of Pravachol and pitted high dose Pravachol against high dose Lipitor. Pravachol reduced the LDL(bad cholesterol) to an average of 100 and Lipitor reduced to LDL to an average of 70. The trial was stopped early because Lipitor had a lower death rate. These trials were done in people with know arteriosclerosis. A study out of San Antonio (I forgot the name) showed that treating people with Lovastin decreased the risk of heart attack and death in people with NO known arteriosclerosis.
As FMHealth stated C reactive protein is associated with increase plaque vulnerability and subsequent heart attacks. The treatment for this is also statins and aspirin. Interesting other cholesterol drugs such as fibrates and niacin don't decrease CRP.
When I was in medical school, we were taught that plaques gradually got worse before causing heart attacks. Subsequntly we have learned that most heart attacks are caused by plaque rupture and an asymptomatic blockage of 20% can rupture and go to 100% instantaneously.
As for the long term safety of statins, the first statin was lovastatin which is at least 20 years old and there are few long term side effects.

[JustRalph]

It's hard for me to believe that doing nothing does not increase your risk of heart attack versus doing something.

If doing something equates to anti-statin drugs etc............... I would say that your statement is why Lipitor is lining the pockets of many..........yet the evidence shows that it really doesn't help...................the data is out there.

the info on inflammation in this thread, jives with some studies I have read. .......many people have an interesting side effect when taking lipitor.............extreme inflammation, often in the joints..............think about that paradox................you lower your cholestrol but inflame your body...............hmmmmm.............which is worse? the high cholestrol or the inflammation from the cholestrol drug?

46........we finally agree on something..........prescription drugs........side effects etc.............what a damn shame millions of Americans are hoodwinked into taking them..............ever see a successful phamacy rep? She is usually between 22-35 years old and a knockout.............ever wonder why?

The bottom line is, the makers of anti-statins admit that taking lipitor or the like, will not lower your risk of a heart attack...........

There is some evidence that Statins used after a heart attack.......can help

there is evidence that charting a heart condition off of your mothers fathers history...............is the most accurate way of determining what your life will be like.............interesting stuff...........huh? Check the Dam Sire? :D

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0967089700/002-5516259-7199221?v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0741418819/002-5516259-7199221?v=glance&n=283155

http://www.spacedoc.net/statins_heart_attacks.htm

[fmhealth]

Another important point about Statins. Recent research has shown a marked decline in the incidence of Alzheimers Disease in patients taking these drugs. My opinion, Statins will soon be considered the "wonder drug" of this decade. Much like the use of aspirin is now so prevalent, "a Statin a day" may be the clarion call for good health in the not too distant future.

[JustRalph]

You actually talking about something I know a little about(I have been practicing as a cardiologist for 13 years).
Statins DO decrease the risk for heart attacks. There are several large scale trials such as 4 S which were stopped early because the survival benefit was so great. The PROVE-IT trial showed that getting the cholesterol down further than what was being advocated helped lower the risk of heart attack even further. What was interesting about the trial is that it was paid for by the makers of Pravachol and pitted high dose Pravachol against high dose Lipitor. Pravachol reduced the LDL(bad cholesterol) to an average of 100 and Lipitor reduced to LDL to an average of 70. The trial was stopped early because Lipitor had a lower death rate. These trials were done in people with know arteriosclerosis. A study out of San Antonio (I forgot the name) showed that treating people with Lovastin decreased the risk of heart attack and death in people with NO known arteriosclerosis.
As FMHealth stated C reactive protein is associated with increase plaque vulnerability and subsequent heart attacks. The treatment for this is also statins and aspirin. Interesting other cholesterol drugs such as fibrates and niacin don't decrease CRP.
When I was in medical school, we were taught that plaques gradually got worse before causing heart attacks. Subsequntly we have learned that most heart attacks are caused by plaque rupture and an asymptomatic blockage of 20% can rupture and go to 100% instantaneously.
As for the long term safety of statins, the first statin was lovastatin which is at least 20 years old and there are few long term side effects.

Witchdoctor, I have read that the PROVE-IT study is full of holes because it called for very high doses of the drugs.............so high that many would experience severe side effects.........and that the rate of side effects would outweigh most of the benefit found in the study? Any comment?

NO known arteriosclerosis is the problem with the second study you cite........ if it is the one I read about, the data is flawed due to the fact that it is possible that the study used a group for testing that revealed later, that many had almost no family history of heart attack.........
therefore being in the wrong group to study.................

you have to admit that things are still up in the air?

[JustRalph]

Another important point about Statins. Recent research has shown a marked decline in the incidence of Alzheimers Disease in patients taking these drugs. My opinion, Statins will soon be considered the "wonder drug" of this decade. Much like the use of aspirin is now so prevalent, "a Statin a day" may be the clarion call for good health in the not too distant future.

At what cost? The true question...............

here is a website that uses bold large type..........immediatly makes me suspicious..........but interesting to say the least. Remember.........anybody can put up a web page ..............

http://vitamincfoundation.org/statinalert/

[karlskorner]

Funny thing, there was a box of Track Record magazines unopened under the "overnights" shelf addressed to Bob, the box is usually opened when they arrive, I look forward to them as they have a list of leading 2 yro sires and this copy would be the years end. Sat. and Sun. they remained there and yesterday somebody moved them into his office, still unopened. WEIRD. He was one of the "good guys" and will be missed.

[witchdoctor]

JR,
While usually I agree with you, this time you are wrong. PROVE-IT used higher doses of drugs but the muscle aches and increase in liver function test do not appear to be dose related. The pain people get from stains in the muscles and not joint pain.
As for the other study with no known CAD, both groups were randomized and there was NO significant difference as regard to risk factors and age.
I will be going to a conference in acouple of weeks. If patterns hold, Dr Vogel will ask the audience how many are taking statins and approxiately 70% of the doctors will be. My LDL was 128 and I am on lipitor 40mg a day. Now it is 65.

[JustRalph]

JR,
While usually I agree with you, this time you are wrong. PROVE-IT used higher doses of drugs but the muscle aches and increase in liver function test do not appear to be dose related. The pain people get from stains in the muscles and not joint pain.
As for the other study with no known CAD, both groups were randomized and there was NO significant difference as regard to risk factors and age.
I will be going to a conference in acouple of weeks. If patterns hold, Dr Vogel will ask the audience how many are taking statins and approxiately 70% of the doctors will be. My LDL was 128 and I am on lipitor 40mg a day. Now it is 65.

Wow! Thanks for the info. Very impressive. I bow to the Doc! While at the conference..........have one of those whiz bang Docs cook up something for those of us who can't hardly walk while taking lipitor.......Thanks again.........

[highnote]

If doing something equates to anti-statin drugs etc............... I would say that your statement is why Lipitor is lining the pockets of many..........yet the evidence shows that it really doesn't help...................the data is out there.

I am not knowledgeable enough to argue this. However, if you exercise and give up fat foods and sodium it would seem to me you would decrease your chances of heart attack versus not changing your lifestyle. That is mainly what I was getting at.

As far as taking drugs versus not taking drugs, I don't know. It sounds like from what I've read here taking drugs is not as beneficial as drug companies would have us believe. Again, I don't know.

I did a video with a cardiologist a few years ago. I had just finished reading Dr. Dean Ornish's book "Reversing Heart Disease". I asked the cardiologist why does he prescribe drugs to his patients rather than tell them to follow Dr. Ornish's program. His answer was simple. He said most people prefer to take the drugs because it is easier than making lifestyle changes.

It's a difficult thing to get people change their behavior.

For me it was easy. I saw my father laying in the hospital after his quadruple bypass surgery. If a few simple lifestyle changes can lower my chances of having to have a bypass or having to take drugs to prevent a heart attack, then I will gladly do it.

[fmhealth]

Ralph, that website literally gave me a headache. Their point about Co-Q10 is an interesting one. I personally take 150 mg of CO-Q10 every day. It's been proven to be a "heart healthy" micronutrient. But then again I take about 40 vitamins daily, so I'm a big believer in their efficacy.

On a greater scale it's difficult to get accurate information on "alternative therapies" such as nutrutional supplements. Since our food suply is now virtually bereft of vitamins & minerals, one almost has no choice but to supplement via quality products that provide these life-sustaining elements.

[highnote]

Witchdoctor,

Any thoughts on the Dean Ornish program?

John

[witchdoctor]

I have mixed emotions about the Ornish program. His program is based on a study he did that had a small number of patients( I believe it was 15). If you look at the 4 S trial, the diet was similar to Ornish in both groups and the statin group did better. There is evidence that the South Beach diet may be better than Ornish based on some abstracts at the Anmerican College of Cardiolology meeting. I think we should continue this discussion to the off topic section as I don't thonk it is respectful to McShell and those greiving the death of Robert Umphrey.

[JulieKrone]

I am not knowledgeable enough to argue this. However, if you exercise and give up fat foods and sodium it would seem to me you would decrease your chances of heart attack versus not changing your lifestyle. That is mainly what I was getting at.
Sometimes with the heart, it's strong hereditary, and unless someone becomes a physical buff and NEVER gives it up, a la Nolan Ryan, they die young.
As far as taking drugs versus not taking drugs, I don't know. It sounds like from what I've read here taking drugs is not as beneficial as drug companies would have us believe. Again, I don't know.
I did a video with a cardiologist a few years ago. I had just finished reading Dr. Dean Ornish's book "Reversing Heart Disease". I asked the cardiologist why does he prescribe drugs to his patients rather than tell them to follow Dr. Ornish's program. His answer was simple. He said most people prefer to take the drugs because it is easier than making lifestyle changes.

It's a difficult thing to get people change their behavior.

For me it was easy. I saw my father laying in the hospital after his quadruple bypass surgery. If a few simple lifestyle changes can lower my chances of having to have a bypass or having to take drugs to prevent a heart attack, then I will gladly do it.
I have plenty of relatives and friends like that, it's why socialism, especially socialized medicine will never work. And why some of those who truly need it have to pay the piper in spades. Fat ass, alcohol and cigarette-abusing, couch potatoes usually could care less and feel entitled to have others bail them out, since they paid their dues in life by: (insert your favorite weak excuse, sob story or pitiful argument).

To be fair though, I've also known plenty of folks with mucho money & resources who still opted similarly. Their reasoning was preferring a short life filled with gusto, rather than a prolonged hum drum one.

Many blessings and prayers go out to B, a total class act.

[toetoe]

McSchell,

May BUmph rest in peace. That's WAY too young. :mad:

[Tom]

Amen...53! Yikes! Way too young.

Prayers offered.

[twindouble]

I have mixed emotions about the Ornish program. His program is based on a study he did that had a small number of patients( I believe it was 15). If you look at the 4 S trial, the diet was similar to Ornish in both groups and the statin group did better. There is evidence that the South Beach diet may be better than Ornish based on some abstracts at the Anmerican College of Cardiolology meeting. I think we should continue this discussion to the off topic section as I don't thonk it is respectful to McShell and those greiving the death of Robert Umphrey.


I didn't know Mr. Humphrey but any loved one lost, the family deserves our compassion.

So I agree, I felt like I goofed as well, it was to late to delete it though.



T.D.