This from ABC News this morning:

A new study has found that people who suffer heart attacks are not receiving adequate advice on preventing future attacks. The research was conducted by the George Institute for Global Health; 4,000 patients in Australia and New Zealand were assessed over a two week period. The study found that more than half the patients were not referred for rehabilitation, while more than 60% were not given healthy eating advice.

The Australian Medical Association has rejected the findings, saying ‘Doctors are well aware of what’s in their patients’ best interests.’

{|8-/

In fairness, we can expect patients to misreport whether they were given healthy eating advice or referred to rehab, because they are dingbats who only hear what they want to.

Rule 303 said:

while more than 60% were not given healthy eating advice.

Yes, because continuing your McDonalds diet is the common sense thing to do after a heart attack.

I actually find it surprising…I’d be more inclined to think patients took no notice. Just do whatever the doc says while in hospital and then go back to the chain smoking and takeaway food.

Last week I saw a morbidly obese patient. The size you have to push back the arms on the consulting chair because he won’t fit in there. And to look inside his eyes with the ophthalmoscope I had to physically lean across some acres of bulge. He rarely leaves his house, has a partner and a daughter, and was going to Macdonalds for breakfast after he’d seen me. It’s really no way to live.

It’s incredibly sad if these patients are of the mindset that open heart surgery is a quick-fix to their bad lifestyle choices.

As an aside, Maccas here at work lost a lot of their morbidly obese customers when the benches were taken away and replaced with chairs. There’s occasionally one or two who still come in, but they take the food back to their cars. I’ve also seen morbidly obese people sitting on side-by-side chairs. It’s very uncomfortable for them.

The thing I find most interesting about this report is not the subject matter itself but the gob-smacking arrogance in the AMA’s response.

If the report is accurate, they need to have a long hard look at themselves.

And further, that if my information is correct (that there is no nutrition training, and certainly no specialised training about the role of diet in disease, in medical education), the AMA’s response is not just arrogant, it’s false and misleading, too.

Were is this piece on the news Rule? I can’t find it.

buffy said:

Were is this piece on the news Rule? I can’t find it.

ABC News Breakfast program on the telly.

Rule 303 said:

buffy said:

Were is this piece on the news Rule? I can’t find it.

ABC News Breakfast program on the telly.

Ah, that’s no good. I can’t chase up the research paper.

It will be this:

http://www.georgeinstitute.org.au/projects/snapshot-acute-coronary-syndrome-acs-study

Haven’t found an actual paper yet. Is it researchers going to the press first? Again?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11270760

Nup, can’t find a published paper. Maybe a report from the Institute?

I suspect it’s this one, a followup of the first one I linked. And the results are not due out until later this year.

I’m afraid I’m very wary of releasing stuff to the press prior to proper peer reviewed publication. While critical of a lot of stuff that is published because so much of it seems waffle, I do think the research has to go through peer review first.

Buffy, this ?

That was published last year Rule. I suspect it is the second part of the study they are talking about, not to be published until late this year.

That one is about the in hospital procedures stuff, I think.

Ahhh, could be, yes.

Further, from that link:

Despite well developed guidelines for managing acute coronary syndrome (ACS), local registries in Australia and New Zealand have demonstrated incomplete implementation of evidence-based recommendations, with variations in care appearing to correlate with differences in clinical outcomes.

dv said:

In fairness, we can expect patients to misreport whether they were given healthy eating advice or referred to rehab, because they are dingbats who only hear what they want to.

IKR

“Smoking cessation continues to be a difficult component of secondary prevention to implement following acute coronary syndrome with nearly half of all patients relapsing within the first 12 months.”

http://www.globalheart-journal.com/article/S2211-8160(14)01299-X/fulltext

>>Haven’t found an actual paper yet. Is it researchers going to the press first? Again?

People have the right to know and the intellectuals of the fourth estate are best placed to decide what people need to know and when.
I don’t think the vast majority of the ignorant populace realise the huge responsibility journalists have.

> more than 60% were not given healthy eating advice … doctors.

Thank God. The poor suckers are bombarded with so-called “healthy eating advice” from every quarter all the time. Thank God some doctors don’t ram it further down their throats.

mollwollfumble said:

> more than 60% were not given healthy eating advice … doctors.

Thank God. The poor suckers are bombarded with so-called “healthy eating advice” from every quarter all the time. Thank God some doctors don’t ram it further down their throats.

If anyone doesn’t need it, it’s those that have just had a heart attack…

Linus Pauling reckoned that fat build up in the arteries was a natural reaction to chronic shortage if vitamin C in the body.

I suppose the risk of having a heart attack is lessened if you eat a vegan diet.

Divine Angel said:

I suppose the risk of having a heart attack is lessened if you eat a vegan diet.

It is?

Well, a vegan diet would have very little (if any) saturated fat. There are a few blogs that say that vegetarians/vegans having a lower chance of heart disease is rubbish, but the American heart foundation says a veggo diet reduces the risk.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/Vegetarian-Diets_UCM_306032_Article.jsp

Divine Angel said:

I suppose the risk of having a heart attack is lessened if you eat a vegan diet.

Maybe, but every time someone ate crackling in front of me I’d die of a broken heart.

Arvo folks

Hmmm. There’s an observational study from Oxford…but it seems to just show that lower cholesterol levels mean you’re less likely to have IHD etc. Veggos happen to have lower cholesterol.

poikilotherm said:

Hmmm. There’s an observational study from Oxford…but it seems to just show that lower cholesterol levels mean you’re less likely to have IHD etc. Veggos happen to have lower cholesterol.

What a coincidence!

Looks as if the LNP has a new pin up boy for the Queensland branch

Bob Anderson

The Rev Dodgson said:

poikilotherm said:

Hmmm. There’s an observational study from Oxford…but it seems to just show that lower cholesterol levels mean you’re less likely to have IHD etc. Veggos happen to have lower cholesterol.

What a coincidence!

IKR

Whatever Vegans gain buy just eating lentils and mung beans they lose by smoking dope which makes them paranoid and prone to die of cancer much earlier.

Peak Warming Man said:

Whatever Vegans gain buy just eating lentils and mung beans they lose by smoking dope which makes them paranoid and prone to die of cancer much earlier.

Time to kick some hippy arse I say

There was a time when peak warming man was a child of the forest

Peak Warming Man said:

Whatever Vegans gain buy just eating lentils and mung beans they lose by smoking dope which makes them paranoid and prone to die of cancer much earlier.

Here you are PWM, take this.
You may not enjoy it, but it will do you good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I5rtQKP85I