PSA: ED is a precursor to heart attacks

[Kodos]

Survival of the Firmest: Erectile Dysfunction and Death | NutritionFacts.org

Think of it as a canary in the coal mine.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Shkspr

The Mayo Clinic study said:

The Mayo Clinic study cited found that the 50x multiplier applied only to the age 40-49 segment of the population that had ED just 2% of the time. The 40% of men with ED were those 70 and above, who showed relatively little difference in the rates of heart disease.

[CU Tiger]

Its an interesting idea and logical when you listen to it...if the entire site wasnt so intellectually dishonest it would be more poignant (to me)

[bulletsponge]

whats the point of living if your dick doesnt work?

[cuervo72]

What if your dick is willing to work, but is unemployed?

(and I'm safe thus far, though I've only been 40 for a handful of months)

[PilotMan]

Don't worry, it's just Kodos trying to get a rise out of us.

[Suicane75]

Are we y'all gonna beat this into the ground with limp puns? Dicks.

[Drake]

My takeaway: an ugly wife is bad for your heart.

[cartman]

Why would a series of short talks on various subjects cause a heart attack?

[korme]

I hope I don't only have 13 more years of beating off to look forward to.

[Kodos]

Eye of the tiger, Shorty!

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Are we y'all gonna beat this into the ground with limp puns? Dicks.

I just wonder how long they can keep it up.

[cuervo72]

Shorty, I have subscribed to a "use it or lose it" philosophy. I don't know for sure that it has worked, but so far it hasn't hurt.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Its an interesting idea and logical when you listen to it...if the entire site wasnt so intellectually dishonest it would be more poignant (to me)

So, my first and obvious instinct was to avoid taking the bait here. Might well have been the correct response.

But here I am.

Okay, my cards on the table first. I am a great case study for possible confirmation bias. In the last few years, I have personally committed to a number of nutrition and lifestyle changes seeking to improve my own health, and am generally persuaded that this is a wise direction for most people to take. So, when I read/see Greger (and I do a fair bit), I realize that I have a predisposition to think he is "right" because I more or less agree with his overall conclusions about nutrition topics. So, that's where I am. I understand that, but that may not be enough to overcome the potential bias.

(I also suspect that you are a candidate for the inverse side of confirmation bias here, but I don't claim enough insight to speak to that of course)

Anyway...when I see Greger, I see an academically-inclined guy who sorts through medical research studies, and tries to pull out various relationships between foods/nutrition and health outcomes. I realize that he does videos that use some animation and the like, but at its core they all seem to reference very directly back to studies, as opposed to more free-form conjecture. (And don't get me wrong, this subject area includes tons of people on all sides that venture deeply into conjecture and speculation)

So, you smell a fraud. I'm trying to understand what you pin that on. A few things seem like possible candidates - and might be the sort of thing that could fool someone like me. What I can imagine:

-he's only reporting on studies that confirm his mission or pre-existing views and skips or dismisses others

-he's being intellectually dishonest with his encapsulating or quoting the studies, and unfairly portrays their true findings

-the studies themselves are inherently flawed, perhaps due to the influence of being funded by "big vegan" interests or something along those lines


So...what say you? Did you just declare him intellectually dishonest based on his conclusions, based on a general smell test, or do you have some insight that could help guide someone like me here?

[JPhillips]

LOL. Big Vegan.

[Shkspr]

The Mayo Clinic study said:

The prevalence of ED was 2% for men aged 40 to 49 years, 6% for men aged 50 to 59 years, 17% for men aged 60 to 69 years, and 39% for men aged 70 years or older. The CAD incidence densities per 1000 person-years for men without ED in each age group were 0.94 (40-49 years), 5.09 (50-59 years), 10.72 (60-69 years), and 23.30 (≥70 years). For men with ED, the incidence densities of CAD for each age group were 48.52 (40-49 years), 27.15 (50-59 years), 23.97 (60-69 years), and 29.63 (≥70 years).

The Mayo Clinic study cited found that the 50x multiplier applied only to the age 40-49 segment of the population that had ED just 2% of the time. The 40% of men with ED were those 70 and above, who showed relatively little difference in the rates of heart disease.

So, yeah, if you're 40-50 and have ED, that's a huge warning sign for lots of reasons...but if the takeaway from the NutritionFacts report is as Kodos wrote above:

40% of men over 40 have ED, and these 40% are 50X more likely to have a heart attack.

...then that's intellectually dishonest.

[QuikSand]

Okay, so from the quotes above, the thread starter's initial summary was incorrect.

But the site itself seems to have gotten it right - speaking of men in their forties, which is indeed the right grouping for the most alarming spike of incidence.

The initial declaration was that the entire site (Greger's) is intellectually dishonest. That interests me a lot more than whether one headline writer or fellow message board contributor misstated or misinterpreted something.

[Desnudo]

Based on the giant poster at my gym I thought every man over the age of 40 has ED

[cuervo72]

And from radio and TV, too. Of course according to Cialis commercials, all these older dudes are also married to pretty hot relatively younger women.

[Kodos]

Yep. My bad. Will edit the first post.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Of course according to Cialis commercials...

Combining Cialis commercials with the study in this thread, I assume the ability to throw a football through a tire swing is now a valid test for heart disease?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Radii

Combining Cialis commercials with the study in this thread, I assume the ability to throw a football through a tire swing is now a valid test for heart disease?

There's a Brett Favre joke in here somewhere, I think.

[Shkspr]

I should preface this by saying that really, only CU Tiger can attempt to make an effective case regarding any intellectual dishonesty he saw on the NutritionFacts.org website. There are a few aspects of the linked video that seriously bother me personally, which I'll mention below, but I don't think that that necessarily invalidates the conclusions drawn by Greger.

First, I should mention that the original blurb Kodos wrote at the end of his original post was in fact a logical takeaway given the method in which the video presented the information from 2:35 to 2:45. The narration proceeded along lines first mentioning total penetration of ED across an entire population, then distilled it to a slogan (40 over 40), and then used the benchmark from that slogan (calling out men in their forties) to present the biggest outlier of the research (the 50x claim). At this point I should also mention that the "40 over 40" statistic is not borne out by the population sample in the Mayo study; a conservative estimate would place the actual incidence of ED among the study population at 12-15% overall. Greger appears to be guilty of using rhetorical flourish to overstate the actual effects of the study.

It also bothered me that the studies Greger mentioned all look solely at cardiac and arterial causes of ED, with the effect of presenting all incidence of ED as evidence of underlying arterial issues. In fact, hormone imbalance (low T), medication, anxiety, MS, alcohol, and injury are all significant factors that can lead to ED yet would not necessarily presage future coronary issues. In the video, there is a quote at about 3:25 to the effect that someone presenting with ED should be "treated as a cardiac patient until proven otherwise". Greger appears to present this as an assumption that an ED patient has underlying cardiac issues, when what the original quote appears to me to mean is that a patient presenting with ED should be tested to see if he does have cardiac issues. The voiceover even mentions ED as a marker of "the coronary artery disease you likely already have". It reads to me as pure scaremongering.

Finally, the scant "nutritional" content in the video, apart from an allegedly witty shot of erect carrots and an incorrectly stuffed sausage at the beginning of the video, discusses lowering cholesterol as a means to combat ED as a precursor to coronary disease, instead of simply advocating lower cholesterol to combat heart disease. The overall impression the video leaves me with is that if you eat meat, your dick will fall off, which will lead to a heart attack.

I accept that the underlying warnings given by the studies Greger cites are accurate: in the unlikely event that someone in their forties or fifties happen to have ED, it would behoove them to get checked immediately for any underlying cardiac issues, as they could be at exceptionally significant risk for future coronary events.

The potential issue that the video, and the site, seems to have is that Greger is essentially performing advocacy with his arguments in a similar fashion to arguments I see elsewhere in sports, or religion, or politics. I don't think "Big Vegan" is backing him, but I think he is on "Team Vegan", arguing the point in the same fashion we might argue Cabrera vs. Trout for 2012 MVP. He may well be on the right side (like the Trout supporters ), but I believe he's using the studies and conclusions, as the old saw goes, like a drunk uses a lamppost.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Radii

Combining Cialis commercials with the study in this thread, I assume the ability to throw a football through a tire swing is now a valid test for heart disease?

Only if you can do it while driving your 60s mustang convertible

[QuikSand]

Very fair, honorable bard.

[QuikSand]

This is the full study from Mayo, btw - I can't get to it tonight, but now that I've actually see the video and thought through ShkSpr's comments, I hope to do so.

A Population-Based, Longitudinal Study of Erectile Dysfunction and Future Coronary Artery Disease

The Greger video certainly gives the visual appearance that the 40% over 40 yrs is a direct quote from the Mayo study. If its not, I'll join you in feeling deceived there.

The juxtaposition of that tidbit with the other data (the actual findings) of the highly elevated risk factor for men in their 40s didn't get to me, I felt both points were stated prettly clearly. It clearly possible (as we've seen) to make an incorrect inference or interpretation, but I dont think I'll lay that on Greger - he's clealy conducting a revue from several sources quickly, and uses the two items from the Mayo study in reasonable flow.

[CU Tiger]

Just saw the thread today and how much it had grown from my initial post.
I'm in a bit of a time crunch this AM so I'm going to hit some bullet points instead of attempting to write a thesis in response.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Okay, my cards on the table first. I am a great case study for possible confirmation bias. In the last few years, I have personally committed to a number of nutrition and lifestyle changes seeking to improve my own health, and am generally persuaded that this is a wise direction for most people to take. So, when I read/see Greger (and I do a fair bit), I realize that I have a predisposition to think he is "right" because I more or less agree with his overall conclusions about nutrition topics. So, that's where I am. I understand that, but that may not be enough to overcome the potential bias.

(I also suspect that you are a candidate for the inverse side of confirmation bias here, but I don't claim enough insight to speak to that of course)

Full disclosure. Ive followed your journey (at least the parts you have shared here) and think without a doubt you are doing a fantastic thing for your health and commend your progress. My own short story/stats:

November of 2011 299 lbs and a 44" waist
5/12-10/13 235-245lbs and a 38" waist

Results achieved through strength and cardio training and a modified Atkins diet. (I eat a diet that is 80+% meat, lost of that meat is poultry and fish but red meat certainly has a prominent home as well in my diet)

Additionally my BP has gone from "marginal" (135/90) to "excellent" (as of last Thursday's physical) 118/75.

My Cholesterol levels are all in the "ideal" range and my health, attitude, and happiness are all improved.

Long and short I think shedding excess body fat, improving cardio vascular health, and generally enjoying a "healthier" lifestyle are good things for everyone.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

So...what say you? Did you just declare him intellectually dishonest based on his conclusions, based on a general smell test, or do you have some insight that could help guide someone like me here?

Initially I spent maybe 30 minutes on his site and watched 4 or 5 videos.
(I tried to go back through my history and see what those vids are, but Chrome isnt sharing across multi PCs right this AM and the physical laptop I used isnt with me to reference)

But in short every problem imaginable seem to be curable by the removal of animal proteins and animal fats from your diet.

I think healthier people are a good thing, I just feel that there is more than one way to that end, and I do not subscribe to his philosophy that humans are genetically predisposed to be exclusive or even dominant herbivores.

I think he is clearly "team vegan" if not backed by vegan funding but havent studied him enough to know where his funding comes from.

I think the human species is much to complex a structure to form simple solutions...and I think his insistence that many ailments are reduced by vegan lifestyles reaches an illogical conclusion.

I think we would both agree that people who are paying more attention to their health and what they put in their body are less likely to contract any number of chronic illnesses than slobs who shove in big macs and fries 10 times a week and wash it down with sugar and add ice cream for dessert.

However when you look at just vegans, you are looking at a subset by definition that is making conscious eating choices, has some level of concern for the physical well being and generally a healthier lifestyle. You then compare them against a balance of population which includes both healthy living meat eaters and the above "slob" group, as well as the exclusive majority of the poverty population (as Ive never met a pauper vegan) and concluding that obviously their vegan ways result in the lower incidence of disease.

Again, I may be off base but that is my interpretation of his view points, and the basis for my comments.

It wasn't done as a troll, I promise.

I will say this, in the presence of an otherwise healthy active lifestyle I think animal protein plays a large roll in optimal health. If I was going to be a total couch slob and not have a healthy lifestyle I think a vegan diet would improve my chance of long term survival.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Based on the giant poster at my gym I thought every man over the age of 40 has ED

My boner and I beg to differ. But I have also had a heart attack so am clearly an outlier.