We recommend nutritional measures aimed at controlling elevated blood triglycerides. And we do so on the basis of evidence gained from observations in hundreds of users of our TGs Reduction Formula supported by basic dietary and lifestyle modifications.
But not everybody agrees that this kind of evidence is enough to act upon. Until formal proof is established, this matter remains a legitimate question of judgment, which varies from one person to another.
However, the only way to obtain scientifically acceptable proof of the association between nutritional means and blood triglycerides would be to
- take a large number of persons from the same population,
- put half of them on a triglyceride reduction formula and a diet, and
- see if that half has lower triglyceride levels than the rest.
Such critical test should be performed in a three-to-five-year, $75-million study conducted, for example, by the American Heart Association. The conclusive evidence would be published as a formal proof of the role played by optimum nutrition in the process of controlling blood triglycerides.
Unfortunately, such a multi-million study has not been run yet.
Should we wait then for "conclusive" evidence, which may be years away and - too late for some of us? Can we accept probable evidence?
We need to realize that not taking a stand, insisting on waiting until all the evidence is in, is itself - a position and a recommendation! Not taking a stand is not really the neutral position it is made out to be.
On the other hand, physicians like to pretend, and many have kidded themselves into believing, that whatever they espouse has been "scientifically proved."
Nonsense!
A great deal of what established medicine recommends today with good conscience is not formally "proved"! In other words, in medicine it is not uncommon to recommend measures for which only substantial evidence exists.
Example No. 1:
Many doctors have for years been recommending the lowering of blood cholesterol because this would probably help prevent coronary heart disease, but this was not "proved" until 1984, and then for only a selected category of patient.
And only in early 1985 did a panel of 13 experts convened as part of a National Institutes of Health "consensus conference" conclude "beyond a reasonable doubt" that lowering elevated blood cholesterol levels would reduce the risk of heart attacks.
In fact, "beyond a reasonable doubt" means "with a high order of probability." Surely this is not formal proof. It's a consensus decision.
Example No. 2:
The formal proof on the health benefits of exerciss is not yet in, yet practically all physicians recommend it. And they are right to do so, because the probable evidence is excellent.
The key question for much good nutritional advice is not whether proof is at hand, but what is the order of probability that the advice is correct.
Existing evidence indicates, with a very high order of probability, that elevated levels of triglycerides in the blood can be reduced by the nutritional measures - without multiple prescription drugs.