And for something more digestible, here's Dr. Dean Ornish's TED talk discussing his research on the same:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dean_ornish_on_the_world_s_killer_d...
You basically say heart disease is either A or B. Because we don't know how diet effects A, and doctor says diet wouldn't help, doctor is right. (Notice the fallacies [false dichotomy, jump to conclusion, circular logic] become very clear when we simplify the wording.)
What I find interesting is the way we all seem to work to show that what we believe in must be right or that what we don't believe in must be wrong. Diet can't magically cure heart disease, and [logical fallacies], so diet doesn't cure heart disease. The Earth isn't warming, and [conspiracy theory], so the Earth isn't warming.
Again, I don't mean this as a personal attack (maybe your post was just had a few typos), but it's something that I see more and more frequently, even places like HN. Instead of being more like Feynman, our technology seems to be prodding us to be more like rush-hour talking heads.
I am very interested in whether or not we can restore elasticity in tissue, such as the lens of your eye, the skin on your face, or the walls of your arteries.
When a medical student, who doubtless has more knowledge than I do implies that heart disease can be reversed in any manner, diet or not, I'm interested and wanted to move the conversation forward in order to clarify.
> We don't know how to reverse tissue loss of elasticity do we?
Ok.
> So when he said it could not be reversed with diet, that seems to be correct to me.
Doesn't follow. If something has certain effects, that reality necessarily precedes our knowledge of it. Our discovery necessarily follows the reality.