Is Grossarth-Maticekʹs coronary-prone type II an independent predictor of myocardial infarction?

Biomedical factors (hypertension, abnormal lipid metabolism, clotting factors) and behavioural factors (cigarette smoking, alcohol, fat intake) are established risk factors for ischaemic heart disease (IHD). Accumulating evidence suggests that psychosocial factors (e.g. type A behaviour, interpersonal relations and personality) also exert some influence. These factors seem to account for about 3% of the variance in IHD over and above the traditional risk factors [[Reference to Amelang, M. (1997)]. Using personality variables to predict cancer and heart disease. European Journal of Personality, 11, 319–342.] Grossarth-Maticek and colleagues have, in three prospective longitudinal studies, found that a particular type of coping in interpersonal relations (type II) predicted death from IHD over 10–15 years. The effect sizes have been of a magnitude far exceeding those reported in similar studies. This paper reports results from a cross-sectional, population-based, mailed questionnaire survey (N=5014). Using logistic regression, we did not find a significant relation between type II and myocardial infarction, when controlling for age, IHD in the family, diet, job stress and health complaints. Type II, however, had an effect on health complaints when controlling for age, IHD in the family, and job stress. A path model including an indirect effect from type II to IHD via health complaints explained 23 and 44% of the variance in health complaints and IHD, respectively. A possible explanation for results showing that type II significantly affects IHD may be that smoking is the core factor in such a way that type II is related to health complaints and smoking.