American Heart Association stamp of approval

2. June 2007 William Davis (8)
The American Heart Association (AHA) has a program called the Heart-Check Mark, an "approval" process that permits a food manufacturer to affix the AHA logo and stamp of approval on various food products.

A company simply makes application to the AHA. The application and product details are reviewed and then approved or turned down.

To date, 106 companies have obtained the AHA stamp of approval on 768 products. What kinds of products are on the approved list? Here's a sample:

--Honey Bunches of Oats

--Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats

--Cocoa Puffs cereal

--Cookie Crisp cereal ("The great taste of chocolate chips in every bite!")


There are 764 others. If you doubt this, just go to the store and take a look at the product containers.

What the heck is going on here? Most of us with any judgment know that these products are pure sugar. They may contain "no more" than 15-40 grams sugar per sugar, but the principal products--corn, wheat, fructose--mean that these products are, in effect, nearly pure sugar. Yet they carry the AHA stamp of approval.

What do products like this cause? It's a long list but the major effects include:

--Obesity

--Diabetes

--Drop in HDL

--Rise in triglycerides

--Small LDL particles

--Heightened inflammation (i.e., C-reactive protein)

--Mental cloudiness


Need I go on? Why are products like these and many others deserving of the AHA heart-check approval? Because they lack high fat and saturated fat (3.0 grams, 1.0 grams respectively, by AHA criteria). In other words, just lacking these ingredients means that, to the AHA, they qualify as "heart healthy."

By that same line of reasoning, many candy bars are "heart healthy", as are many cookies and cupcakes.

What's the reason behind this extraordinary absurdity? Is the AHA stupid?

There may be many reasons, but one very suspicious fact becomes immediately obvious when you realize these endorsements product a substantial revenue source for the AHA, since companies must pay for the right to use the heart-check approval mark. Also, just look at the major contributors (millions of dollars) to the AHA: ConAgra, General Mills, Kraft, etc.) You get the picture.

Does this make the AHA evil? Not necessarily. But it seriously erodes credibility. it also should make you very leery of any advice that comes from such an agency that is reluctant to bite the food manufacturer hands that feed it.

In my view, we simply cannot rely on the AHA for genuine, unbiased heart health advice.
Tags :

Comments (8) -

  • Nancy

    6/3/2007 5:35:00 AM |

    I completely agree.  The ADA is just as terrible with their horrible food recommendations.  But it does harm people, people are being told over and over that "whole grains" are healthy and so they eat them, and they're not healthy.

    Dr. Davis, I haven't read much from you about dairy products.  That's another food group getting pushed at us by everyone, yet I read recently about casein in dairy products causing LDL cholesterol to oxidize.  Do you have any input on that?

  • Dr. Davis

    6/3/2007 12:33:00 PM |

    I remain undecided about dairy products.
    Several issues need to be factored in:
    1) Current day dairy products are not what they used to be--livestock are fed differently, often live on life-long antibiotics and growth-enhancing agents.
    2) Glycemic index--I have a personal problem with this. I have eliminated virtually all dairy products except fermented cheeses, and low-fat cottage cheese and yogurt in small quantities and I can tell a marked difference in the way I feel.
    3) The oxidation-antioxidation issue, in my mind, provides more fuel for supplement sales than real opportunity for meaningful treatment. Until we have some feedback that antioxidation strategies provide real advantage, I remain undecided about the real value.

    All in all, I am uncertain of how large a role dairy products should play. There's such a range of products from highly-processed yogurt in squeeze bags that are little more than chemiclals with sugar, to tradiational fermented cheeses rich in vitamin K2.

  • Dev

    6/4/2007 11:50:00 AM |

    I completely agree.

  • Anonymous

    11/17/2009 10:44:15 PM |

    It is extremely interesting for me to read the blog. Thanks for it. I like such topics and anything connected to this matter. I would like to read a bit more soon.

  • Viagra Online

    8/23/2010 10:33:02 PM |

    I think this is so good to people who doesn't know if they have heard problems I have a friend that found that she was sick because one of this programs now she's under treatment.

  • id scanner

    9/28/2010 6:16:03 AM |

    It is really interesting reading of this blog.  And I love reading of Dr. Davis points. I agreed with him in all three issues shared by him. Thanks Man !

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 8:27:28 PM |

    Need I go on? Why are products like these and many others deserving of the AHA heart-check approval? Because they lack high fat and saturated fat (3.0 grams, 1.0 grams respectively, by AHA criteria). In other words, just lacking these ingredients means that, to the AHA, they qualify as "heart healthy."

  • Elliot Cranes

    11/23/2010 3:36:25 PM |

    Great news for the medical field!

Add comment

Loading
Stenosis detection vs. plaque detection

Stenosis detection vs. plaque detection

22. November 2007 William Davis (5)
One of the most common misunderstandings encountered by both physicians and the public is that, to create an effective heart disease prevention program, we need tools for atherosclerotic plaque detection. What we do not need is a tool for stenosis detection. (Stenosis means percent blockage. A 50% stenosis means 50% of the diameter of an artery is reduced by atherosclerosis.)

This issue came to mind recently with the ongoing conversation at Heart.org forum, in which the conversation predictably degenerated into a "what good are heart scans when there are better tests to detect blockage" sort of mentality.
They are right: There are better tests to detect stenoses or blockages, such as stress tests, heart catheterization, and CT coronary angiography. If someone is having chest pain or breathlessness, these tests are useful to help understand why. These tests are preludes to stents, bypass surgery, and the like. They are the popular tools in hospitals, the ones that provide entry into the revenue-yielding world of heart disease procedures.

Plaque detection, on the other hand, is principally a tool for the person without symptoms. In this regard, it is more like cholesterol testing. I doubt my colleagues would bash cholesterol because it doesn't reveal blockages. Plaque detection identifies the person who has already started developing atherosclerosis.

Dr. William Blanchett of Colorado articulates this idea well:

EBT calcium imaging not only identifies the vast majority of individuals at risk, it also identifies individuals with minimal risk. In other words, it distinguishes those who are likely to benefit from treatment . . .and it identifies those unlikely to benefit from treatment. Furthermore, the greatest value of EBT calcium imaging is that with serial imaging you can determine who is and who is not responding to treatment.

Those patients not responding to the initial treatment are identified by progression of their calcified plaque on a subsequent scan are then placed on additional therapies. The net result is a remarkable reduction in heart attack rates.

Ahh, the voice of reason. Plaque detection empowers you in your prevention program. If you know how much plaque your begin with, you can track that value to know whether you have having a full effect or not. Stenosis detection, on the other hand, empowers your doctor and provides the irresistible impulse to stent.

Another common objection raised to plaque detection is "why bother if you're going to give everybody a statin anyway?" We know the origins of that argument, don't we? If the only strategy known to your doctor is cholesterol reduction with statin drugs, then perhaps that's right. But, with awareness of all the things that go beyond statin drugs, often make them unnecessary, then knowledge of who should engage in an intensive program of prevention or not is enabled by plaque detection.
Tags :

Comments (5) -

  • BarbaraW

    11/23/2007 3:30:00 AM |

    Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.  One of the things I am thankful for is that you and others are blogging about these important health and nutrition issues.

  • jpatti

    11/23/2007 11:35:00 PM |

    Since I've already had a bypass, a heart scan is unlikely to give me useful info.  So I'm kind of in the place where understanding tests other than heart scans is more important.  

    Is heart.org a good place to learn things like how to interpret an echocardiogram?  I've got a report in the mail to me right now so I can try to figure it out.

    If not, where would you recommend for the "advanced" post-prevention type of information?

  • Dr. Davis

    11/24/2007 1:18:00 AM |

    jpatti--

    Sorry, I don't know of any such sites that focus on these sorts of tests.

    Have you considered reading a general cardiology text? Most provide more than you will need to know, but a visit to your medical bookstore or library will yield a number of "entry-level" texts that might help you navigate through the maze.

  • Anonymous

    8/20/2010 10:54:26 AM |

    Dear Dr. Davis,

    I'm new to your blog, which I find very interesting and full of what appears to be insightful comments and recommendations. I also find your "unorthodox" stance on many issues very refreshing. I would like to know:
    1.have you published research backing the advice you give on your blog?
    2. has your work been peer reviewed?
    3. could you, please, let me know where I can find them?

    Thanks in advance for your help.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 3:49:24 PM |

    Ahh, the voice of reason. Plaque detection empowers you in your prevention program. If you know how much plaque your begin with, you can track that value to know whether you have having a full effect or not. Stenosis detection, on the other hand, empowers your doctor and provides the irresistible impulse to stent.

Add comment

Loading