The American Heart Association has a PR problem

2. March 2011 William Davis (17)
The results of the latest Heart Scan Blog poll are in. The poll was prompted by yet another observation that the American Heart Association diet is a destructive diet that, in this case, made a monkey fat.

Because I am skeptical of "official" organizations that purport to provide health advice, particularly nutritional advice, I thought this poll might provide some interesting feedback.

I asked:

The American Heart Association is an organization that:

The responses:
Tries to maintain the procedural and medication status quo to benefit the medical system and pharmaceutical industry for money
240 (64%)

Doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground
121 (32%)

Is generally helpful but is misguided in some of its advice
79 (21%)

Accomplishes tremendous good and you people are nuts
6 (1%)


Worrisome. Now, perhaps the people reading this blog are a skeptical bunch. Or perhaps they are better informed.

Nonetheless, one thing is clear: The American Heart Association (and possibly other organizations like the American Diabetes Association and USDA) have a serious PR problem. They are facing an increasingly critical and skeptical public.

Just telling people to "cut the fat and cholesterol" is beginning to fall on deaf ears. After all, the advice to cut fat, cut saturated fat, cut cholesterol and increase consumption of "healthy whole grains" in 1985 began the upward ascent of body weight and diabetes in the American public.

Believe it or not, my vote would be for something between choices 1 and 3. I believe that the American Heart Association achieves a lot of good. But I also believe that there are forces within organizations that are there to serve their own agendas. In this case, I believe there is a substantial push to maintain the procedural and medication status quo, the "treatments" that generate the most generous revenues.

I believe that I will forward these poll results to the marketing people at the American Heart Association. That'll be interesting!
Tags :

Comments (17) -

  • Tuck

    3/1/2011 11:46:38 PM |

    Did the monkeys get to vote? ;)

  • reikime

    3/2/2011 12:11:04 AM |

    I would LOVE to read a response from the AHA!

  • Anonymous

    3/2/2011 12:15:46 AM |

    Come on Doc, these statistics are obviously bias. That's like asking the readers of an vegan/animal-rights blog, "Do you think meat is murder?" and trying to transpose the results as being all encompassing.

  • Rick

    3/2/2011 1:32:30 AM |

    I have to agree with Anonymous here. Nothing surprising in the fact that the majority of readers of a blog that regularly criticizes the AHA have a critical stance towards the AHA.

    Move along, these are not the droids you're looking for.

  • Harold

    3/2/2011 2:34:28 AM |

    I think you are being a bit generous to them. I certainly agree about the ADA. They seem to be in it for the money and they are getting plenty of it from drug companies. I am a physician and a diabetic and if I followed their advice my blood sugars would be out of control. As it is I am on a very low carb life style and in excellent control!
    Thanks for your posts.

  • Real Food RD

    3/2/2011 4:13:16 AM |

    certainly it's not a random sample, but nonetheless, I would have to agree that all of these organizations and government agencies are losing credibility with the public and fast.  As a health professional myself, I can only hope my colleagues may begin to soften their stance before our credibility is completely shot with the public.

  • Anonymous

    3/2/2011 1:14:17 PM |

    Tuck, the monkeys must make up the extra 18%.

    Doctor, I truly appreciate your blog, read it religiously and follow much of your advice, but before forwarding to the AHA, you might want to check the numbers.

  • renegadediabetic

    3/2/2011 1:59:02 PM |

    I think the AHA has done a lot of good in the treatment of heart attacks and keeping people alive.  However, I was thinking mainly of the "prevention" side when I voted "Tries to maintain the procedural and medication..."

    Likewise, the ADA and other diabetes orgs are no doubt doing some good research into causes and prevention of type 1 diabetes, but their nutritional approach is a disaster.  Again, just maintaining the status quo for so long that they would be afraid to admit they were wrong if they finally did see the light.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    3/2/2011 5:24:44 PM |

    Their heart is in the right place. In another 40 years scientists will be deriding the intriguing bloggosphere theories.

  • reikime

    3/2/2011 5:53:19 PM |

    I just dislike these organizations jumping on a bandwagon d'jour, and trying to apply it to everyone blanketly.

    People are not a " one size fits all " species!  When will the AHA, ADA, etc, stop aligning with big agriculture and pharma and think of individual people and their specific needs?  Is that just a pipe dream?

  • Tara

    3/2/2011 11:20:06 PM |

    Real Food RD, I'm with you!

    I was going to throw the other ADA in that stack too.  I've let them know several times how I feel about their corporate sponsors and partners.  Disgusted.

  • Brian Vickerman

    3/3/2011 2:12:54 AM |

    To be honest... after promoting such a lifestyle for so many years... wouldn't a sudden change in opinion open them to law suits?

    How can they respond to that?

  • reikime

    3/3/2011 3:14:54 AM |

    Great point Brian. I hadn't even thought of it.

    Wouldn't it be the same with any condition that current medical research might up- end the treatment protocols?
    ie..remember when patients with gastric ulcers were advised to drink milk and cream and avoid spicy foods etc?  
    Then enter H. Pylori...albeit some 10 years after published studies and much derision from U.S. gastros. Treatment standards changed dramatically. Never heard of lawsuits over that.

  • Anonymous

    3/3/2011 3:16:21 AM |

    Could people leave more than one response?  The percentages add up to more than a hundred.
    Bob

  • Bob

    3/3/2011 3:27:57 AM |

    OK, I did the math.  Apparently about 375 unique respondents, with 70 or so choosing more than one answer.

  • mongander

    3/3/2011 4:05:38 AM |

    My impression is that 'disease associations' exist primarily to ensure their continued existance.

    I have heard good reports on the Muscular Distrophy Assoc.

  • Anonymous

    3/3/2011 8:37:54 PM |

    Dr D, I don't think the AHA is sending you a Christmas card this year

Add comment

Loading
Cholesterol follies

Cholesterol follies

11. January 2008 William Davis (5)
Rudy is a 59-year old man. He's had three heart catheterizations, two of which resulted in stent implantations. Obviously, Rudy should be the beneciary of a prevention program.

His basic cholesterol values:

Total cholesterol 164 mg/dl--pretty good, it seems.

LDL cholesterol 111 mg/dl--Wow! Not too bad.

HDL cholesterol 23 mg/dl--Uh oh, that's not too good.

Triglycerides 148 mg/dl--By national (NCEP ATP-III) guidelines, triglycerides of 150 mg/dl and below fall within the desirable range.


So we're left with an apparently isolated low HDL cholesterol, nothing more. On the surface, it doesn't seem all that bad.

Of course, we need to keep in mind that this pattern landed Rudy in the hospital on several occasions and prompted several procedures.

Should we rely on these results? How about Rudy's lipoproteins?

Here they are (NMR; Liposcience):

LDL particle number 2139 nmol/l--Representing an effective LDL of 213--over 100 mg higher than the standard value (above) suggests.

Small LDL particles 2139 nmol/l--In other words, 100% of all Rudy's LDL particles are small. (Thus, weight-based measures of LDL cholesterol fail to tell us that he has too many small particles.)

Large HDL 0 (zero) mg/dl--Rudy has virtually no functional HDL particles.


If we had relied only on Rudy's standard cholesterol values, we would have focused on raising HDL. However, lipoprotein analysis uncovered a smorgasbord of additional severe patterns. The high LDL particle number comprised 100% of small particles is especially concerning.

Truly, conventional cholesterol testing is a fool's game, one that time and again fails to fully uncover or predict risk for heart disease. One look at Rudy's lipoproteins and it becomes immediately obvious: This man is at high risk for heart disease and the causes are clear.

Of course, many physicians and insurance companies argue that the added information provided by this portion of the lipoprotein test added around $70 more to the expense.

When you see results like this, is there even a choice?
Tags :

Comments (5) -

  • Thomas

    1/11/2008 4:02:00 AM |

    It's this type of analysis that's most instructive and most interesting. If I were 20 years younger reading this post, I'm confident I'd have avoided open    heart surgery I went through this past April.

  • Andy

    1/11/2008 1:04:00 PM |

    I couldn't find another place to give you general feedback, so it goes here:  thanks for what you do.  

    I've been an insulin dependent diabetic for 6 years now with a family history of CAD.  While I have moderately good scores (59 for HDL, triglycerides below 60), I've been concerned about getting a better picture.

    I had a CT Heart Scan Wednesday, which resulted in a wonderful 0 reading.  While I plan to push my family practitioner for NMR tests in the future, it's nice to get some validation now.  At $125, the price was a major bargain, as well.

    Again, thanks for sharing what you know.

  • Dr. Davis

    1/11/2008 1:19:00 PM |

    Well, then, more to come!

  • keith

    1/11/2008 1:40:00 PM |

    Interestingly, given a LDL particle count of 2139, Rudy would have been better off with a LARGER standard LDL cholesterol value, as this would imply his particles were larger and hence less atherogenic.

  • Dr. Davis

    1/11/2008 5:07:00 PM |

    Yes, ironically.

Add comment

Loading