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
Fish oil in the news

Fish oil in the news

3. October 2006 William Davis (2)


Hooray for the New York Times. They ran an article pointing out the miserable and inexcusable failure of American physicians to use fish oil after heart attack.

“It is clearly recommended in international guidelines,” said Dr. Massimo Santini, the hospital’s chief of cardiology, who added that it would be considered tantamount to malpractice in Italy to omit the drug.

...in the United States, heart attack victims are not generally given omega-3 fatty acids, even as they are routinely offered more expensive and invasive treatments, like pills to lower cholesterol or implantable defibrillators. Prescription fish oil, sold under the brand name Omacor, is not even approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in heart patients."

The article focuses on the use of fish oil only after heart attack and doesn't tackle the larger issue of how fish oil is crucial for coronary disease in general. Of course, the article doesn't address the extraordinary effects of fish oil on lipoproteins, particularly triglyceride-containing varieties like VLDL and the postprandial (after-eating) intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL).

It also talks about prescription fish oil and just glosses over fish oil as a nutritional supplement. I know of few reasons to use the prescription form. More than 90% of the time, nutritional sources of fish oil do the trick. (That is, fish oil capsule supplements, not just eating fish which doesn't provide enough for coronary plaque reduction or control.)

Occasionally, I'll meet someone who has a severe hypertriglyceridemia (very high triglycerides), or is a Apo E 2/2 homozygote (very rare). These special instances may, indeed, do better using prescription fish oil, since it is more concentrated--one prescription capsule providing the same omega-3 fatty acid content as three conventional capsules (1000 mg fish oil, 300 mg EPA+DHA).


But for most of us, the standard fish oil supplement you buy at the health food store or department store does just fine. If you read about the impurity of fish oil supplements (likely prompted by the manufacturer of Omacor, prescription fish oil), refer to the studies by Consumer Reports and Consumer Labs, both of which found no mercury or pesticide residues in dozens of fish oil preparations tested.

Look on the bright side. The conversation is growing. Fish oil, whether prescription or my favorite, Sam's Club Members' Mark brand, is a fabulously effective supplement with benefits that, in nearly all cases, exceeds the benefits of drugs.

Fish oil is an absolute requirement for your Track Your Plaque program and for you to hope to achieve control or reduction of your heart scan score.
Tags :

Comments (2) -

  • David

    10/3/2006 2:45:00 PM |

    as someone who has written in more than one book about the way those in healthcare sometimes operate against the good of their patients, I would just like to say how refreshing I find your blog and your work.

  • Anonymous

    4/17/2009 4:53:00 AM |

    I'm curious about the effect of fish oil on bleeding.  Ten years ago my mother suffered a stroke, either hypertensive bleeding or a hemmoragic stroke-ithink it was hypertensive as she suffered from high blood presure for quite some time.  Either way, I am leery of taking fish oil in case I have inherited any disposition for simialr problems.  Yet as an "urban Indian" I may be "marked for Death" if I don't take fish oil.  In short, is there a real risk of fish oil with the potential for this kind of stroke?

Add comment

Loading