AHA Denying Science on Salt

I knew this would happen. The American Heart Association denies the latest science - a study published last Friday in The Lancet, which suggested that salt restriction in the diet, won't benefit most people and may actually cause harm. Although the study did also suggest that salt restriction might help the 11% of the population who have high blood pressure and consume a lot of salt, the AHA says it "strongly refutes the findings" of a "flawed study" which "you shouldn't use ... to inform yourself about how you're going to eat."

This sounds like a doubling down on their position of less salt is better philosophy. Sounds a lot like the way they have handled the low carb high fat and the statin controversies. The AHA still believes in the low fat way of eating and they have expanded the numbers of people down to children that they believe should be taking statins.

Makes me wonder about conflicts of interest and why the AHA follows paths that the crowd has abandoned. But in fact, the AHA position is really a strong blow against science and the scientific process.

The key point here is that the authors of the Lancet study make no claim that their study is definitive. Instead, they point out that the study was performed in the first place in response to earlier, less definitive studies hinting at possible harms associated with severe salt restriction.

The average American consumes about 3,400 mg per day of sodium. The AHA recommends that sodium levels be cut by more than half to 1,500 mg/day. Several other health organizations also recommend reduced salt intake, though their recommendations are less severe than the AHA's (which is itself a good indication of the lack of scientific consensus).

A former president of the AHA, Elliott Antman, described the AHA as a "a science-based organization dedicated to saving and improving lives." "Confusion about something as dangerous as excess sodium is unacceptable. We owe it to the public to provide the most scientifically sound dietary advice."

But although "confusion" about sodium may be "unacceptable", it may also be inevitable, at least for now. Despite what Antman and the AHA say, there is no widespread scientific consensus about salt. In its statements, the AHA never acknowledges the lively ongoing debate about salt.

It is known that the AHA and its officers will not admit to anything and yet say they have science behind them. There is little actual science and there is much disagreement among the experts about salt.

Back in the 1980s, the AHA developed enormously influential guidelines on cholesterol and diet. These guidelines helped spark the campaign against dietary fat and had the catastrophic consequence of pushing people to consume more carbohydrates, including sugar, instead of fat and protein. We will probably never know the full extent of the damage, but many have speculated that this may have contributed to the obesity and diabetes epidemics. Let's make sure this doesn't happen again with salt.

The AHA can't be judge and jury and simply declare themselves the winner in the court of science.

AHA Recommends Statins, Not Heart Healthy Foods

A lot of what the American Heart Association (AHA) does is not for the benefit of heart patients. The AHA must be raking in the money from statin manufacturers to keep promoting statins in the manner they do.

Apparently, our good heart doctors do not realize they are doing more harm than good with the advice they are giving out. The AHA has outdated dietary guidelines that are hurting the health of Americans'. In a May 2014 article in the Wall Street Journal, the notion that saturated fats and LDL clog our arteries came from a “derailment” of nutrition policy “by a mixture of personal ambition, bad science, politics, and bias.”

In addition, the AHA’s dietary guidelines are also centered on the notion that “bad” cholesterol causes heart disease, and that since saturated fat may raise “bad” cholesterol levels, it’s the ultimate dietary evildoer. Not only has this bad/good cholesterol dichotomy, (the AHA’s “logic”) been solidly debunked by study after study—it was never proven in the first place. It is a shame of the AHA that they cannot admit their error, but don't count on this becoming a reality.

Below are just a few of the items outlining the AHA's false logic:

“Reduce saturated fat!” Apparently, the AHA never heard of moderation. Raw, organic butter from grass-fed cows can be extremely healthful: it contains vitamin A in its most bioavailable form, lauric acid, antioxidants, vitamin E, and vitamin K2. But the alternatives to butter—margarine and hydrogenated or processed polyunsaturated oils—are far more detrimental to your health than saturated fat. They are actually a leading cause of heart disease.

“Drink low-fat and skim milk!” A recent study has shown that children who drink whole milk are slimmer than kids who drink skim! One theory for this is that “full fat foods” promote satiety. In addition, full-fat dairy can actually reduce your risk of heart disease, as well as diabetes and cancer.

“Avoid ‘bad’ cholesterol!” This has been debunked as well. Studies show that lower levels of LDL don’t necessarily lessen your risk of heart disease. One book to read is by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick and titled the Great Cholesterol Con.

“Limit Your Intake of Red Meat!” Again, moderation should be your guide and not what the AHA says. Even my own heart doctor insists that I eliminate red meat and eat more fish and chicken. I happen to like both, but even then, I still like my red meat,  It was not difficult to eliminate the highly process meats like hot dogs and some sandwich meats.

Red meat is an excellent source of protein and other nutrients. Among other nutrients, it contains L-carnitine, an amino acid that is helpful for heart disease. A large meta-analysis, published in the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings, found that L-carnitine actually helps heal the heart after a myocardial infarction (heart attack). The AHA hardheads won't even acknowledge this.