Skip to main content

American Heart Association drops the bottle on lifestyle recommendations

In a drastic lurch back to Victorian era temperance, the American Heart Association came out this month with lifestyle recommendations intended to promote “ideal cardiovascular health.” Their list of “Life’s Simple Seven” includes:
• Never smoked or quit more than one year ago;
• Body mass index less than 25 kg/m2 (I.e., not overweight)
• Physical activity of at least 150 minutes (moderate intensity) or 75 minutes (vigorous intensity) each week;
• Four to five of the key components of a healthy diet consistent with current American Heart Association guideline recommendations;
• Total cholesterol of less than 200;
• Blood pressure below 120/80;
• Fasting blood glucose less than 100.

Not much to quibble with there it would seem, but as always the devil is in the details. Let’s look more closely at the “healthy diet” components:

• Vegetables and fruits are high in vitamins, minerals and fiber — and they’re low in calories. Eating a variety of fruits and vegetables may help you control your weight and your blood pressure.
• Unrefined whole-grain foods contain fiber that can help lower your blood cholesterol and help you feel full, which may help you manage your weight.
• Eat fish at least twice a week. Recent research shows that eating oily fish containing omega-3 fatty acids (for example, salmon, trout, and herring).

So far, so good, we have heard all that before. But as we approach the twentieth anniversary of the French Paradox, where does the AHA stand on wine?

• If you drink alcohol, drink in moderation. That means one drink per day if you’re a woman and two drinks per day if you’re a man.

That’s it? With the thousands of research paper attesting to the cardiovascular benefits of red wine consumption, nary a mention other than be careful not to drink too much? It’s not like there is a lack of data upon which to base a recommendation. According to the widely recognized expert Dr. R. Curtis Ellison, professor of Medicine and Public Health at Boston University, “ ... only stopping smoking would have a larger beneficial effect on heart disease than for a nondrinker to begin having a drink or two each day.” This recommendation is supported by the prestigious Framingham study, the bedrock of research on the lifestyle factors in cardiovascular disease. But the Framingham scientists have been studiously neglecting the data about drinking and health since the 1970’s when the role of alcohol was first evaluated. One of the scientists involved in the study, Dr. Carl Seltzer, revealed later that the senior staff at the National Institutes of Health demanded that the data be altered to remove any suggestion of a beneficial effect from alcohol, citing concerns that it would be “socially undesirable.” To this day the official Framingham website omits any reference to the alcohol studies. This is what they call science?

The thing is, most of know better and so the “updated” recommendations from the AHA lose credibility. It reinforces perceptions of the medical establishment as paternalistic. Time to start treating us like adults.

For more including detailed references check out my book Age Gets better with Wine.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Which came first: Beer or wine? (or something else?)

Actually neither beer nor wine was the first fermented beverage, and wine arguably has a closer connection to health, but recent evidence indicates that humans developed the ability to metabolize alcohol long before we were even human. The uniquely human ability to handle alcohol comes from the digestive enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase, or ADH4. A new science called paleogenetics identifies the emergence of the modern version of the ADH4 gene in our ape ancestors some 10 million years ago. Interestingly, this corresponds to the time when our arboreal forebears transitioned to a nomadic lifestyle on the ground. We went from swinging from tree limbs to walking upright, and the rest is history. Understanding the circumstances that led to perpetuation of the ADH4 mutation may contain clues to what made us human in the first place. How the ability to metabolize alcohol made us human Paleogenetecist Matthew Carrigan has an idea about how this happened . Arboreal species rely on fruit tha

Why I am not surprised that the NIH cancelled the alcohol-health study

Not long after enrolling the first patients in the much hyped prospective study on alcohol and health, the National Institutes of Health recently announced that they were pulling the plug. I am actually more surprised that they ever got it off the ground in the first place. As I wrote a year ago when the study was still in its planning stages, there were too many competing interests, criticisms of the study design, and concerns about funding to expect that whatever results came out would be universally accepted. Nevertheless, I am disappointed. The study, called Moderate Alcohol and Cardiovascular Health Trial (MACH) was intended to provide hard evidence about the health effects of moderate alcohol consumption by prospectively assigning subjects with heart disease to one drink per day or not drinking, which they were to follow for up to 10 years. Most existing data on the question is retrospective, or simply tracks a subject population according to their drinking preferences, w