The Heart Assoeiation’s Junk Science Diet

　　A.A recent Cambridge University anal ysis of 76 studies involving more than 650，000 people concluded,“The current evidence does not clearly support guidelines that low consumption of total Saturated fats.“Yet the American Heart Association(AriA.，in its most recent dietary guidelines，held fast to the idea that we must A.l eat low.fat diets for optimal heart health.It’s a stance that—at the very best—is controversiA.，and at worst is dead wrong.As a practicing cardiologist(心脏病学家)for more than three decades，I agree with the latte—it’s dead wrong.Why does the AHA cling to recommendations that fly in the face of scientific evidence?

　　B.What I discovered was both eye.opening and disturbin9.The AHA not only ignored A.l the other risk factors for heart disease，but it appointed someone with ties to Big Food and bizarre scientific beliefs to lead the guideline-writing paneHust the type of thing’that undermines the public’s confidence in the medical community.The AHA guidelines warrant that saturated fat make up no more than 5 to 6 percent of daily cal ories for adults because this will lower“bad”cholesterol(胆固醇).And，for those people who need blood pressure control，the guidelines A.so suggest lowering sodium(salt)intake to no more than a teaspoon(2，300 mg)daily.Despite many other known risk factors for heart disease，salt and fat were，astonishingly,the only two considered by the AHA panel writing the guidelines.There are many other recognized risk factors the AHA ignored，including blood sugar level，low“good”cholesterol，insulin(胰岛素)levels，and body weight—an of these are influenced by diet.

　　C.In fact，most people who have heart attacks don’t have elevations in bad cholesterol.They are much more likely to have metabolic syndrome(新陈代谢综合征)—a condition that puts you at high risk for diabetes and heart disease.Interestingly enough，blood triglycerides(甘油三脂)do not go up with eating fat—they go up if you eat a diet high in processed grains，starches，and sugar.Unfortunately for the proponents of high-carbohydrate(糖类)diets，high blood triglycerides are a major risk factor for heart disease.In addition.low fat/high carb diets lower protective“good”cholesterol and raise insulin.

　　These diets are involved in the development of diabetes.which is a powerful risk factor for developing heart disease.

　　Heart Cheek Program’s contribution

　　D.The writers of the 20 13 statin guidelines based their recommendations on studies that looked at the reduction in the risk of events like heart attacks in people treated with statins.compared to people on a placebo(安慰剂).The AHA dietary guidelines do not cite any diet studies that looked at whether following a specific diet lowered the risk of developing heart events—yet they are giving dietary advice.Why?There might be two plausible reasons.One is the AHA's moneymaking“Heart Check Program.”The second is the conflict of interest of Robert Ecke—the co-chair of the panel that wrote the guidelines.

　　E.Forty.five percent of these“heart heA.thy”foods—over 400 of them—are meat：92 are processed meats—which have been shown to have either neutrA. or negative effects on heart health.Even more problematic are the foods containing added sugar.The AHA recommends that women consume less

　　than 6 teaspoons(1 00 calories)of sugar a day and less than 9 teaspoons(1 50 caories)for men.Yet there are items that get the nod of approvA. from the Heart Check program despite being near or at the sugar limit.1ike Bruce’s Yams Candied Sweet Potatoes and HeA.thy Choice SA.isbury Steak.

　　F. Until this year,Heart Check approved many foods with trans-fats，which raise bad cholesterol and lower good cholesterol，among other harmful effects on heA.th，like increasing inflammation(发炎)and the laying down of calcium in arteries(动脉).

　　G.Like the dietary guidelines，the AHA Heart Check Program appears to address only the effect of foods on cholesterollevel and blood pressure.Meanwhile，since the 1 970s，our yearly sugar consumption has increased quickly A.ong with the incidence of diabetes and obesity.This brings us to Dr.Robert

　　H.Eckel，the co-chair of the Working Group.He is a consultant for Foodminds.which specializes“in food，beverage，nutrition，health and wellness.”Foodminds works with more than 30 leading food，beverage，and nutrition to offer a“one stop shop of…consulting…to guide food and beverage companies in navigating the complexities around the upcoming FDA Nutrition Facts label overhaul.”In other words.Foodminds is a lobbying firm for“Big Food.”

　　Creationist’s coming

　　H. And then there is this：Dr.Eckel describes himself as“a scientist and professing six.day creationist and a member of the technicA. advisory board of the Institute for Creation Research…”Many scientists are religious.111is is not to question Dr.Eckel’s religious beliefs.but to question his ability to think sciemificA.ly.He believes there is scientific proof that the world was created in six days and mat evolution does not exist.This should at least raise eyebrows when the co-chair of an influential panel charged with giving scientificA.ly sound dietary advice has a financiA. conflict of interest and proselytizes for beliefs that are anti.scientific.

　　I.The American people should be able to trust that only impartiA. scientists write guidelines.We should be confident that those experts are not working to advance corporate interests and that they do not espouse beliefs that are well outside the scientific mainstream.An avowed creationist who consults for a food lobby hardly seems an appropriate choice to fulfill these criteria.For the last several decades，the AHA has promoted a low.fat higll.carbohydrate diet as a cornerstone of heart health.It has taken a very public position that saturated fats are a major driver of heart disease risk and the mounting tide of evidence that this is dead wrong must put it in a very uncomfortable position.And yet a fundamental requirement of science--as opposed to propaganda--is that when evidence that contradicts a hypothesis is replicated over and over again，that hypothesis must be abandoned.

　　J. The idea that eating high amounts of saturated fat causes hardening of the arteries—the so.called“diet-heart hypothesis—deserves to be iettisoned along with other discredited belief systems.Creationism comes to mind.Will the AHA step up to the plate?

　　46.It is ftm that blood triglyeerides won’t rise when you eat fat,but go up with eating other sugar and starches.

　　47.The processed meats are proved to be harmful more or less to our heart health.

　　48.Many other known risk factors for heart disease have been overlooked by the AHA panel.except for salt and fat.

　　49.It does not aim to query the religious faith of Dr.Eckel，but his capability to ponder scientifically.

　　50.At best.the idea held by AHA that we must A.l eat low.fat diets for optimA. heart heA.th is a controversiA. stance，while at worst，it is dead wrong.

　　51.Many foods approved by Heart Check would be harmful to our body health.

　　52.A hypothesis must be iettisoned when it clashes with the convincing evidence.

　　53.Since the 1970s.our annually sugar accommodation has rocketed A.ong with the occurrence of diabetes and obesity.

　　54.The view that high intake of saturated fat could result in sclerosis of artery should be discarded with other untrustful beliefs.

　　55.The AHA dietary guidelines do not quote any diet researches that can tell us whether a specific diet can decrease the risk of heart disease.

　　46.It is fun that blood triglycerides won’t rise when you eat fat.but go up with eating other sugar and starches.有趣的是，当你食用脂肪时血甘油三酯不会升高，而食用一些糖类或淀粉时就会升高。

　　47.Theprocessedmeatsareprovedto beharmfulmore orlessto ourhearthealth.经预处理的肉多多少少会对我们的心脏健康有负作用。

　　48.Many other known risk factors for heart disease have been overlooked by the AHA panel，except for salt and fat.很多其他影响心脏健康的危险因素被AHA饮食指南制定小组忽略了，但盐分和脂肪除外。

　　49.It does not aim to query the religious faith of Dr.Eckel.but his capability to ponder scientifically.这并不是在质疑埃克尔博士的宗教信仰，而是他进行科学化思考的能力。

　　50.At best.the idea held by AHA that we must all eat low-fat diets for optimal heart heA.th is a controversial stance，while at Worst，it is dead wrong.从最好的一面来看，AHA坚持我们必须采用低脂肪饮食以达到最佳的心脏健康状态的观点是有争议的，然而最坏的就是，它是大错特错的。

　　51.Many foods approved by Heart Check would be harmful to our body health.心脏检查程序认证通过的许多食物对我们的身体是有害的。

　　52.A hypothesis must be jettisoned when it clashes with the convincing evidence.当一个假设与令人信服的证据冲突时，它应该果断被摒弃。

　　53.Since the 1970s，Our annually sugar accommodation has rocketed along with the occurrence of diabetes and obesity.自20世纪70年代以来，糖的年供应量随着糖尿病和肥胖症的高发迅速增加。

　　54.The view that high intake of saturated fat could result in sclerosis of artery should be discarded with other untrustful beliefs.摄入高含量的饱和脂肪会导致动脉硬化的观点应该和其他不可信的观念一同被抛弃。

　　55.The AHA dietary guidelines do not quote any diet researches that Can tell uswhether a specific diet Can decrease the risk ofheart disease.AHA的饮食指南并没有引用任何饮食研究，这些研究也并未指出特定的饮食是否可以降低患心脏病的风险。