The Heart Health Bible: The
5-Step Plan to Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease. By John M. Kennedy, M.D.
Da Capo. $15.99.
Plainspoken and intelligent
advice from an expert and experienced cardiologist is somehow coupled with
errors, omissions and abysmal writing and/or editing that collectively take a
book that ought to be celebrated and turn it into one that can barely be
trusted. This is more than a shame: it is a genuine risk to cardiac health.
It is reasonable to come to The Heart Health Bible with high
expectations. John M. Kennedy, M.D., sits on the board of the American Heart
Association and is a clinical associate professor of cardiology in California –
recognized and respected both for his work in invasive cardiology and for his
championing of alternative and complementary medicine. On paper, he is just the
sort of person to whom one would wish to turn for information on living a life
that is better for your heart – and lowering one’s risk of heart disease, the
number one killer and leading cause of disability in the United States. The
“5-Step Plan” of his book’s title has, as it turns out, an unfortunate acronym
and no really new or different recommendations, but it is clearly presented and
does contain ideas that, if followed carefully, will improve many people’s
heart health. It is, in fact, the reason that this book gets a (++) rating
rather than (+).
Dr. Kennedy’s plan calls for a well-known
approach toward lowering cardiovascular risk: exercise and reduce weight, blood
sugar, blood pressure and triglycerides. Those are the five elements – one
positive and four negative. But in the search for a catchy acronym, Dr. Kennedy
has to torture the elements of the program to make them fit. The acronym, which
certainly is catchy, is H-E-A-R-T.
But here is what the letters mean: Heal
blood pressure; Energize your heart
through exercise; Act on fat by
losing weight; Reduce blood sugar;
and Tackle triglycerides. Sorry, but
this does not work at all: a good acronym has to have an immediate, clear,
readily understandable relationship to its underlying recommendations, and this
one is overly complex and not sufficiently clearly connected to be useful.
It does, however, contain
the germ of a good idea – several good ideas, in fact. And Dr. Kennedy says,
correctly, that his program requires basic behavioral changes that can be very
difficult for people to make; he even tries to come up with ways to encourage
people to make them anyway, and ways to lessen the inherent difficulties.
All well and good. But
scattered throughout the book, again and again and most unfortunately, are so
many mistakes and instances of poor writing that it is impossible to take
anything Dr. Kennedy says at face value – because there is no way to know
whether errors have crept in and, if so, how significant they are.
For example: “Just a decade
ago, before the clinical availability of insulin….” What? Insulin was first given by injection in 1922, crystallized in 1926, fully
sequenced in 1955, chemically synthesized in 1963, manufactured in significant
quantities in 1978 (by Genentech), and made widely available (as Humulin) in the
early 1980s. A decade ago?
Or consider this sentence:
“Thus, the comparatively primitive brains of our forbearers [sic] may have
developed neural pathways that heightened their desire for high calories [sic]
foods.” Does writing like this encourage you to follow the author’s
recommendations?
There are also subtler
mistakes, apparently born of Dr. Kennedy’s predisposition to favor lifestyle
changes over any other approaches to limit cardiovascular-disease risk. In a
quiz about modern portion sizes, for example, he compares today’s portions with
those of 20 years ago (an interesting idea) and explains how much exercise
would be needed to work off the excess calories of larger portions (also an
interesting idea). But he does not play fair. One question says, “A muffin 20
years ago was 1.5 ounces and had 210 calories. How many calories do you think
are in a muffin today?” The choices are 320, 400 or 500, and the answer is 500
– for a five-ounce muffin. But wait: that means today’s muffins have fewer calories per ounce than those of
20 years ago (100 today vs. 140 two decades in the past). Isn’t that at least
worth mentioning? And in another question, he compares a “box of popcorn” 20
years ago with “today’s tub of popcorn,” never explaining how many ounces
either contains and not discussing whether the popcorn, either in the past or
today, is air-popped, made with oil, coated with butter or artificial butter
flavor, etc. Skewing questions this way in order to skew the answers is not
medicine – it is propaganda.
It has to be said that to
the extent that The Heart Health Bible
is propagandistic, it is in a good cause: heart disease is a huge problem, and finding ways to cope with it is important. But that does not justify
serious lapses of accuracy or deliberate omission of alternative approaches
that Dr. Kennedy may use himself but apparently does not like. An example of
the latter: his 286-page book devotes a mere two pages to statins, which are
among the world’s most-prescribed medicines, are specifically designed to
reduce heart-disease risk, and are credited by many cardiologists with having
such power to lower cardiovascular events that they believe millions more people should take them, beyond the
millions who already do. This is an arguable proposition, but not a casually dismissible
one – yet Dr. Kennedy does dismiss it, devoting his two pages not to the
medicines’ enormous successes and benefits but to the comparatively rare side
effect of cognitive impairment (which, unlike other side effects of statins,
some cardiologists deem anecdotal rather than proven). Dr. Kennedy prescribes
statins himself – he says so, and even affirms that he “feels so strongly”
about them because they work so well in certain patients. That being the case,
his brief treatment of the statin option and his emphasis on the negatives of
this class of drugs seem disingenuous, or at least uncalled-for.
Dr. Kennedy has enormous
knowledge and experience in cardiovascular disease, and clearly is on a mission
to help people reduce their risk of developing it. But The Heart Health Bible, because of its errors and the skewed
elements of its presentation, unfortunately undermines that mission more than
it advances it.
No comments:
Post a Comment