In 1957, the American Heart Association opposed Ancel Keys on the diet-heart issue. The AHA’s fifteen-page report castigated researchers—including Keys, presumably—for taking “uncompromising stands based on evidence that does not stand up under critical examination.” Its conclusion was unambiguous: “There is not enough evidence available to permit a rigid stand on what the relationship is between nutrition, particularly the fat content of the diet, and atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease.”

Less than four years later, the evidence hadn’t changed, but now a sixman ad-hoc committee, including Keys and Jeremiah Stamler, issued a new AHA report that reflected a change of heart. Released to the press in December 1960, the report was slightly over two pages long and had no references.*6 Whereas the 1957 report had concluded that the evidence was insufficient to authorize telling an entire nation to eat less fat, the new report argued the opposite—“the best scientific evidence of the time” strongly suggested that Americans would reduce their risk of heart disease by reducing the fat in their diets, and replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats. This was the AHA’s first official support of Keys’s hypothesis, and it elevated high cholesterol to the leading heart-disease risk. Keys considered the report merely an “acceptable compromise,” one with “some undue pussy-footing” because it didn’t insist all Americans should eat less fat, only those at high risk of contracting heart disease (overweight middle-aged men, for instance, who smoke and have high cholesterol).

After the AHA report hit the press, Time quickly enshrined Keys on its cover as the face of dietary wisdom in America. As Time reported, Keys believed that the ideal heart-healthy diet would increase the percentage of carbohydrates from less than 50 percent of calories to almost 70 percent, and reduce fat consumption from 40 percent to 15 percent. The Time cover story, more than four pages long, contained only a single paragraph noting that Keys’s hypothesis was “still questioned by some researchers with conflicting ideas of what causes coronary disease.”

Chapter 2

Chapter Two

THE INADEQUACY OF LESSER EVIDENCE

Another reason for the confusion and contradictions which abound in the literature concerning the etiology of coronary artery disease is the tyranny that a concept or hypothesis once formulated appears to exert upon some investigators in this field. Now to present, to emphasize, and even to enthuse about one’s own theory or hypothesis is legitimate and even beneficial, but if presentation gives way to evangelistic fervor, emphasis to special pleading, and enthusiasm to bias, then progress is stopped dead in its tracks and controversy inevitably takes over. Unfortunately it must be admitted that in the quest to determine the causes of coronary artery disease, these latter deteriorations have taken place.

MEYER FRIEDMAN, Pathogenesis of Coronary Artery Disease, 1969