If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Trans Fats in Blood Samples And 3X Risk of CHD - Correlation
Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) Study using "Nurse's Health
Study" blood specimens from 1989 and 1990. Press Release He http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0327144449.htm The researchers, led by Hu and lead author Qi Sun, a graduate research assistant at HSPH, set out to test the assumption that higher trans fatty acid levels in erythrocytes—red blood cells—were associated with a higher risk of heart disease among U.S. women. Blood samples collected in 1989 and 1990 from 32,826 participants in the Brigham and Women’s Hospital-based Nurses’ Health Study were examined. During six years of follow-up, 166 cases of CHD were diagnosed and matched with 327 controls for age, smoking status, fasting status and date of blood drawing. After adjusting for age, smoking status and other dietary and lifestyle cardiovascular risk factors, the researchers found that a higher level of trans fatty acids in red blood cells was associated with an elevated risk of CHD. The risk among women in the top quartile of trans fat levels was triple that of the lowest quartile. “Positive associations have been shown in earlier studies based on dietary data provided by the participants, but the use of biomarkers of trans fatty acids is believed to be more reliable than self-reports. This is probably the reason why we see an even stronger association between blood levels of trans fat and risk of CHD in this study,” said Sun. “These data provide further justifications for current efforts to remove trans fat from foods and restaurant meals,” said Hu. “Trans fat intake in the U.S. is still high. Reducing trans fat intake should remain an important public health priority.” The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Trans Fats in Blood Samples And 3X Risk of CHD - Correlation
Great post.
"Jbuch" wrote in message ... Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) Study using "Nurse's Health Study" blood specimens from 1989 and 1990. Press Release He http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0327144449.htm The researchers, led by Hu and lead author Qi Sun, a graduate research assistant at HSPH, set out to test the assumption that higher trans fatty acid levels in erythrocytes—red blood cells—were associated with a higher risk of heart disease among U.S. women. Blood samples collected in 1989 and 1990 from 32,826 participants in the Brigham and Women’s Hospital-based Nurses’ Health Study were examined. During six years of follow-up, 166 cases of CHD were diagnosed and matched with 327 controls for age, smoking status, fasting status and date of blood drawing. After adjusting for age, smoking status and other dietary and lifestyle cardiovascular risk factors, the researchers found that a higher level of trans fatty acids in red blood cells was associated with an elevated risk of CHD. The risk among women in the top quartile of trans fat levels was triple that of the lowest quartile. “Positive associations have been shown in earlier studies based on dietary data provided by the participants, but the use of biomarkers of trans fatty acids is believed to be more reliable than self-reports. This is probably the reason why we see an even stronger association between blood levels of trans fat and risk of CHD in this study,” said Sun. “These data provide further justifications for current efforts to remove trans fat from foods and restaurant meals,” said Hu. “Trans fat intake in the U.S. is still high. Reducing trans fat intake should remain an important public health priority.” The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Trans Fats in Blood Samples And 3X Risk of CHD - Correlation
On Mar 28, 8:43 am, Jbuch wrote:
Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) Study using "Nurse's Health Study" blood specimens from 1989 and 1990. Press Release He http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0327144449.htm Science Daily has this version of the news release: Science Daily - High consumption of trans fat, found mainly in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils and widely used by the food industry, has been linked to an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). New York and Philadelphia have passed measures eliminating its use in restaurants, and other cities are considering similar bans. A new study from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) provides the strongest association to date between trans fat and heart disease. It found that women in the U.S. with the highest levels of trans fat in their blood had three times the risk of CHD as those with the lowest levels. The study will appear in the April 10, 2007 print issue of Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association. .... After adjusting for age, smoking status and other dietary and lifestyle cardiovascular risk factors, the researchers found that a higher level of trans fatty acids in red blood cells was associated with an elevated risk of CHD. The risk among women in the top quartile of trans fat levels was triple that of the lowest quartile. "Positive associations have been shown in earlier studies based on dietary data provided by the participants, but the use of biomarkers of trans fatty acids is believed to be more reliable than self-reports. This is probably the reason why we see an even stronger association between blood levels of trans fat and risk of CHD in this study," said Sun. "These data provide further justifications for current efforts to remove trans fat from foods and restaurant meals," said Hu. "Trans fat intake in the U.S. is still high. Reducing trans fat intake should remain an important public health priority." The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. "A Prospective Study of Trans Fatty Acids in Erythrocytes and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease," Qi Sun, Jing Ma, Hannia Campos, Susan E. Hankinson, JoAnn E. Manson, Meir J. Stampfer, Kathryn M. Rexrode, Walter C. Willett, Frank B. Hu, Circulation, April 10, 2007. -- Ron |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Trans Fats in Blood Samples And 3X Risk of CHD - Correlation
The usual stuff. Think about what was actually found. First of all,
"triple" can mean there were 3 cases out of a million instead of 1 case in a million. Always look at the actual numbers. Instead, they always talk in terms of "100% more likely," or something similar, which could mean 2 cases instead of 1. However, let's say their findings appear to be compelling to most people. They found that more trans fatty acids in the blood to correlate with a higher incidence of what they define as "heart disease." Did these people live shorter lives, however? They don't tell us. In many cases, the studies are too short or don't determine this even when they can. Instead, they try to correlate markers with what they define as a particular "disease," and if people die of something else, you don't hear about it. Since trans fatty acids contain double bonds, which can generate free radicals and cause LDL to get oxidized and also come from food that has been stripped of natural antioxidant cover, this is not a surprising result, if it is a result that is consistent with the general claim they are making. Yet did they control for antioxidants in the diet? The problem is that there is no reason to think that a trans fatty acid is worse than a polyunsaturated fatty acid with the same number of unsaturated bonds. In fact, trans fatty acids may be less susceptible to lipid peroxidation than "natural" cis unsaturated fatty acids. Again, the difference is probably that there are less antioxidants in the diets of those who eat a significant amount of TFAs as opposed to those who eat a significant amount of "natural" UFAs. From the report you cite, it does not appear that antioxidant intake was controlled, and possibly overall fat consumption may not have been controlled either (and it also may be that those who ate more TFAs ate more oxidized cholesterol as well). In fact, if I could bet money on it, I would bet that those with the most TFAs in their blood were eating much less healthy diets overall. However, the people who conduct these studies hardly ever control for something like oxidized cholesterol, though they may indeed control for cholesterol (meaning that they don't determine if it is oxidized or not). To them, dietary cholesterol is all the same, all unhealthy. However, the evidence is now clear (even if these people are not aware of it), and so their underlying assumptions doom the study to meaninglessness (or worse, many can be mislead into eating an unhealthy diet by such "studies"). |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Trans Fats in Blood Samples And 3X Risk of CHD - Correlation
On Mar 29, 3:34 am, wrote:
The usual stuff. Think about what was actually found. First of all, "triple" can mean there were 3 cases out of a million instead of 1 case in a million. Always look at the actual numbers. Like the 166 that they quote you mean. However, let's say their findings appear to be compelling to most people. They found that more trans fatty acids in the blood to correlate with a higher incidence of what they define as "heart disease." Did these people live shorter lives, however? They don't tell us. They weren't trying to assess that. It's already known that heart disease kills people, they're just looking for whether trans fatty acids levels in blood cells are associated with it. Since trans fatty acids are an abnormal consituient of the body a correlation with CHD is more compelling than if it was with something naturally occurring. In many cases, the studies are too short or don't determine this even when they can. Instead, they try to correlate markers with what they define as a particular "disease," and if people die of something else, you don't hear about it. Because it's not relevant. Yet did they control for antioxidants in the diet? They weren't looking at the effects of antioxidants, they were doing a prospective study on whether there's a relationship between trans fat levels and heart disease. The problem is that there is no reason to think that a trans fatty acid is worse than a polyunsaturated fatty acid with the same number of unsaturated bonds. Yes there is, but you lack the knowledge and understanding to know why. Try this paper on for size, but it will only make your backpedalling go all the faster. "Consumption of trans fatty acids is related to plasma biomarkers of inflammation and endothelial dysfunction." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=15735094 In fact, trans fatty acids may be less susceptible to lipid peroxidation than "natural" cis unsaturated fatty acids. On what basis do you make that claim? From the report you cite, it does not appear that antioxidant intake was controlled, and possibly overall fat consumption may not have been controlled either (and it also may be that those who ate more TFAs ate more oxidized cholesterol as well). "After adjusting for age, smoking status and other dietary and lifestyle cardiovascular risk factors " MattLB |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Trans Fats in Blood Samples And 3X Risk of CHD - Correlation
"During six years of follow-up, 166 cases of CHD were diagnosed and
matched with 327 controls for age, smoking status, fasting status and date of blood drawing." This is not controlled properly, though it might pass for "science" these days. They took the people who developed "CHD" and then compared them to people without CHD, who they deemed to be similar. For all we know, there could have been a large number of people with high trans fatty acid levels and no CHD. If you want to "believe," be my guest. However, if you want to claim that an unsaturated bond is healthy in a configuratiion that is more likely to be degraded by free radicals, whereas another unsaturated bond is very uhealthy, even though it is more resistant, you are writing yourself a fairly tale. Notice how MattLB does not address my point. Where does it say that they accounted for oxidized cholesterol or antioxidant intake? In fact, not all the naturally-occurring antioxidants contained in "natural" foods are even known - he is so wrong it is laughable! If you disagree, my offer is still open to anyone with several hundred dollars to spa We will feed two dozen adult rats a diet of 30% fresh coconut oil (my choice) or 30% canola and fish oil. No added antioxidants, just a basic vitamin/mineral supplement. Otherwise, they get the same food, with no other source of fat. All else will be equal. Then if the coconut fed rats live to be the same age or longer, you will pay for all expenses, whereas I will if the coconut fed ones live what is considered to be statistically-significant shorter lives. Note that as I said, I don't necessarily disagree with their findings, but it is the mechanism that makes no sense. There is no reason to blame a trans fatty acid unless you also blame an unsaturated fatty acid with the same number of bonds. Trans fatty acids are naturally- occurring, but in small amounts, just as most humans ate diets very low in PUFAs until recently. If you disagree, simple and inexpensive experiments that do control for these factors can be done. Also, you might want to take a look at what Shils and Young have to say about trans fatty acids in their massive nutrition textbook (written for professionals). They point out that fish oil is much worse in the atherosclerotic context. This was documented decades ago in experiments that did control properly. Nother MattLB claims can change that fact. Get the book and see for yourself. Also note that I am willing to debate anyone on this issue, provided that a mutally-acceptable person be appointed as moderator. Calling someone you disagree with on a scientific issue an "idiot" is clearly not going to resolve anything. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Trans Fats in Blood Samples And 3X Risk of CHD - Correlation
On Mar 29, 7:38 am, wrote:
"Consumption of trans fatty acids is related to plasma biomarkers of inflammation and endothelial dysfunction."http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=p... And, a related link states: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=15226473 "In conclusion, this study suggests that dietary (n-3) fatty acids are associated with levels of these biomarkers reflecting lower levels of inflammation and endothelial activation, which might explain in part the effect of these fatty acids in preventing cardiovascular disease." -- Ron |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Trans Fats in Blood Samples And 3X Risk of CHD - Correlation
On Mar 29, 10:05 pm, wrote:
"During six years of follow-up, 166 cases of CHD were diagnosed and matched with 327 controls for age, smoking status, fasting status and date of blood drawing." This is not controlled properly, though it might pass for "science" these days. What's the problem with the control group? The only known a priori difference is the presence of CHD. If you then measure trans fat levels and the ones with CHD have the highest it's a clear correlation. They took the people who developed "CHD" and then compared them to people without CHD, who they deemed to be similar. Since it hasn't been published yet, you don't actually know what they did. For all we know, there could have been a large number of people with high trans fatty acid levels and no CHD. We do know. They found a strong correlation between trans fat and CHD, therefore there can't have been "a large number" with the exact opposite. If you want to "believe," be my guest. If you want to dismiss the data and stick to your faith-based view, be my guest. Just stop posting your fantasies as the scientific truth. However, if you want to claim that an unsaturated bond is healthy in a configuratiion that is more likely to be degraded by free radicals, whereas another unsaturated bond is very uhealthy, even though it is more resistant, you are writing yourself a fairly tale. Your claim of trans double bonds being more resistant has never been backed up by a citation, but feel free to give one, otherwise you're the one spinning the fairytale. Notice how MattLB does not address my point. Where does it say that they accounted for oxidized cholesterol or antioxidant intake? I did address your point: "They weren't looking at the effects of antioxidants, they were doing a prospective study on whether there's a relationship between trans fat levels and heart disease. " Your argument may be that everyone who had high trans fat also had low antioxidants/oxidized cholesterol and that's what's really to blame, but you've no evidence for that, whereas there is evidence for high trans fat being associated with CHD. In fact, not all the naturally-occurring antioxidants contained in "natural" foods are even known Equally irrelevant. Note that as I said, I don't necessarily disagree with their findings, but it is the mechanism that makes no sense. What mechanism are you talking about? Their study isn't looking for a mechanism, just a correlation. There is no reason to blame a trans fatty acid unless you also blame an unsaturated fatty acid with the same number of bonds. For general lipid peroxidation that's true, but physiologically it's naive and untrue. Trans fatty acids are naturally- occurring, Not in human tissues. They have to come from the diet - that's why they're such a useful measurement when relating disease to diet. but in small amounts, just as most humans ate diets very low in PUFAs until recently. Obviously not true for any seaside communities. might want to take a look at what Shils and Young have to say about trans fatty acids in their massive nutrition textbook (written for professionals). They point out that fish oil is much worse in the atherosclerotic context. This was documented decades ago in experiments that did control properly. But would have had inferior measuring techniques. Also trans fatty acids weren't prevalent decades ago, nor was the oxLDL mechanism for atherosclerosis known. Nother MattLB claims can change that fact. Get the book and see for yourself. Which edition are you talking about? MattLB |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Trouble With Trans Fats | PeterB | General Discussion | 0 | November 3rd, 2006 01:47 PM |
CLA (was: Trans fats) | Berna Bleeker | General Discussion | 0 | June 21st, 2005 07:30 PM |
Trans fats in Carbolite? | Y | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 33 | July 11th, 2004 02:57 AM |
Trans Fats | Dave | General Discussion | 17 | June 28th, 2004 07:11 PM |
Trans Fats | Dave | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 17 | June 28th, 2004 07:11 PM |