Benefits of the Danish transfat ban for coronary heart disease mortality

Re:Benefits of the Danish transfat ban for coronary heart di... by johncearls on Thursday August 18, 2022 @07:18AM (#32507931)

Okay, I'm confused. If I'm reading the paper right, it wasn't an 11 percent reduction caused by eliminating transfats. The total reduction was 11 percent, of which 11 percent was attributable to trans fat with the rest attributable to lower smoking, statins, etc. The headline seems way off. Am I reading the paper wrong?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benefits of the Danish transfat ban for coronary heart di... by peyton on Thursday August 18, 2022 @07:32AM (#32508045)

Yeah, total reduction is ~70%.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benefits of the Danish transfat ban for coronary heart di... by pljung on Thursday August 18, 2022 @07:31AM (#32508032)

I agree that the headline is misleading.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benefits of the Danish transfat ban for coronary heart di... by tokai on Thursday August 18, 2022 @07:28AM (#32508014)

>Denmark’s mandatory elimination of ITFA accounted for approximately 11% of the substantial reduction in CHD deaths observed between 1991 and 2007.

Its very simple. 11% of the reduction in congenital CHD in the time period is due to the ban of trans fat.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benefits of the Danish transfat ban for coronary heart di... by oliwarner on Thursday August 18, 2022 @07:39AM (#32508117)

The overall decrease is 74% (adjusting previous rates for population increases). 14,993 expected deaths → 3,883 actual. Transfat ban is credited with 11% of that reduction so "only" an 8% reduction overall.

Still massively significant, but not to the point of the silly headline.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benefits of the Danish transfat ban for coronary heart di... by tokai on Thursday August 18, 2022 @07:41AM (#32508145)

The headline is editorialised by the HN uploader.

I have no input if their research is true or what an overall mortality reduction is. It's beside the issue here.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benefits of the Danish transfat ban for coronary heart di... by oliwarner on Thursday August 18, 2022 @09:55AM (#32509637)

Yeah, I wasn't disagreeing with you, just adding some more numbers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benefits of the Danish transfat ban for coronary heart di... by sokoloff on Thursday August 18, 2022 @07:46AM (#32508185)

In this paper, CHD is used as an abbreviation for coronary heart disease, not congenital heart defects.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benefits of the Danish transfat ban for coronary heart di... by bjornsing on Thursday August 18, 2022 @07:32AM (#32508047)

So… That does not in any way clarify things. Is the parent right or wrong?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benefits of the Danish transfat ban for coronary heart di... by tokai on Thursday August 18, 2022 @07:38AM (#32508114)

Seriously? The conclusion I quoted is easy unconvoluted language. I cannot imagine what could be changed to make it more understandable.

Over a period you have a reduction of the total deaths due to CHD - 11% of that reduction is due to a ban on trans fat.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benefits of the Danish transfat ban for coronary heart di... by happyopossum on Thursday August 18, 2022 @05:41PM (#32515235)

It may be clear to you, but it's missing some context - it's 11% of the 75%, so really an overall 8% reduction. Using the number of 11% instead of 8% could be construed as trying to hype up the results.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benefits of the Danish transfat ban for coronary heart di... by peyton on Thursday August 18, 2022 @07:34AM (#32508059)

Wrong. See tables 1 and 2.

[ Parent | on HN ]