4 ms·

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 wh

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?

tokai 4y ago
>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.
- bjornsing 4y ago
  So… That does not in any way clarify things. Is the parent right or wrong?
  - junofan 4y ago
    Wrong. See tables 1 and 2.
  - tokai 4y ago
    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.
    - happyopossum 4y ago
      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.
- oliwarner 4y ago
  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.
  - tokai 4y ago
    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.
    - oliwarner 4y ago
      Yeah, I wasn't disagreeing with you, just adding some more numbers.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  In this paper, CHD is used as an abbreviation for coronary heart disease, not congenital heart defects.
pljung 4y ago
I agree that the headline is misleading.
junofan 4y ago
Yeah, total reduction is ~70%.

tokai 4y ago

>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.

bjornsing 4y ago
So… That does not in any way clarify things. Is the parent right or wrong?
- junofan 4y ago
  Wrong. See tables 1 and 2.
- tokai 4y ago
  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.
  - happyopossum 4y ago
    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.
oliwarner 4y ago
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.
- tokai 4y ago
  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.
  - oliwarner 4y ago
    Yeah, I wasn't disagreeing with you, just adding some more numbers.
sokoloff 4y ago
In this paper, CHD is used as an abbreviation for coronary heart disease, not congenital heart defects.

pljung 4y ago

I agree that the headline is misleading.

junofan 4y ago

Yeah, total reduction is ~70%.