Question 2
Question 2: Within the article, “Intake and adipose tissue composition of fatty acids and risk of myocardial infarction in a male Portuguese community sample”, the risk of acute MI was significantly reduced by higher intakes of lauric, palmitic, and oleic acids, after adjusting for energy intake and cofounders. Why do you believe statistical significance was not observed for linoleic, alpha-linolenic acids, and trans fats? Does this change your past conclusions regarding these fatty acids?
posted by Breine @ 6:04 PM
37 comments
37 Comments:
I that satistical significance was not observed for linoleic, alpha-linolenic acids and trans fats because their database did not have accurate recordings of these fats in foods. It over estimated the amount of soybean oil, while olive oil was underestimated. Trans fats are hard to find in foods through databases because they have just recently been required on food labels and even then if a food has less than 1 gm trans fat it does not need to be recorded. My past conclusions of these fatty acids are not changed.
Mary Ellen,
Actually the law is that the trans fat does not have to be recorded if it is less than 0.5 grams. (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qatrans2.html#s3q3)
There was poor correlation between the FFQ and adipose tissue fatty acid composition on ALA and trans fat. This could mean that the FFQ might not have been showing a clear picture of the intakes of these fats, as Mary Ellen has also pointed out. The mixed results of higher linoleic acid intake decreasing risk of MI versus higher linoleic acid content of adipose tissue associated with increased risk of MI may also be related to the FFQ. In addition, the overall reduced total fat intake of study participants may have been associated with these results.
I agree with Mary Ellen and Andrea on the possible reasons for the lack of statistical significance found for linoleic, alpha-linoleic, and trans fats (FFQ and adequate report of consumption).
My past conclusions are not changed because this is only one study. It is not definite and is only something to consider. It does not provide enough information to disregard other studies that show different results or to ignore all that I have learned over the past years.
I also agree what has been stated that certain oils and foods were underestimated and others were overestimated making it hard to generalize finding from this study. This study did not change my past conclusions because it is only one study and a relatively small sample size.
Andrea,
Thanks for correcting me on labeling. I actually just read an article about trans fats and I was just about to note my mistake!
The correlation between the FFQ and the fat tissue analysis was difficult to achieve, this was mainly true for the Omega-6, Omega-3 and trans fatty acids. This is probably due to some estimation errors that took place while the FFQs were being filled out and analyzed. Some other considerations were that the isomers of trans fats were highly variable between Portuguese and US intakes. US intakes of trans fatty acids are generally from hydrogenated oils, while Portuguese intake is generally from more natural forms, such as dairy products. These different isomers could have different effects on the body and therefore result in different MI risk levels. Overall, this doesn’t change my opinion on the three fatty acids in question. This is only one study, and there are several small errors that could’ve taken place that would err the results ever so slightly.
If manufacturing companies can list "0 grams fat" on their nutrition label, but still produce a product with trans fat (less than 0.5 grams), how can consumers know if they are consuming a product that has trans fats?
Andrea said...(my password keeps giving me troubles :(
Breine,
Good question! Especially for consumers who find out this information and are suddenly baffled again. Consumers can read the ingredients list, and if they see "shortening" or "partially hydrogentated vegetable oil" they can know that there is trans fat in that product.
I think that a lack of statistical significance in this study warrants further research with other population groups to identify if these results are consistent. It would not change my opinion on these fats simply on the basis of this study but it is valuable to be aware of this research as well. The differences between this population and the typical US diet might yield other results. I would also advise clients to read the list of product ingredients especially on processed foods and focus education on what types of ingredients might suggest trans fat.
I agree with the previous posts reasons for lack of statistical significance for linoleic, alpha-linolenic, and trans fatty acids. This study does not change my past conclusions. This study had many limitations and until there are more studies to confirm or deny what this study has found I will not change my past conclusions. It think it is important for us to realize that all research has limitations, no one study can provide the whole picture.
I feel it is important to note the limitations of the study, including a small sample size and possible miscalculations of the sample’s dietary intake. The article states that consumption of trans-fatty acids were possibly overestimated and oleic, linoleic, and alpha-linolenic acids being underestimated which ultimately will affect interpretation of the results. Also, this population derived most of their trans-FA's from animal products as opposed to hydrogenated oils which is very common in the U.S. This does not change my conclusions regarding these fatty acids because in addition to the scientific background on these FA's, there are many studies that suggest health benefits.
The lack of statistical significance for linoleic, alpha linolenic and trans fat occurred due to the database used for the specific population. The database was based on US data, and was only partly modified to match a Portuguese diet. Considering our diet compared with theirs there is a huge difference between the amount of trans fat consumed. However the lack of significance also indicates that maybe more specific research is needed. This does not change my thoughts on these fatty acids as it is only one study, while there are many others that contradict it.
I believe that linoleic, alpha-linolenic acids and trans fats were not statistically significant in this observation because there was some error in this study. Either they didn’t have accurate information or records of these fats and there consumption of these weren’t recorded accurately. There is studies that to prove that linoleic, alpha-linolenic acids and trans fats are vital to ones diet and do reduce the risk of MI. This one study doesn’t change my views on these linoleic, alpha-linolenic acids and trans fats.
From the findings, it seems to be that there was not a significant amount of linoleic, alpha-linolenic, and trans fats traces to be calculated, in order to show up in the research findings. As many others have stated, this is a single study. Possibly changing the method, tactics, or simple conducting the study several more times, may help achieve more significant data. Overall, this does not change previous conclusions regarding the fatty acids.
Thus far, I think I am going to go with the consensus on this one and agree with everyone else about no statistical significance being observed with the three fats! There seems to be plenty of room for error in this study. I bet that is why studies like this one have difficulty providing sound evidence!
Just because this study did not find statistical significance with linoleic, alpha-linolenic acids and trans fats does not necessarily mean it's not true. For example, what if a similar study was done in the US??? In the US,trans-fatty acids are highly consumed (mainly on a unconscience basis), in which case, I think we would see statistical significance. ???
I agree with everyone else on the fact that the statistical significance was not observed in linoleic, alpha-linleic acids, and trans fats due to a possible error in the study. I also agree that there could have been many limitations to this study including inaccurate analysis of the data or lack of proper recording of the fat intakes. I would need several research studies all showing results like this one in order for me to even consider changing my conclusions on these fatty acids.
I also believe that statistical significance was not observed in this research study. The inaccurate recordings of LA, ALA and trans fats may have skewed that results. Increasing the accuracy of the research and including more than just one study would give the data greater validity. Until this happens and research shows other wise, my beliefs will remain the same.
Suzie,
Good point! Just because statistical significanse was not observed, doesn't mean that the results do not have value, they certainly may be true. That's why we need more studies. No study is perfect and you can't get all the answers from just one.
It is important to keep studies going and not make conclusions from one study with many limitations. I do not change my past conclusions regarding these fatty acids because it takes a certain amount of each fat to be considered. Every study is something to consider.
I also agree with everyone on the limitations of the study. However, like others have pointed out, the limitations do not make the findings completely irrelevant. There simply needs to be more research. My opinions will not be swayed by one study alone as any study has its limitations.
I agree that there was probably some error in recording intake on the Food Frequency Questionnaire used in this particular study. FFQ's are a retrospective review of intake frequency per day, week, or month. The focus of an FFQ is to chart the frequency of consumption of food groups rather than specific nutrients, and thus, the information obtained is general. I think that a similar study should be conducted in order to clear up this issue. I do not change my views on the fats mentioned, as there have been numerous studies and a variety of evidence that states ALA and linoleic fatty acids reduce the risk of MI. This was simply one particular study, and it seems that errors in the study have skewed the results.
I feel that statistical evidence was not observed for linoleic, alpha-linolenic acids, and trans fats due to some type of error in the recording. There are several studies that have been done on these fatty acids and trans fats that show they play an important role in ones diet whether they are beneficial or harmful. I have seen many studies that have shown that omega-3's can be beneficial and reduce the risk for MI. This one study does not change my past conclusions of these fatty acids because it is just one study and there are so many other studies out there with scientific background that suggest health benefits.
I agree with everyone that the statistical significance was not seen in linoleic acid, alpha-linleic acids, and trans fats because of some kind of error in the study. I think more information is needed and more studies done on this topic. This one study for me doesn’t change my view on linoleic acid, alpha-linleic acids or trans fat.
I believe further research may indicate significance for linoleic acids, alpha-linolenic acids, and trans fats. There are a number of reasons why these fatty acids were not included. Human error can play an important role in research. Also, researchers may not have found enough data to be considered significant.
Studies are only as good as the researchers conducting them. In studies of this nature there are so many things that could possibly skew the evidence found. For one the food frequency questionnaire may or may not have been completed honestly which could have made the results be a little off. Like any study that a professional reads, you should regard the findings but also factor in other studies that have been completed.
Ultimately, this is only one study where the authors themselves state, “. . . it is likely that intake of trans-fatty acids was overestimated. Furthermore, it is possible that the food composition data were biased in the way that the use of soy bean oil was overestimated and that of olive oil was underestimated.” One must question the results of this study because of the studies short comings in creating an accurate data base. The author should duplicate the study and correct inaccurate estimations in the data base, and then see if the same results are reached. To dismiss all other findings that a polyunsaturated-fatty-acid rich diet does truly lower ones risk for a MI and that a trans-fat-rich diet does increase ones risk for a MI based solely on this faulty study would be foolish.
I agree with all the others that the reason statistical significance was not observed for linoleic, alpha-linolenic acid and trans fats was because of error in the study. As a professional, you have to be able to make your own decisions and can not be easily persuaded by one article. We all have learned in our classes the advantages and disadvantages from these components. This one article does not change my mind. I would have to see numerous studies with similar conclusions to change my opinion.
A lot of good points have been made regarding why one study should not be the basis for a complete turnaround of opinion on a subject. This is why I think it is interesting that so much information is put in the news as soon as one study confirms it. For example, if one study said tomatoes prevent cancer then it is immediately a topic for the national news when the research may be from one small study. This does not mean the research is inaccurate but it makes it difficult for nutrition professionals to counsel clients with so much information. We need to streamline the information for clients and focus on well-based, repeated, measured research as a basis for advice.
As pointed out in previous postings, I also agree that there was not a statistical significance observed for this study because of errors in the study. This just reinforces the importance of reading and looking at many studies and why researchers must repeat studies to make sure the results are universal. It is important to be skeptical of studies and realize that statistical analysis might have been the result from data that was not the most accurate. This study does not change my thoughts and opinions on the fatty acids.
I am guessing that the study had no statistical significance when looking at linoleic, alpha-linolenic acids, and trans fats. This doesn’t change my opinion about these fatty acids because it is only one study done on this topic. If there were several studies, it would definitely affect my opinion on them. There are a lot of reaserch studies done in our area and many topics about food eleviating a certain condition or curing another. As professionals, we must heavily research a topic before coming to a solid conclusion.
I definitely won't change my past conclusions about fatty acids because of one study. Their would have to be alot more to change my mind. Also, there is alot of things that just aren't sticking with me such as what about the overall intake of fat, oils being underestimated, and more statistics are needed with other populations.
The reason that there many not have been statistical significance between alpha linolenic acid, linoleic acid, and trans fatty acid could be due to errors obtaining sample information. Either there were limitations that prevented them from achieving accurate results or the information obtained on diet and adipose tissue was lacking an accurate error margin. For example, it was stated that they calculated information obtained using a US scale while obtaining samples from Portugal. This could have led to the error because unlike the US consumption of trans fat from hydrogenated oils, Portugal obtains trans fat in the diet from animal products, most notably dairy products. These results would not change my opinion and I would still regard alpha linolenic and linoleic acids as very important, essential parts of the human diet. This is only one study that failed to find any significant link between these oils and CHD, and unless more studies find similar results, I do not believe that this experiment will be the new standard for choosing oils.
I agree with everyone else on the fact that the statistical significance was not observed in linoleic, alpha-linleic acids, and trans fats due to a possible error in the study. You can not base your opinion upon one study done. There are many things that could go wrong while doing an experiment, therefore many trials need to be done before a conclusion can be made. This one study doesn’t change my past conclusions regarding these fatty acids.
Karlie,
I think that what you pointed out about Portuguese sources of trans fats being from more natural forms is a great reminder to us that trans fats are also naturally occuring in meat and dairy products. We tend to think of only processed foods including hydorgenated oils being the main sources of trans fats and while that may be true for the US, it is not likely across the world.
I do not think this FFQ is an accurate measure of fatty acids intake. This could be why was not statistical significance was not observed for linoleic, alpha-linolenic acids, and trans fats. Also, the sample consisted of only Portuguese men. The study may have differed with a more diverse sample. The subject may have neglected small about of fats in their diets. The FFQ may not have been specific enough. This study alone does not change my opinion on fatty acids.
Katie – I agree that studies need to be performed multiple times to achieve significant results. Each study is a step in the right direction and should not be ignored. Every study has its limitations, but when replicated, different results may be found. True – “every study is something to consider.”
Post a Comment
<< Home