[johncearls]

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?

[peyton]

Yeah, total reduction is ~70%.

[pljung]

I agree that the headline is misleading.

[tokai]

>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.

[oliwarner]

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]

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]

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

[sokoloff]

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

[bjornsing]

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

[tokai]

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]

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.

[peyton]

Wrong. See tables 1 and 2.