[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.