Saturday, June 1, 2013

The American Heart Association misrepresented data on saturated v. polyunsaturated fats

The American Heart Association misrepresented data on saturated v. polyunsaturated fats: According to the paper...

Thank You Weston A Price for this information!
Some Quotes:

"Peer review is critical for ensuring that evidence assembled in a meta-analysis is complete and impartial. Regrettably, the recent AHA Advisory [1] relied heavily upon a one-line meta-analysis cited in a non peer-reviewed book chapter [2] to support its position that high intakes of omega-6 fatty acids reduce CHD. Unfortunately, the credibility of this advisory is undermined by four additional critical errors."

1) The AHA Advisory mistakenly cited the Sydney Diet-Heart Study...
2) Although the AHA Advisory [1] criticizes other studies for failing to distinguish between “distinct effects” of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, it commits this error throughout.
3) The AHA Advisory imprecisely contends that its analysis pertains to trials that “evaluated the effects of replacing saturated fatty acids with PUFAs” [1] despite its citation of trials where experimental diets displaced large quantities of trans fatty acid-rich partially hydrogenated oils.
4) The AHA Advisory failed to indicate that the Rose Corn Oil Trial [5] gives a rare opportunity to evaluate the specific effects of increased LA, because corn oil has little omega-3 ALA.
The advisory fails to inform the public that an important tissue indicator of CVD risk the ‘Omega-3 Index’5, reflects the proportion of EPA and DHA in erythrocytes, a representative phospholipid eicosanoid precursor pool. The Omega-3 Index is regarded5 as superior to LDL as a biomarker predicting cardiovascular mortality. Paradoxically, the advisory reports that increasing LA intakes decreases EPA accretion, (i.e. lowers the Omega-3 Index and increases CVD risk), but implies without comparative quantitation that lowering LA intakes would elevate LDL levels and increase net CVD risk. However, lowering LA by LNA substitution could maintain PUFA intakes and result in a more favorable Omega-3 Index.

The advisory unfortunately moves from suggestive and highly conditional interpretations to the
unsupported clinical admonition that “To reduce omega-6 PUFA intakes from their current levels would be more likely to increase than to decrease risk for CHD.”

Please read the complete paper here.


No comments:

Post a Comment

I appreciate appropriate comments but reserve the right to publish those with credible, verifiable, significant information to contribute to the topic at hand. I will not post comments with commercial content nor those containing personal attacks. Thank You.