He has been much reports a study released Sunday in the New England Journal of Medicine [1], and will be focus blog hoy.Aquí, in brief, is the design of the study: nearly 5000 men and women who had previously had a heart attack were allocated at random to include in your diet, one of the four food:
margarinemargarine enriched margarine (omega-3 fats found in fish) EPA and DHA, enriched with ALA (alpha-linolenic acid - a form of omega-3 fats found in plant foods such as flaxseedmargarine, enriched with the EPA, the Department of Humanitarian Affairs, and ALA)During a follow-up period of 40 months, consumption of EPA and DHA or ALA was not associated with a reduced risk of 'cardiovascular' events such as heart attacks and stroke or death accidents by these things. There seems to be some benefits for diabetics margarine omega-3 enriched, but taken together, the results were rather disappointing.
In general, this study has been reported as evidence that shows that ' perhaps the omega-3 fats are not as healthy as we facts believe '. It is certainly an interesting shot, seeing as fat omega 3 they were testing aquí.Pero omega-3 fats are added to the margarine.The question here? Well, margarine in a meal of plastic, chemicalised, highly processed, that evidence relates to the adverse effects on the salud.Ver more on this here.
Now, imagine for a moment that omega-3 fats are supremely healthy. Would make sense eating them in conjunction with a non-food that may have toxic effects on health? do fall vitamin C into a glass of arsenic before it chugging down?
What is interesting about how this study is being reported is that journalists have immediately jumped at the idea of omega-3 leaves querer.Pero what with margarine? No conventional publication which is questioning the value that you can have the margarine is not found.The authors of this study do not welcome this possibility.
It is a pity that this study used not enriched margarine as a placebo.negative authors of this study actually lost a trick here because a placebo better not, in my opinion, margarine at all. While this would not have been a true placebo, which, however, would have been interesting view how those who ate margarine fared in comparison to those who did not.
Other potential fault in this study related to the amount of omega-3 additional consumed by participants that derives from the margarine.This proved to be 376 mg of EPA and DHA.And appearance even in conventional recommendations, which is unlikely to be sufficient to have the real benefit (recommendations for people with cardiovascular disease often have 800 to 1000 mg per day).
Another curious thing about the study is this phrase in the section of summary results:
"The prespecified subgroup of women, ALA, versus placebo and EPA-DHA itself, was associated with a reduction in the rate of major cardiovascular events that approached significance (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.03; P = 0.07)".
Here the limits of confidence (0.51 to 1.03) cover 1, and what this means is that you there is not a statistically significant reduction of risks associated with the consumption of ALA in women.Therefore, why even suggest? this is similar to desperate authors find something positive in a study that was generally quite negative.
In such circumstances, it can sometimes be useful to find out if there was any participation in the study of the 'industry'. and guess what - there! judgment was supported by, among other organs, Unilever (a major manufacturer of margarine, including omega-3 had enriched the).
Could this fact, one could ask, have nothing to do with the fact that we have not heard a Word from the dissent of margarine and authors seem to be grasping at straws in terms of its interpretation of the data? and might have something to do with the fact that the design of the study does not include a group who do not eat margarine to everyone?
References:
1. The Kromhout D, et to the.n-3 fatty acids and cardiovascular events after myocardial infarction-Alpha Omega first group NEJM on August 29, 2010
Print this post
Published on August 31, 2010.Filed under: food and medical news, healthy eating, eat unhealthy!RSS comments – TrackBack
No comments:
Post a Comment