| Literature DB >> 23154296 |
N T Bendsen1, E Chabanova, H S Thomsen, T M Larsen, J W Newman, S Stender, J Dyerberg, S B Haugaard, A Astrup.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intake of industrially produced trans fatty acids (TFAs) is, according to observational studies, associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, but the causal mechanisms have not been fully elucidated. Besides inducing dyslipidemia, TFA intake is suspected to promote abdominal and liver fat deposition.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 23154296 PMCID: PMC3302130 DOI: 10.1038/nutd.2010.4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr Diabetes ISSN: 2044-4052 Impact factor: 5.097
Fatty acid composition of the two test fats
| C14:0 | 0.7 | 0.2 |
| C16:0 | 26.7 | 12.7 |
| C16:1- | <0.1 | <0.1 |
| C16:1- | <0.1 | <0.1 |
| C17:0 | <0.1 | 0.1 |
| C18:0 | 3.8 | 6.2 |
| Total C18:1- | <0.7 | 59.0 |
| | <0.1 | 9.6 |
| | <0.1 | 12.7 |
| | <0.1 | 12.7 |
| | <0.1 | 10.7 |
| | <0.1 | 7.8 |
| | <0.1 | 3.9 |
| | <0.1 | 1.6 |
| Total C18:1- | 61.4 | 19.6 |
| | <0.1 | 2.9 |
| | 60.2 | 6.8 |
| | <0.1 | 3.2 |
| | 0.6 | 3.4 |
| | 0.6 | 3.2 |
| C18:2- | <0.1 | 1.4 |
| C18:2- | 6.6 | 0.2 |
| C20:0 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| C22:0 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| Total | <0.7 | 60.4 |
Abbreviation: TFA, trans fatty acid.
Positions of double bonds are counted from the methyl end of the fatty acid.
Figure 1CONSORT flow diagram displaying subjects recruited into the dietary intervention. Subjects were randomly assigned into two diet groups: a trans fatty acid (TFA) group and a control (CTR) group.
Baseline characteristics for subjects in the TFA (n=24) and control (n=25) groups and for lean reference subjects (n=19)a
| P | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 58.5±4.6 | 58.8±5.5 | 60.1±5.9 | NS |
| Height (cm) | 165.3±5.5 | 166.9±5.2 | 166.7±4.3 | NS |
| Weight (kg) | 78.7±7.1 | 78.4±8.6 | 59.4±4.8 | <0.001 |
| BMI (kg m−2) | 28.8±1.7 | 28.1±2.2 | 21.3±1.4 | <0.001 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 97.1±7.3 | 95.5±6.8 | 74.9±3.8 | <0.001 |
| Systolic (mm Hg) | 118±12 | 118±11 | 120±14 | NS |
| Diastolic (mm Hg) | 81±8 | 82±6 | 80±10 | NS |
| Physical activity index[ | 7.5±1.4 | 7.9±1.6 | 8.6±1.4 | 0.02 |
Abbreviations: NS, not significant; TFA, trans fatty acid.
Values are means±s.d., completers only.
P value refers to difference between overweight intervention subjects (diet groups combined) and lean reference subjects by unpaired t-tests (P>0.05).
Figure 2Semi-quantitative assessment of trans fatty acids (TFAs) in red blood cell (RBC) phospholipids assessed by gas chromatography. Based on semi-quantitative assessments of RBC trans18:1 profiles, including the scores 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5 and 2 (where 2 signifies full enrichment) (Supplementary Figure 1), maximal TFA enrichment was observed by week 8 and was generally sustained at week 16 in the TFA group (n=24), whereas the subjects in the control group experienced no TFA enrichment (n=25). Changes from baseline TFA profiles were assessed by repeated-measures ANOVA. Owing to the non-normal distribution of the semi-quantitative data, the analyses were performed on ranked data. aSignificantly different from the baseline value (P<0.001). bSignificantly different from the control group (P<0.001).
Figure 3Development in mean (±s.e.m.) body weight (a) and waist circumference (b) in the trans fat (TFA; n=24) and control (CTR; n=25) groups during the 16-week dietary intervention. Baseline values were not significantly different (unpaired t-test, P>0.05). Note that the y-axes have been truncated. In spite of the isocaloric study design, body weight increased significantly in both diet groups (P=0.002 for effect of time in repeated-measures analysis of covariance testing for interaction between diet group and time (weeks 4, 8, 12, 16) with week 0 as a covariate; there was no significant interaction between diet and time, nor effect on diet). Waist circumference tended to increase more in the TFA group (P=0.08 for effect of diet; there was no significant interaction between diet and time, nor effect of time).
Body composition and abdominal fat deposition in the TFA and control groups and in lean reference subjectsa
| 0.16 | |||
| TFA ( | 33.4±1.0 | 34.6± 1.1 | |
| Control ( | 31.8±1.1 | 32.7±1.0 | |
| Lean reference subjects ( | 16.8±0.8 | NA | |
| 0.20 | |||
| TFA ( | 45.6±0.7 | 45.6±0.8 | |
| Control ( | 47.0±1.0 | 47.3±0.9 | |
| Lean reference subjects ( | 43.3±0.6 | NA | |
| 0.12 | |||
| TFA ( | 42.1±0.7 | 43.0±0.7 | |
| Control ( | 40.2±0.9 | 40.7±0.8 | |
| Lean reference subjects ( | 27.8±0.9 | NA | |
| 0.17 | |||
| TFA ( | 43.2±0.9 | 44.2±0.8 | |
| Control ( | 41.3±1.0 | 42.0±0.9 | |
| Lean reference subjects ( | 25.5±1.1 | NA | |
| 0.85 | |||
| TFA ( | 446±20 | 458±20 | |
| Control ( | 390±21 | 407±21 | |
| Lean reference subjects ( | 138±10 | NA | |
| 0.46 | |||
| TFA ( | 313±15 | 317±15 | |
| Control ( | 255±16 | 261±14 | |
| Lean reference subjects ( | 106±7.6 | NA | |
| 0.58 | |||
| TFA ( | 133±9 | 141±10 | |
| Control ( | 135±14 | 146±17 | |
| Lean reference subjects ( | 33±4 | NA | |
| 0.67 | |||
| TFA ( | 0.45±0.04 | 0.46±0.05 | |
| Control ( | 0.56±0.08 | 0.60±0.10 | |
| Lean reference subjects ( | 0.31±0.03 | NA | |
| 0.87 | |||
| TFA ( | 2.7 (1.3; 5.7) | 1.9 (0.8; 4.6) | |
| Control ( | 2.4 (1.0; 5.6) | 1.8 (0.6; 5.1) | |
| Lean reference subjects ( | 0.1 (0.07; 0.3) | NA |
Abbreviations: AAT, abdominal adipose tissue; ANCOVA, analysis of covariance; NA, not applicable; TFA, trans fatty acid.
Values are means±s.e.m. or geometric means (95% confidence interval) for skewed data, completers only.
There were no significant differences in baseline values between diet groups (unpaired t-test).
P value refers to differences between diet groups at week 16 with week 0 as a covariate, by ANCOVA. Adjusting for weight change did not affect the results.
Significantly different from overweight intervention subjects (diet groups combined) by unpaired t-test or Kruskal–Wallis test for skewed data; P<0.05.
Obtained from MR imaging.
ANCOVA performed on log10-transformed values.
Figure 4Liver fat percentage in the trans fat group (TFA; n=23) and in the control group (CTR; n=23) before and after 16 weeks of dietary intervention and in lean references (n=19) obtained by 1H MR spectroscopy. Bars show geometric means (95% confidence intervals). There was no significant effect of diet, P=0.87 for differences between diet groups at week 16 with week 0 as a covariate, by analysis of covariance performed on log-transformed data. The liver fat % in lean references was significantly lower than in overweight intervention subjects (diet groups combined) by Kruskal–Wallis test for skewed data; P<0.01.
Blood lipids in the TFA (n=24) and control (n=25) groups and in lean reference subjects (n=19)a
| P | P | P | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.16 | 0.03 | 0.88 | ||||
| TFA | 5.44±0.19 | 6.07±0.21 | 5.95±0.19 | |||
| Control | 5.54±0.20 | 5.77±0.18 | 5.86±0.21 | |||
| Lean reference subjects | 5.46±0.18 | NA | NA | |||
| 0.23 | 0.03 | <0.001 | ||||
| TFA | 1.54±0.06 | 1.54±0.05 | 1.38±0.04 | |||
| Control | 1.65±0.07 | 1.69±0.08 | 1.59±0.06 | |||
| Lean reference subjects | 1.69±0.05 | NA | NA | |||
| 0.24 | 0.002 | 0.01 | ||||
| TFA | 3.39±0.18 | 3.91±0.19 | 4.01±0.18 | |||
| Control | 3.36±0.20 | 3.46±0.16 | 3.72±0.19 | |||
| Lean reference subjects | 3.47±0.17 | NA | NA | |||
| 0.23 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
| TFA | 2.31±0.16 | 2.64±0.17 | 3.02±0.20 | |||
| Control | 2.20±0.20 | 2.20±0.17 | 2.45±0.16 | |||
| Lean reference subjects | 2.08±0.11 | NA | NA | |||
| 0.22 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
| TFA | 3.65±0.19 | 4.08±0.22 | 4.45±0.23 | |||
| Control | 3.54±0.23 | 3.60±0.21 | 3.83±0.20 | |||
| Lean reference subjects | 3.25±0.12 | NA | NA | |||
| 0.78 | 0.39 | 0.09 | ||||
| TFA | 1.13±0.10 | 1.39±0.15 | 1.24±0.09 | |||
| Control | 1.19±0.10 | 1.35±0.12 | 1.23±0.11 | |||
| Lean reference subjects | 0.67±0.04 | NA | NA | |||
Abbreviations: ANCOVA, analysis of covariance; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; NA, not applicable; TFA, trans fatty acid.
Values are means±s.e.m., completers only.
There were no significant differences in baseline values between diet group (unpaired t-test, P>0.05).
P values were derived by repeated-measures analysis of covariance testing for interaction between diet group and time (week 8, 16) with week 0 as a covariate. P values for effects of diet and time, respectively, were derived from analyses omitting the interaction term.
ANCOVA performed on log10-transformed values.
Significantly different from overweight intervention subjects (diet groups combined) by unpaired t-test; P<0.05.