Day 252 - 20 May 96 - Page 27
1 again, but the abstract, which is very short, from the
2 article, the punch of it after all the figures is that the
3 authors conclude that the NCEP2 diet has a beneficial
4 effect, and then it says why. Because it decreases SF to
5 less than 100 -- what is the PP?
6 A. This is postprandial. This is after the meal.
7
8 Q. To less than 100 postprandial triglycerides which may be
9 atherogenic?
10 A. May I explain, your Lordship, what this really means
11 here?
12
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. This, again, is a somewhat outdated way of expressing
15 things. The SF greater than 100 and the SF 20-100 refers
16 to two fractions of triglycerides in the blood which are
17 separated by a process of spinning them in a centrifuge,
18 and this technique was developed by a man called Sedberg,
19 hence SF. He is seeing mortality being reduced to the
20 level of an abbreviation, but Sedberg is the man who
21 invented the technique and these two fractions are a
22 heavier fraction of triglycerides and a lighter fraction.
23 Nowadays, we talk about very low lipoproteins -- that is
24 the modern terminology -- but what they have shown here or,
25 claim to have shown here, is that following the ingestion
26 of this meal that the rate of removal of one of these
27 triglyceride fractions, the heavier one, which is the SF
28 greater than a hundred, that the concentration of that
29 remained higher in the blood for a longer period than it
30 did when the subjects were on the healthy diet and they
31 suggest that this is not a desirable thing and it may be
32 related to coronary heart disease. That is on opinion of
33 the author, but it is not a widely held opinion that any
34 triglycerides action has anything to do with the
35 atherosclerosic process.
36
37 Q. The author only says that they may be atherogenic?
38 A. Yes, what he does not say, your Honour, is that on the
39 other hand they may not, which most people do not say.
40
41 Q. Well, into 'may', which he uses both in his letter and
42 which is used in the abstract, if it may be, it supposes
43 that it may not be?
44 A. Absolutely, yes.
45
46 Q. But you do not have to say 'may not'. If you say 'may' it
47 countenances the possibility that it may not be so?
48 A. Yes. This is something that happens frequently in
49 COMA reports where they make a statement that something or
50 other like sugar may encourage excessive energy intakes. I
51 object to that because I feel it should say on the other
52 hand it may not, but this is quoted by other people as
53 saying the COMA report says that sugar encourages excessive
54 energy intakes. It is misquoted.
55
56 Q. I do not think you need explain to a lawyer 'may' and
57 'will' and is 'likely to'?
58 A. Yes.
59
60 Q. But do you join issue with the statement that SF more than
