Day 256 - 04 Jun 96 - Page 45
1 A. OK. It is about the same -- no, it is not. Wait a
2 minute. If you using relative risk as sort of a
3 measurement index, then something less than about 0.8,
4 I think, somewhere in that territory.
5
6 Q. So, anything below about 0.5 would be significant,
7 certainly?
8 A. Well, something -- often times below about 0.8 is
9 significant.
10
11 Q. Can we look at the next bit of this paper, which moves from
12 breast cancer to colon cancer or large bowel cancer? You
13 write, you and your colleague:
14
15 "Intakes of 14 complex carbohydrates and fibre fractions
16 were obtained in this study to determine whether particular
17 fibre fractions were associated to particular diseases,
18 especially cancers of the large bowel. Average dietary
19 fibre intake in China was about three times higher than
20 average US intake, with one county mean being high as
21 77 grammes per day. So far we have prepared only a brief
22 report of these data."
23
24 Has there been an update since then, do you know?
25 A. Somewhat, but not fully published.
26
27 Q. Then it reads on:
28
29 "However, based on an overview of the univariate
30 correlations, colon and rectal cancer mortality rates were
31 consistently inversely correlated with all fibre and
32 complex carbohydrates fractions except for pectin, which
33 showed no correlation. These relationships, although
34 consistent, appeared rather weak because only
35 rhamnose-containing complex carbohydrates intakes reached
36 statistical significance for cancer of the colon. It
37 appears, then, that within the range of 7 to 77 grammes of
38 fibre per day, where mean intakes of 29 of the 65 counties
39 were above the upper US recommendation in the 30 to 35
40 grammes of fibre per day, there is evidence of a weak
41 inverse relationship between cancer of the large bowel and
42 the intake of multiple complex carbohydrate and dietary
43 fibre fractions."
44
45 So far as those fractions are concerned -- and I do not
46 know what they were -- but so far as those were concerned,
47 have you had any reason to revise the view which is
48 expressed in this part of this paper?
49 A. No.
50
51 Q. So, if a protective effect of eating plants is to be found,
52 it must lie elsewhere in the various nutrients which make
53 up the plant?
54 A. Sure, of course, but, yes, not exclusively. I mean,
55 the dietary fibre contribution -- keep in mind that these
56 numbers here that you just referred to are numbers in
57 excess of 35 grammes a day. 35 grammes a day, quite
58 frankly, is already three times higher than what is
59 consistently consumed here in the US. So we are talking
60 about intakes that are very high. When we get that high,
