首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Between 1986 and 1992 in the United States, mortality due to coronary heart disease among white men 45 to 74 years of age decrea
Between 1986 and 1992 in the United States, mortality due to coronary heart disease among white men 45 to 74 years of age decrea
admin
2011-01-06
69
问题
Between 1986 and 1992 in the United States, mortality due to coronary heart disease among white men 45 to 74 years of age decreased by 26 percent, continuing a trend that began in the mid-1960s. Americans are thus doing something right. But did fish consumption help? This is where the Health Professionals Follow-Up(起作用) Study comes in.
The study deals with the intake(摄影) of n-3 fatty acids and fish. The researchers calculated the intake of fish for 44,895 male health professionals—most of them dentists—in 1986 and kept track of their health status for the next six years. Surprisingly, the intake of n-3 fatty acids or fish in 1986 was not related to the risk of subsequent coronary disease. The number of participants was much larger than in other studies, and the methods and data analysis were solid. Also, measurements of fatty acids in adipose tissue showed that the questionnaire reliably ranked respondents according to their intake of 3 fatty acids.
The researchers carefully spell out the limitations of the study. First, two thirds of the men had greatly increased their intake of fish over the 10 years before 1986. Some of those increases could have occurred. Shortly before the base-line investigation in 1986, because the inverse relation between fish consumption and mortality due to coronary heart disease was first reported in 1985. Thus, data on fish intake may not reflect long term habits, and changes in fish intake during follow-up could also have attenuated an association with coronary disease. The authors performed separate analyses including only men who reported no change in their fish intake and again found no effect. However, it is hard for people to recall whether they changed their diet several years ago.
Second, the fish intake of these educated men was high and was more comparable with that of Norwegians or Japanese than with intake in the U.S. men studied previously. The epidemiologic data suggest that any beneficial effect is obtained with one or two servings of fish per week and that more is not better. Moreover, previous studies of fish intake have shown an association with the rate of mortality due to coronary disease, rather than with the incidence of nonfatal coronaty disease or coronary surgery. When seen in that light, there is some agreement between the present study and previous reports, because the risk of death from coronariy heart disease was about 25 percent lower among men who ate at least some fish than among those who ate no fish at all.
A third limitation of the study was that some of the men studied may have begun to eat fish, or may have eaten more, because they thought that they were at increased risk of a heart attack;the men in the highest 20 percent of the study group in terms of their in-take of n-3 fatty acids more frequently reported a family history of coronary disease or a personal history of high cholesterol levels than men who ate less fish.
The Harvard investigators concluded that increasing fish intake beyond one or two servings per week is unlikely to reduce the risk of coronary events substantially in men who are initially free of coronary disease. This is a prudent conclusion, and it could be extended to fish-oil capsules, which provide n-3 fatty acids in much larger amounts than are commonly consumed in food.
The findings of the Health Professionals Follow-up Study should somewhat dampen enthusiasm for fish and fish oil as a panacea against coronary disease. A little fish may still do some good, but more fish is not necessarily better.
The data of the study may not reflect the long-term habits of the participants, thus making the results of the study somewhat questionable.
选项
A、Right
B、Wrong
C、Not mentioned
答案
A
解析
见第三段“Thus,data on fish intake may not reflect long-term habits.”所以,食鱼量的数据可能未反映长期生活习惯。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/0Emd777K
本试题收录于:
职称英语卫生类B级题库职称英语分类
0
职称英语卫生类B级
职称英语
相关试题推荐
Whatdowethinkofwhenweheartheword"business"?Someofusthinkofourjogs,othersofthemerchantstheydealwithasco
Readthefollowingarticleandchoosethebestwordforeachspace.Forquestions26-45,markoneletterA,B,CorDonyou
CONVERSATION2(Questions5-8)Fred’sjob:【L5】______driver.Yearsfordoingthejob:【L6】______.ProblemsFredhad:troublewith
Youwillheartwoconversations.Writedownonewordornumberinthenumberedspacesontheformsbelow.CONVERSATION1(Que
Youwillheartwoconversations.Writedownonewordornumberinthenumberedspacesontheformsbelow.CONVERSATION1(Que
HighfieldHouseisneartheseaside.Youcanbuyplantsinwhatwasformerlythewalledgarden.
StressCanMakeYouSickScientistsarenowstudyinganewfieldofresearchwhichiscalledpsychoimmunology(心理免疫学).Itisb
Customersarewellwaitedoninthisbigdepartmentstore.
I’mscepticaloftheteam’schancesofwinning.
AFactorsLeadingtoEnergyWasteBHomeAppliancesCPropsalstoCutEnergyConsumptionDEnergyConsumptionTestETerawa
随机试题
自主性学习的方式
为了避免砌块墙体开裂,预防措施包括()。
关于绩效评价作用的表述正确的是()。
根据《大中型水电工程建设风险管理规范》GB/T50927—2013,对于损失小、概率大的风险,施工单位宜采取的风险处置方法是()。
背景说明:你是宏远公司的行政秘书钟苗,下面是行政经理张明需要你完成的两项任务。
一个总额为100万的项目分给甲、乙、丙、丁四个公司共同来完成,甲、乙、丙、丁分到项目额的比例为,请问甲分到的项目额为多少万?
西周时期开始区分故意与过失、惯犯与偶犯。在《尚书.康诰》中,惯犯被称为()。
宅基地和自留地、自留山属于()。
下列权利中,属于身份权的是()。
______I’mwillingtohelp,Idonothavetoomuchtimeavailable.
最新回复
(
0
)