4.2 Article

Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet: applicability and acceptability to a UK population

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-277X.2009.01007.x

关键词

blood pressure; DASH diet; hypertension

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/D008123/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. BBSRC [BB/D008123/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/D008123/1] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet is widely promoted in the USA for the prevention and treatment of high blood pressure. It is high in fruit and vegetables, low-fat dairy and wholegrain foods and low in saturated fat and refined sugar. To our knowledge, the use of this dietary pattern has not been assessed in a free-living UK population. Methods: The DASH diet was adapted to fit UK food preferences and portion sizes. Fourteen healthy subjects followed the adapted DASH diet for 30 days in which they self-selected all food and beverages. Dietary intake was assessed by 5-day food diaries completed before and towards the end of the study. Blood pressure was measured at the beginning and end of the study to assess compliance to the DASH style diet. Results: The DASH diet was easily adapted to fit with UK food preferences. Furthermore, it was well tolerated and accepted by subjects. When on the DASH style diet, subjects reported consuming significantly (P < 0.01) more carbohydrate and protein and less total fat (5%, 6% and 9% total energy, respectively). Sodium intakes decreased by 860 mg day-1 (P < 0.001). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased significantly (P < 0.05) by 4.6 and 3.9 mmHg, respectively when on the DASH style diet. Conclusions: The DASH style diet was well accepted and was associated with a decrease in blood pressure in normotensive individuals and should be considered when giving dietary advice to people with elevated blood pressure in the UK.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据