Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension diet retains effectiveness to reduce blood pressure when lean pork is substituted for chicken and fish as the predominant source of protein

Abstract

The results indicate that adults with elevated BP may effectively incorporate lean pork into a DASH-style diet for BP reduction.

Comparison of the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet and a higher-fat DASH diet on blood pressure and lipids and lipoproteins: a randomized controlled trial

“…The Beef in an Optimal Lean Diet Study found that the inclusion of lean beef in a low-saturated-fat DASH-like diet resulted in comparable effects on lipid and lipoprotein measures compared with a standard DASH diet (29). Sayer et al (30) recently showed that a DASH-style diet containing either lean pork or chicken and fish similarly reduced BP. Together with results from the present study, the above findings provide evidence that aspects of the DASH diet can be modified without compromising its benefits on BP or LDL-cholesterol lowering, offering flexibility in food choices for individuals following the DASH diet.…”

Total red meat intake of ≥0.5 servings/d does not negatively influence cardiovascular disease risk factors: a systemically searched meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

“…CARB, carbohydrate control diet; CHICK, chicken control diet; CON, habitual control diet; F, lean fish control diet; F1, first female group; F1 BEEF, first female group consuming beef diet; F1 PORK, first female group consuming pork diet; F2, second female group; F2 BEEF, second female group consuming beef diet; F2 PORK, second female group consuming pork diet; HC G1, first group consuming high-cholesterol diet; HC G2, second group consuming high-cholesterol diet; LC G1, first group consuming low-cholesterol diet; LC G2, second group consuming low-cholesterol diet; LVLP, lactovegetarian low-protein control diet; M1, first male group; M1 BEEF, first male group consuming beef diet; M1 PORK, first male group consuming pork diet; M2, second male group; M2 BEEF, second male group consuming beef diet; M2 PORK, second male group consuming pork diet; P, poultry control diet; SF, southern fish control diet; TF, tropical fish control diet; VEG, vegetarian control diet. studies containing design features that had the potential to confound results, including weight-loss diets (27,29), hearthealthy diets (25,26,28,34,35,39,42,43), diseased populations [hypertensive (26,28,38), hypercholesterolemic (34,35,42), and/or diabetic (32)], studies that resulted in significant weight loss (25,(27)(28)(29)35), inclusion of processed meat (45), studies that did not specify the degree of meat processing (24,25,27,32,36,40,43,46,47), and studies that used different amounts of protein intake in the control and intervention group or phase (29,32,38,…”

“…The median total red meat servings per day in the control and intervention groups were 0 servings/d (range: 0-0.4 servings/d or 0-30 g/d) and 2 servings/d (or 140 g/d; range 1.0-7.1 servings/d or 68-500 g), respectively. Two of the selected studies included a weight-loss diet (27,29), 8 studies included a heart-healthy dietary pattern (25,26,28,34,35,39,42,43), the subjects self-selected their diet similar to their habitual intake in 9 studies (24, 30, 31, 36-38, 46, 40, 41), and 5 FIGURE 3 Random-effects model meta-analysis for changes in blood LDL-cholesterol concentrations from randomized controlled trials comparing $0.5 or ,0.5 servings of total red meat/d. Heterogeneity: t 2 = 0.011, x 2 = 6.62, df = 38 (P = 0.001), I 2 = 85%.…”

“…In 16 articles, the researchers provided food to the subjects (mainly protein-rich foods) (24, 26-29, 31, 33, 37-45), but the rest did not provide food or did not specify if they provided food to the subjects. Researchers assessed dietary compliance in numerous ways, which are shown in Table 3, including dietary counseling, interviews, or questionnaires (24-27, 33-35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 46); food records, logs, or menus (26, 28-32, 34-36, 38, 40, 43, 46); and/or urinary markers such as urinary 3-methyl histidine (45), urinary electrolyte excretion (26), and 24-h urinary urea nitrogen output (28,32). Most studies showed the use of .1 of these methods of dietary compliance.…”

Upregulation of miR-21 expression is a valuable predicator of advanced clinicopathological features and poor prognosis in patients with renal cell carcinoma through the p53/p21-cyclin E2-Bax/caspase-3 signaling pathway

“…Faithful cell replication is to be ensured and controlled by restriction points (6). The overexpression of cyclin D1 and E can promote the G/S limiting point of cells and cause excessive cell proliferation; moreover, cell cycle confusion is a key link of the genome (7). It may further increase the probability of carcinogenesis of labile cells, and thereby participate in tumorigenesis and development.…”