Much ballyhooed "high carbs plus protein helps heart" study

Good points about how the media avoids using the word "carb" in their
headlines. I think it reflects the reality. My guess is that both the
researchers and the media have been hammered hard by the research
funders and the advertizers, who are probably the same companies or at
least the same industries, whenever the researchers or the media
emphasize the negactive effects of carbs. So they react by emphasizing
the benefits of either proteins or fats. It's an interesting game they
are playing, and very telling.

TC

Ignoramus24428 said:

Here's an article with headline "High Carbs Plus Protein Could Help
Heart".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051116/ap_on_he_me/fit_diet_matchup_4

It discusses a study which showed that a high carb (58%) diet was in
fact inferior to a lower carb (48%), higher fat diet, as far as
BP reduction goes.

That is exactly the opposite to what the headline claims.

A proper way to write a headline would be to say something like
"Lowering carbs away from a high carb diet helps heart".

What this study accomplished was finding that a moderate carb, higher
fat diet lowered blood pressure better than a high carb diet. The
former diet lowered BP by 9.5 points, vs. about 8 points on the high
carb diet.

If you look at another study, http://tinyurl.com/d9uy4

you would see that going even lower on carbs and higher on "protein",
produced further moderate improvement on blood pressure, reducing it
by 10.5 mmHg.

58% carbs => 8 mmHg reduction on BPP (OmniHeart study)
48% carbs => 9.5 mmHg reduction on BP (OmniHeart study)
40% carbs => 10.5 mmHg reduction on BP (http://tinyurl.com/d9uy4)

So, what do we see? Less carbs = less BP.

One has to wonder to what extent news headlines reflect reality
altogether. As Doug F pointed out, journalists have very little clue
as to what they are writing about.

While it is true, that would be the most benign explanation.
Journalists could acquire some clue if properly prodded by their
employers. The less benign explanation, promoted by Chomsky for other
areas of news reporting, is that journalists follow financial
interests of their institutions. That's a more realistic explanation,
since it follows the money.

But, in any case, the story with reporting of this study suggests that
we should look "beyond headlines".

i

Quoted message said:

Good points about how the media avoids using the word "carb" in their
headlines.

Um, the article that I mentioned, did mention carbs in the headline. 🙂

Quoted message said:

I think it reflects the reality. My guess is that both the
researchers and the media have been hammered hard by the research
funders and the advertizers, who are probably the same companies or at
least the same industries, whenever the researchers or the media
emphasize the negactive effects of carbs. So they react by emphasizing
the benefits of either proteins or fats. It's an interesting game they
are playing, and very telling.

I agree with that. "Follow the money" is an approach that usually
yields the correct answer.

i

Quoted message said:

TC

Ignoramus24428 said:

Here's an article with headline "High Carbs Plus Protein Could Help
Heart".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051116/ap_on_he_me/fit_diet_matchup_4

It discusses a study which showed that a high carb (58%) diet was in
fact inferior to a lower carb (48%), higher fat diet, as far as
BP reduction goes.

That is exactly the opposite to what the headline claims.

A proper way to write a headline would be to say something like
"Lowering carbs away from a high carb diet helps heart".

What this study accomplished was finding that a moderate carb, higher
fat diet lowered blood pressure better than a high carb diet. The
former diet lowered BP by 9.5 points, vs. about 8 points on the high
carb diet.

If you look at another study, http://tinyurl.com/d9uy4

you would see that going even lower on carbs and higher on "protein",
produced further moderate improvement on blood pressure, reducing it
by 10.5 mmHg.

58% carbs => 8 mmHg reduction on BPP (OmniHeart study)
48% carbs => 9.5 mmHg reduction on BP (OmniHeart study)
40% carbs => 10.5 mmHg reduction on BP (http://tinyurl.com/d9uy4)

So, what do we see? Less carbs = less BP.

One has to wonder to what extent news headlines reflect reality
altogether. As Doug F pointed out, journalists have very little clue
as to what they are writing about.

While it is true, that would be the most benign explanation.
Journalists could acquire some clue if properly prodded by their
employers. The less benign explanation, promoted by Chomsky for other
areas of news reporting, is that journalists follow financial
interests of their institutions. That's a more realistic explanation,
since it follows the money.

But, in any case, the story with reporting of this study suggests that
we should look "beyond headlines".

i

--
223/174.9/180

Matthew Venhaus said:

Ignoramus24428 <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Here's an article with headline "High Carbs Plus Protein Could Help
Heart".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051116/ap_on_he_me/fit_diet_matchup_4

It discusses a study which showed that a high carb (58%) diet was in
fact inferior to a lower carb (48%), higher fat diet, as far as
BP reduction goes.

That is exactly the opposite to what the headline claims.

I don't think so; 48% carbs (240g in a 2000 calorie per day diet) is
not low carb.

No one said that 48% of carbs was low carb. That was not part of the
argument at all. Doubtless, you are right and neither 48% nor 40% is
low carb. It is merely "lower" carb than 58%.

Quoted message said:

The revision of the DASH diet is due in March 2006; it
will be interesting to see if it incorporates this research.

Yes, let's see what happens...

--
223/174.9/180

Ignoramus24428 <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Here's an article with headline "High Carbs Plus Protein Could Help
Heart".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051116/ap_on_he_me/fit_diet_matchup_4

It discusses a study which showed that a high carb (58%) diet was in
fact inferior to a lower carb (48%), higher fat diet, as far as
BP reduction goes.

That is exactly the opposite to what the headline claims.

I don't think so; 48% carbs (240g in a 2000 calorie per day diet) is
not low carb. The revision of the DASH diet is due in March 2006; it
will be interesting to see if it incorporates this research.

--
Matthew
Slow and steady wins the race.