Effect of high-carbohydrate or high‐monounsaturated fatty acid diets on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Current dietary guidelines for cardiovascular disease risk management recommend restricting intake of saturated fatty acids (SFAs). However, the optimal macronutrient profile, in the context of a low-SFA diet, remains controversial. The blood-pressure effect of replacing SFAs in diets with monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) compared with carbohydrate has not been quantified to date. Objective: To synthesize the evidence for the effect of substituting a high-carbohydrate (high-CHO) diet for a high-monounsaturated fatty acid (high-MUFA) diet on blood pressure, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials in a population without health restrictions was conducted. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials were searched through June 7, 2017. Randomized controlled trials of > 3 weeks duration that assessed the effect of high-MUFA diets in isocaloric substitution for high-CHO diets on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were included. Data Extraction: Data were pooled using the generic-inverse variance method with random effects models and expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed by Cochran Q statistic and quantified by the I2 statistic. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results: Fourteen trials (n = 980 participants) were included in the analysis. Comparatively, the high-MUFA diets in isocaloric substitution for high-CHO diets did not demonstrate a greater reduction in blood pressure (SBP: MD, -0.08 mmHg [95%CI, -1.01 to 0.84], P = 0.86; DBP: MD = 0.01 mmHg [95%CI, -0.73 to 0.75], P = 0.98). The overall quality of the evidence was assessed as moderate. Conclusions: In the context of low SFAs, high-MUFA diets in isocaloric substitution for high-CHO diets did not affect blood pressure in individuals with and without hypertension. Large-scale trials achieving higher MUFA targets are required to support these findings. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02626325.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".