For Lower Blood Pressure, Low-Carb Diet May Be Best
Reviewed By
Rating
For Lower Blood Pressure, Low-Carb Diet May Be Best
Our Review Summary
This story did a pretty good job of explaining what happened in a study comparing a low-carb diet to a low-fat diet plus the weight loss medication orlistat. Although the coverage had some holes, HealthDay earns points for not simply reprinting the Duke University press release on this study, which is what WebMD seems largely to have done. The extra effort paid off in the form of more balanced quotes from one of the study researchers and some important context-setting perspective from an independent source.
Why This Matters
The diet wars have been going on for decades, if not centuries, and don’t seem to be going away any time soon. This issue particularly important because modest weight loss can improve hypertension, a major risk factor for cardiovacular disease, the number one cause of death in both men & women in the US.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
The story does not mention the costs of the medication used in the low-fat diet group. Including this information would have helped readers make a more informed comparison of the two approaches.
Satisfactory
The story gives a reasonable overview of the effects of the two interventions on a variety of different markers associated with health. Although it earns points for noting the absolute reduction in blood pressures and not just providing them as a percentage, it should have provided the weight loss in similar terms of actual pounds or kilograms lost instead of as a percentage of bodyweight.
Not Satisfactory
The story does not mention any of the known adverse effects of orlistat, which include gastrointestinal upset that can limit the drug’s tolerability. It could also have mentioned some of the concerns (such as potential for nutrient deficiencies) that many health professionals have about diets that are high in meat and protein and very low in carbohydrate.
Satisfactory
The story does a pretty good job of explaining the basic study design and what changes the researchers observed in the two groups. However, it could have done more to tell us about the diets that produced these changes. The major problem with most diet plans is that people can’t stick with them over time. The story provides no information regarding how many people dropped out of the study in each group, which would be an important measure of how easy these diets are to follow for the typical consumer. In addition, the story states that participants were "assigned" to a low-carb or low-fat diet, but says next to nothing about what participants actually ate during the study.
Satisfactory
The story does not exaggerate the prevalence of obesity or its consequences.
Not Satisfactory
The story did not mention that two of the researchers on the study have received funding from the Robert C. Atkins Foundation, which promotes research on low-carb diets and is associated with the Atkins diet books and products. The story did include comments from an independent dietitian, which is a strength, but this isn’t enough to overcome the omission.
Not Satisfactory
Given the story’s focus on blood pressure, it should have mentioned how the results of this study might compare to treatment with blood pressure medication.
Satisfactory
The story states that orlistat is available via prescription as Xenical and over the counter as Alli. The availability of the low-carb and low-fat diet options is not in question.
Satisfactory
Neither the diets nor the medication discussed in the story are new, and the story does not suggest that they are.
Satisfactory
The story quotes two sources, including one of the researchers on the study and an independent expert. The content of the story does not appear to be lifted from the press release put out by Duke University about the study.
Total Score: 6 of 10 Satisfactory
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like