The New England

Journal of Medicine© Co pyr igh t , 1 997, by t he Mas s achus et ts Medic al So ciet y
V O L U ME 3 3 6

A P R I L 17, 1997

NUMB ER 16

A CLINICAL TRIAL OF THE EFFECTS OF DIETARY PATTERNSON BLOOD PRESSURE
LAWRENCE J. APPEL, M.D., M.P.H., THOMAS J. MOORE, M.D., EVA OBARZANEK, PH.D., WILLIAM M. VOLLMER, PH.D.,LAURA P. SVETKEY, M.D., M.H.S., FRANK M. SACKS, M.D., GEORGE A. BRAY, M.D., THOMAS M. VOGT, M.D., M.P.H.,
JEFFREY A. CUTLER, M.D., MARLENE M. WINDHAUSER, PH.D., R.D., PAO-HWA LIN, PH.D., AND NJERI KARANJA, PH.D.,
FOR THE DASH COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH GROUP*

ABSTRACT
Background It is known that obesity, sodium intake, and alcohol consumption influence blood pressure. In this clinical trial, Dietary Approaches to Stop
Hypertension, we assessed the effects of dietary patterns on blood pressure.
Methods We enrolled 459 adults with systolic bloodpressures of less than 160 mm Hg and diastolicblood pressures of 80 to 95 mm Hg. For three weeks,
the subjects were fed a control diet that was low infruits, vegetables, and dairy products, with a fat content typical of the average diet in the United States.
They were then randomly assigned to receive foreight weeks the control diet, a diet rich in fruits andvegetables, or a “combination” diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy products and with reduced
saturated and total fat. Sodium intake and bodyweight were maintained at constant levels.
Results At base line, the mean (SD) systolic anddiastolic blood pressures were 131.310.8 mm Hg
and 84.74.7 mm Hg, respectively. The combination
diet reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure by
5.5 and 3.0 mm Hg more, respectively, than the control diet (P0.001 for each); the fruits-and-vegetables
diet reduced systolic blood pressure by 2.8 mm Hg
more (P0.001) and diastolic blood pressure by 1.1
mm Hg more (P  0.07) than the control diet. Amongthe 133 subjects with hypertension (systolic pressure, 140 mm Hg; diastolic pressure, 90 mm Hg;or both), the combination diet reduced systolic anddiastolic blood pressure by 11.4 and 5.5 mm Hg
more, respectively, than the control diet (P0.001 foreach); among the 326 subjects without hypertension, the corresponding reductions were 3.5 mm Hg(P0.001) and 2.1 mm Hg (P  0.003).
Conclusions A diet rich in fruits, vegetables, andlow-fat dairy foods and with reduced saturated andtotal fat can substantially lower blood pressure. This
diet offers an additional nutritional approach to preventing and treating hypertension. (N Engl J Med
1997;336:1117-24.)©1997, Massachusetts Medical Society.

E

LEVATED blood pressure is a common
problem in the United States. Recent survey
data indicate that 24 percent of U.S. adults— approximately 43 million people — havehypertension and only 47 percent have optimal bloodpressure (systolic blood pressure, 120 mm Hg; diastolic blood pressure, 80 mm Hg).1 Among adults
50 years of age or older, a much higher proportion
have hypertension and a much lower proportion
have optimal blood pressure. Efforts to reduce theprevalence of hypertension have focused on nonpharmacologic approaches that lower blood pressure.
Current national guidelines recommend weight control, reduced intake of sodium chloride (salt), reduced alcohol consumption, and possibly increased
dietary potassium as nutritional approaches to prevent and treat hypertension.2,3

From the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore (L.J.A.); the Department ofMedicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston (T.J.M., F.M.S.); Merck
and Company, Westwood, Mass. (T.J.M.); the Division of Epidemiology andClinical Applications, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda,
Md. (E.O., J.A.C.); Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oreg. (W.M.V., T.M.V., N.K.); Duke Hypertension Center (L.P.S.) andthe Sarah W. Stedman Center for Nutritional Studies (P.-H.L.), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.; the Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston (F.M.S.); and the Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, La. (G.A.B., M.M.W.). Address reprint
requests to Dr. Vollmer at the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N. Kaiser Center Dr., Portland, OR 97227-1098.
Other authors were Denise Simons-Morton, M.D., Ph.D. (National Heart,
Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Md.); Marjorie McCullough, M.S.,
R.D., and Janis Swain, M.S., R.D. (Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston); Priscilla Steele, M.S., R.D. (Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Md.); Marguerite A. Evans,
M.S., R.D. (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Md.);
Edgar R. Miller III, M.D., Ph.D. (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore);and David W. Harsha, Ph.D. (Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, La.).
*Members of the DASH Collaborative Research Group are listed in the
Appendix.

Vol ume 336

Numbe r 16

The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org at THE JIKEI UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE on August 1, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 1997 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.



1117

The New England Journal of Medicine

Other dietary factors may influence blood pressure. Vegetarians tend to have lower blood pressuresthan nonvegetarians.4 In trials of vegetarian diets,
replacing animal products with vegetable products
reduced blood pressure in normotensive and hypertensive people.5,6 Aspects of vegetarian diets believed
to reduce blood pressure include their high levelsof fiber and minerals (such as potassium and magnesium) and their reduced fat content. In observational studies, significant inverse associations ofblood pressure with intake of magnesium, potassium, calcium, fiber, and protein have also beenreported.7-11 However, in trials that tested these nutrients, often as dietary supplements, the reductionin blood pressure has typically been small and inconsistent.12-18
There are several possible reasons for the discrepancy between the inconsistent results of trials thatmodified single nutrients and the generally positive
results of trials of vegetarian diets and observational
studies of diet and blood pressure. The effect of any
individual nutrient in lowering blood pressure may
be too small to detect in trials. When several nutrients with small blood-pressure–lowering effects are
consumed together, however, the cumulative effectmay be sufficient for detection. Alternatively, nutrients other than those tested in trials or measured inobservational studies may reduce blood pressure. Also, nutrients in dietary supplements may not reduce
blood pressure to the same extent as nutrients infood, because of interactions with other dietary components or because of altered bioavailability.
The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension(DASH) trial was a multicenter, randomized feeding
study that tested the effects of dietary patterns onblood pressure. As a trial of dietary patterns rather
than individual nutrients, DASH tested the combined effects of nutrients that occur together in food.
METHODS
A detailed description of the methods of this trial has been
published elsewhere.19 Institutional review boards at each centerand an external protocol-review committee approved the trial protocol. Each DASH participant provided written consent.
Study Subjects
The study subjects were adults 22 years of age or older who
were not taking antihypertensive medication. Each subject had an
average systolic blood pressure of less than 160 mm Hg and adiastolic blood pressure of 80 to 95 mm Hg (the mean of six
measurements made during three screening visits). Persons withmedication-treated hypertension could enroll if they met the inclusion criteria for blood pressure after supervised withdrawal of
medication. The major exclusion criteria were poorly controlled
diabetes mellitus; hyperlipidemia; a cardiovascular event within
the previous six months; chronic diseases that might interferewith participation; pregnancy or lactation; a body-mass index (theweight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters)of more than 35; the use of medications that affect blood pressure; unwillingness to stop taking vitamin and mineral supplements or antacids containing magnesium or calcium; renal insuf-

1118 

ficiency; and an alcoholic-beverage intake of more than 14 drinks
per week. Because of the disproportionate burden of hypertension
in minority populations, particularly among blacks, one of thegoals of the trial was to recruit a cohort in which two thirds ofthe subjects were members of a racial or ethnic minority. Massmailing of brochures and work-site and community-based screenings were the primary recruitment strategies. Study subjects wereenrolled sequentially in groups; the first group began the run-inphase of the trial in September 1994, and the fifth and last group
started in January 1996.
Conduct of the Trial
For each group, the trial was conducted in three phases (screening, run-in, and intervention). At each of three screening visits,
trained and certified staff members measured the subjects’ standard blood pressure with a random-zero sphygmomanometer according to a common protocol used in other trials.12 At each visit,a pair of blood-pressure measurements was obtained after the subjects rested for five minutes in the seated position. Systolic bloodpressure was measured as the point of appearance (phase I) of Korotkoff sounds; diastolic blood pressure was measured as the pointof disappearance (phase V). The Stanford 7-Day Physical Activity
Recall questionnaire was administered once during screening.20
The run-in phase was a three-week period in which all subjects
were given the control diet. During the last two weeks, a pair ofblood-pressure measurements was obtained on each of four separate days, one 24-hour urine sample was collected, and a questionnaire on symptoms was completed. The subjects then were randomly assigned to one of three diets during the third week andlearned of their diet assignments on the first day of intervention.
The intervention phase was an eight-week period in which thesubjects followed their assigned diets. Once each week during thefirst six weeks, staff members who were blinded to diet assignment
measured blood pressure. During the last two weeks, a pair ofblood-pressure measurements was obtained on each of five separate days, one 24-hour urine sample was collected, and the symptom questionnaire and physical-activity–recall questionnaire wereadministered once each.
In the last four of the five enrollment groups, ambulatory bloodpressure was recorded at the end of the run-in and intervention
periods with the Space Labs 90207 device (Space Labs, Redmond,
Wash.). For each recording, mean 24-hour blood pressure was calculated from measurements obtained every 30 minutes.
Diets
The nutrient composition of the control diet was typical of thediets of a substantial number of Americans. The potassium, magnesium, and calcium levels were close to the 25th percentile ofU.S. consumption,21 and the macronutrient profile and fiber content corresponded to average consumption.
The fruits-and-vegetables diet provided potassium and magnesium at levels close to the 75th percentile of U.S. consumption,
along with high amounts of fiber. This diet provided more fruits
and vegetables and fewer snacks and sweets than the control dietbut was otherwise similar to it.
The combination diet was rich in fruits, vegetables, and low-fat
dairy foods and had reduced amounts of saturated fat, total fat,and cholesterol. This diet provided potassium, magnesium, andcalcium at levels close to the 75th percentile of U.S. consumption, along with high amounts of fiber and protein. The sodium
content of each diet was similar — approximately 3 g per day. Table 1 shows the nutrient targets of the diets, chemical analyses ofthe menus prepared at the clinical centers, and the estimated number of servings of food groups per day.
Controlled Feeding
A seven-day menu cycle with 21 meals at four calorie levels(1600, 2100, 2600, and 3100 kcal) was developed for each dietand was identical at all centers. Menus were designed that used

Apr il 1 7 , 1 9 9 7
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org at THE JIKEI UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE on August 1, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 1997 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.

E F F E C TS O F D I ETA RY PAT T E R N S O N B LO O D P R E S S U R E

TABLE 1. NUTRIENT TARGETS, MENU ANALYSES, AND AVERAGE DAILY SERVINGSOF FOODS, ACCORDING TO DIET.*ITEMFRUITS-ANDVEGETABLES DIETCONTROL DIETCOMBINATION DIETNUTRIENTMENU

NUTRIENTMENU

NUTRIENTMENUTARGETANALYSIS†TARGETANALYSIS†TARGETANALYSIS†

37
16
13
8
48
15
300
31
4700
500
450
3000

35.7
12.7
13.9
7.3
49.2
15.1
184
NA
4101
423
534
2816

27
6
13
8
55
18
150
31
4700
500
1240
3000

25.6
7.0
9.9
6.8
56.5
17.9
151
NA
4415
480
1265
2859

Nutrients
Fat (% of total kcal)
37
35.7
Saturated
16
14.1
Monounsaturated
13
12.4
Polyunsaturated
8
6.2
Carbohydrates (% of total kcal)
48
50.5
Protein (% of total kcal)
15
13.8
Cholesterol (mg/day)
300
233
Fiber (g/day)
9
NA
Potassium (mg/day)
1700
1752
Magnesium (mg/day)
165
176
Calcium (mg/day)
450
443
Sodium (mg/day)
3000
3028
Food groups (no. of servings/day)
Fruits and juices
1.6
Vegetables
2.0
Grains8.2
Low-fat dairy
0.1
Regular-fat dairy
0.4
Nuts, seeds, and legumes
0.0
Beef, pork, and ham
1.5
Poultry
0.8
Fish
0.2
Fat, oils, and salad dressing
5.8
Snacks and sweets
4.1

5.2
3.3
6.9
0.0
0.3
0.6
1.8
0.4
0.3
5.3
1.4

5.2
4.4
7.5
2.0
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.5
2.5
0.7

*Values are for diets designed to provide an energy level of 2100 kcal.
†Values are the results of chemical analyses of the menus prepared during the validation phase andduring the trial. NA denotes not available.

commonly available foods in a variety of forms (fresh, frozen,
canned, and dried). Specialty foods with fat substitutes were notused. To standardize the diets, all the centers used the same brandof a given food item.
Food was prepared in research kitchens according to a common
protocol. Each weekday, the subjects ate lunch or dinner on site.
After the on-site meal, the subjects received coolers containing
the food to be consumed off site. On Fridays, they also received
weekend meals, all consumed off site. The subjects were instructed to drink no more than three caffeinated beverages and no morethan two alcoholic beverages per day. Two packets of salt, eachcontaining 0.2 g of sodium, were provided daily for discretionary
use. Their weight was measured each weekday and was kept stableby changing calorie levels and by adding 100-kcal cookies or muffins with nutrient contents that corresponded to those of the assigned diets.
For each day of controlled feeding, the subjects recorded theirintake of discretionary items (beverages and salt). They indicatedwhether they ate any nonstudy foods and whether they did not
eat all the study foods. Procedures for evaluating adherence to thediets were revised after the first group completed the program;hence, data on adherence are presented for the 362 subjects enrolled subsequently. Each center provided reimbursement and incentives to promote adherence.
Outcomes
The change in diastolic blood pressure at rest was the primary
outcome; changes in systolic blood pressure and in ambulatory
diastolic and systolic blood pressure were secondary outcomes. Achange in blood pressure was the difference between blood pressure at follow-up (the average of four or five pairs of measurements during weeks 7 and 8 of the intervention phase) and baseline (the average of three pairs during the screening and four pairs
during the run-in phase). For seven subjects without follow-up
measurements during the last two weeks, follow-up blood pressure was considered to be the average of earlier intervention measurements. For six subjects without any measurements during theintervention phase, follow-up blood pressure was considered to be
the mean blood pressure during screening.
Statistical Analysis
DASH was designed to test the following alternative hypotheses: that the change in blood pressure would differ between the
combination and control diets; that the change in blood pressure
would differ between the fruits-and-vegetables and the control diets; and that the change in blood pressure would differ between
the combination and the fruits-and-vegetables diets. The target
sample size of 456 randomly assigned subjects was estimated toprovide 85 percent power to detect a mean between-diet difference of 2 mm Hg in diastolic blood pressure. Subgroup analyses
according to sex, minority status, and base-line blood pressure wereplanned; in the latter analyses, the subjects were considered to havehypertension if their base-line systolic blood pressure was 140
mm Hg or higher or their diastolic blood pressure was 90 mm Hg
or higher.
Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. For primary analyses and within each subgroup stratum, between-dietdifferences in the change in blood pressure were tested by two-way

Vol ume 336

Numbe r 16

The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org at THE JIKEI UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE on August 1, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 1997 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.



1119

The New England Journal of Medicine

TABLE 2. PRERANDOMIZATION CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
STUDY SUBJECTS, ACCORDING TO DIET.*

CHARACTERISTICS

Age (yr)
Female sex (%)
Race or ethnicity (%)
Nonminority
Black
Other minority
Household income (%)
$30,000$30,000–$59,999
$60,000
Weight (kg)
Men
Women
Body-mass index†
Men
Women
Blood-pressure medication
discontinued (%)
Ever received blood-pressure
medication (%)
Alcohol (drinks/wk)
Blood pressure
Systolic (mm Hg)‡
140 (%)
Diastolic (mm Hg)‡
90 (%)
Ambulatory systolic(mm Hg)§Ambulatory diastolic(mm Hg)§

CONTROL DIET
(N154)FRUITS-ANDVEGETABLES
DIET(N154)

COMBINATIONDIET(N 151)

4411
47.4

4511
48.7

4410
51.0

35.1
59.7
5.2

35.7
58.4
5.8

31.1
61.6
7.3

37.1
41.7
21.2

36.7
36.7
26.7

36.0
42.7
21.3

87.713.7
75.412.2

86.613.9
77.112.5

88.015.7
78.911.7

27.73.6
28.34.0
5.8

27.53.6
28.94.3
5.8

28.14.0
29.03.9
4.6

20.8

25.3

20.5

1.32.5

1.12.2

1.32.5

13210.7 132.310.5 131.210.0
24.7
25.3
20.5
85.34.0
84.83.9
85.13.6
14.9
14.3
11.9
130.911.3 132.010.8 131.910.7
83.37.4

83.98.0

83.66.8*Plus–minus values are means SD.

TABLE 3. 24-HOUR URINARY EXCRETION OF POTASSIUM,
MAGNESIUM, UREA NITROGEN, CALCIUM, PHOSPHORUS,
AND SODIUM DURING THE RUN-IN AND INTERVENTION PHASES,
ACCORDING TO DIET.*SUBSTANCEEXCRETEDCONTROLDIETFRUITS-ANDVEGETABLES DIETCOMBINATION
DIET

milligrams per 24 hours

Potassium
Run-inIntervention
ChangeMagnesium
Run-inIntervention
ChangeUrea nitrogenRun-inIntervention
ChangeCalcium
Run-inIntervention
ChangePhosphorus
Run-inIntervention
ChangeSodiumRun-inIntervention
Change13854315314814649145945275791129889

1,41647
2,916102
1,50090

754
702
54

814
863
55

784
984
215

8592267
9026288
4342738775239
9456309
6813078,729275
11,583453
2,834379

1518
1376
146

1577
1107
476

1507
1468
47

699327392340367422770826
35307132485132
1372730381023181101
1421153228972996111
232110

3,144101
3,071123
73122*Data were available for 113 to 122 subjects in each diet group. Plus–
minus values are means SE. To convert values to millimoles per day, multiply by 0.025577 for potassium, 0.041144 for magnesium, 0.024951 forcalcium, 0.032285 for phosphorus, and 0.043498 for sodium. To convert
values for urea nitrogen to millimoles per day of urea, multiply by 0.0357.

†The body-mass index is the weight in kilograms divided by the squareof the height in meters.
‡Values are the means for three screening visits.
§Values are the mean 24-hour blood pressures in the subjects in enrollment groups 2 to 5 (control [n  118], fruits-and-vegetables [n  121], andcombination [n  115] diets).

analysis of variance, with adjustment for clinical center. To adjust
for multiple comparisons, a between-diet difference was considered statistically significant at P0.025 (two-tailed); hence, 97.5
percent confidence intervals are given for between-diet differences.

RESULTSOf a total of 8813 persons who were screened,
502 (5.7 percent) started the run-in phase. Of these,
459 (91.4 percent) were randomized. Base-line characteristics were similar in the three diet groups (Table 2).
Adherence

The percentages of subjects who completed theintervention phase in the control, fruits-and-vegetables, and combination groups were 95.5, 97.4, and98.7 percent, respectively. In the three groups, attendance at on-site meals was 95.8, 95.4, and 96.1
percent, and according to the subjects’ own reports,
1120 

there was perfect adherence to the study diets (allstudy foods and no nonstudy foods eaten) on 94.6,
93.9, and 93.2 percent of person-days.
Urinary potassium excretion increased substantially from the run-in phase to the intervention phase in
the fruits-and-vegetables and combination groups(Table 3), and magnesium excretion increased in
the combination group. Urinary urea nitrogen excretion, which is indicative of total protein intake,increased substantially with the combination diet.
Urinary calcium excretion decreased in the control
and fruits-and-vegetables groups. Urinary phosphorus excretion increased substantially in the combination group. In each group, urinary sodium excretionchanged little between the run-in and intervention
phases. The mean changes in weight from the endof run-in to the end of intervention were 0.1 kg,
0.3 kg, and 0.4 kg in the control, fruits-and-vegetables, and combination groups, respectively. Meanchanges in alcohol consumption and physical activity
were small and similar in the three groups (data notshown).

Apr il 1 7 , 1 9 9 7
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org at THE JIKEI UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE on August 1, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 1997 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.

E F F E C TS O F D I ETA RY PAT T E R N S O N B LO O D P R E S S U R E

TABLE 4. COMPARISONS OF MEAN CHANGES IN BLOOD PRESSURE BETWEEN DIETS IN ALL SUBJECTS AND IN SUBGROUPS DEFINED BY SEX,MINORITY STATUS, AND HYPERTENSIVE STATUS.*
CHANGE IN
COMBINATION GROUPMINUS CHANGE IN
CONTROL GROUP(97.5% CI)

CATEGORY†P VALUE

mm Hg

Systolic pressure
All subjects (n459)
Men (n234)
Women (n225)
Minority (n303)‡
Nonminority (n156)‡
Nonhypertensive (n326)§
Hypertensive (n133)
Diastolic pressure
All subjects (n459)
Men (n234)
Women (n225)
Minority (n303)‡
Nonminority (n156)‡
Nonhypertensive (n326)§
Hypertensive (n133)

CHANGE IN
COMBINATION GROUPMINUS CHANGE INFRUITS-AND-VEGETABLESGROUP (97.5% CI)

P VALUE

CHANGE IN FRUITS-ANDVEGETABLES GROUPMINUS CHANGE IN
CONTROL GROUP(97.5% CI)

mm Hg

P VALUEmm Hg

5.5 (7.4 to 3.7)
4.9 (7.3 to 2.5)
6.2 (9.2 to 3.3)
6.8 (9.2 to 4.4)
3.0 (5.9 to 0.1)
3.5 (5.3 to 1.6)
11.4 (15.9 to 6.9)

0.001
0.001
0.001
0.0010.02
0.001
0.001

2.7 (4.6 to 0.9)
1.6 (4.0 to 0.8)
3.9 (6.9 to 1.0)
3.2 (5.6 to 0.8)
1.9 (4.8 to 1.0)
2.7 (4.5 to 0.8)
4.1 (8.6 to 0.3)

0.001
0.13
0.003
0.003
0.13
0.001
0.04

2.8 (4.7 to 0.9)
3.3 (5.6 to 0.9)
2.3 (5.3 to 0.7)
3.6 (6.1 to 1.2)
1.1 (3.9 to 1.7)
0.8 (2.7 to 1.1)
7.2 (11.4 to 3.0)

0.001
0.002
0.08
0.001
0.38
0.33
0.001

3.0 (4.3 to 1.6)
3.3 (5.1 to 1.5)
2.7 (4.8 to 0.7)
3.5 (5.2 to 1.8)
2.0 (4.2 to 0.2)
2.1 (3.6 to 0.5)
5.5 (8.2 to 2.7)

0.001
0.0010.003
0.0010.04
0.003
0.001

1.9 (3.3 to 0.6)
1.3 (3.2 to 0.5)
2.5 (4.6 to 0.5)
2.1 (3.8 to 0.4)
1.6 (3.8 to 0.5)
1.8 (3.4 to 0.3)
2.6 (5.4 to 0.1)

0.002
0.10
0.006
0.007
0.09
0.009
0.03

1.1 (2.4 to 0.3)
2.0 (3.7 to 0.2)
0.2 (2.3 to 1.9)
1.4 (3.2 to 0.3)
0.4 (2.5 to 1.7)
0.3 (1.9 to 1.3)
2.8 (5.4 to 0.3)

0.07
0.01
0.83
0.07
0.70
0.71
0.01

*Mean values have been adjusted for clinical center. A P value of 0.025 was considered to indicate statistical significance. CI denotes confidence interval.
Confidence intervals of 97.5 percent are given because they are consistent with the adjustment for multiple comparisons.
†The mean base-line blood pressure was 131.3/84.7 mm Hg for all subjects, 129.6/84.8 mm Hg for men, 133.0/84.5 mm Hg for women,
131.5/84.8 mm Hg for members of minority groups, 130.9/84.5 mm Hg for members of nonminority groups, 126.2/83.0 mm Hg for subjects without
hypertension, and 143.7/88.8 mm Hg for subjects with hypertension.
‡Minority denotes blacks and members of other minority groups; nonminority denotes non-Hispanic whites.
§Hypertension was defined as a base-line systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or a diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg; nonhypertension was defined
as a base-line systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg.

Blood Pressure

For systolic and diastolic blood pressure, a gradientacross diets was evident. Table 4 shows average between-diet differences in the change in blood pressure.
The combination diet reduced systolic blood pressure
by 5.5 mm Hg more and diastolic blood pressure by
3.0 mm Hg more than the control diet did (P0.001
for each). The reductions with the fruits-and-vegetables diet were 2.8 mm Hg (P0.001) and 1.1
mm Hg greater than with the control diet (P0.07).
When compared with the fruits-and-vegetables diet,the combination diet reduced systolic blood pressure
by 2.7 mm Hg more (P0.001) and diastolic bloodpressure by 1.9 mm Hg more (P0.002). Results
were similar after adjustment for changes in weight
and urinary sodium excretion. The reductions inblood pressure with the fruits-and-vegetables andcombination diets were achieved after two weeks
and sustained for six more weeks (Fig. 1).
In subgroup analyses (Table 4), the pattern of differences between diets was similar to that of the entire sample; however, the differences were not always
statistically significant. Although between-diet differences were greater in minority than nonminority
subjects, interaction between minority status anddiet was not significant. There was no evidence of interaction between sex and diet.
Both in subjects with hypertension and in those
without hypertension, the combination diet reduced
blood pressure more than the fruits-and-vegetablesor the control diet. In each pairwise contrast, subjects with hypertension had greater reductions inblood pressure than subjects without hypertension.
The interaction between hypertensive status and dietwas significant for systolic blood pressure (P0.001)
and marginally significant for diastolic blood pressure (P0.03).
Ambulatory blood-pressure recordings were available for 345 (95 percent) of the subjects in the last
four enrollment groups. The combination diet reduced mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure by 4.5 mm Hg more than the control diet did
and diastolic blood pressure by 2.7 mm Hg more
(P0.001 for each). The corresponding reductions
with the fruits-and-vegetables diet were 3.1 mm Hg
more (P0.001) and 2.1 mm Hg more (P0.002).
Other Effects

Cholecystitis developed in one subject on thecontrol diet. During the run-in phase, moderate or
Vol ume 336

Numbe r 16

The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org at THE JIKEI UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE on August 1, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 1997 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.



1121

The New England Journal of Medicine

Control diet

Combination diet

132
130
128
126
124

Diastolic Blood Pressure(mm Hg)Systolic Blood Pressure(mm Hg)+ Fruits-and-vegetables diet

86
84
82
80
78
Base
line

1

2

3

4

5

6 7 and 8

Intervention Week

Figure 1. Mean Systolic and Diastolic Blood Pressures at BaseLine and during Each Intervention Week, According to Diet, for
379 Subjects with Complete Sets of Weekly Blood-Pressure
Measurements.

severe constipation during the preceding month wasreported by 9 percent of the subjects. At the end of
the intervention phase, constipation was reported by
10.1, 5.4, and 4.0 percent of the subjects eating thecontrol, fruits-and-vegetables, and combination diets, respectively. Otherwise, the occurrence of gastrointestinal symptoms was infrequent and similar
for all the diets.
DISCUSSION

This trial demonstrated that certain dietary patterns can favorably affect blood pressure in adults
with average systolic blood pressures of less than
160 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressures of 80 to
95 mm Hg. Specifically, a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy products and with reduced
saturated and total fat lowered systolic blood pressure by 5.5 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure by
3.0 mm Hg more than a control diet. A diet rich infruits and vegetables also reduced blood pressure,but to a lesser extent. The gradient of blood-pressure reduction across diets indicates that some aspects of the fruits-and-vegetables diet reduced bloodpressure and that additional aspects of the combination diet reduced it further. The trial was not de1122 

signed, however, to identify the effective and ineffective components of the diets. Nonetheless, known
diet-related determinants of blood pressure (sodium
chloride, body weight, and alcohol) could not haveaccounted for the reductions in blood pressure, because changes in these potential confounders were
small and similar for all the diets.
Other important findings were that the reductionin blood pressure began within two weeks and wasmaintained for the next six weeks. Furthermore, thepattern of reductions in blood pressure among thediets was similar in men, women, and members andnonmembers of minority groups and in analyses using average 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure as
the outcome. Also, rates of attendance, subjects’ ownreports of food consumption, and patterns of urinary
electrolyte and urea nitrogen excretion indicated thatadherence to the assigned diets was excellent.
Unexpected observations were a prominent reduction in urinary calcium excretion from the run-in to
the intervention phase with the fruits-and-vegetables
diet and no increase in calcium excretion with the
combination diet. This pattern of findings can potentially be explained by the high fiber content ofthese two diets, which may have impeded calcium
absorption.22 Nonetheless, the substantial increase inurinary phosphorus excretion with the combination
diet suggests that the subjects in this group did consume more dairy products than the other participants.
The results of the DASH trial should be broadly
applicable to the U.S. population. The study population was demographically heterogeneous, with arange of blood pressures that includes approximately
40 percent of U.S. adults.1 Forty-nine percent of thesubjects were women, 60 percent were black, and 37
percent had household incomes of less than $30,000
per year. By using commonly available foods, including meats, the trial tested dietary patterns that thegeneral U.S. population potentially could adopt. In
the fruits-and-vegetables and combination diets, the
8 to 10 servings per day of fruits and vegetables
are approximately twice the average of 4.3 servings
consumed by U.S. adults23 and are higher than the
5 to 7 servings per day recommended in the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans.24 In the combination diet,the 2.7 servings per day of dairy products (predominantly low-fat) are almost twice the current average
consumption of approximately 1.5 servings per day25
but are within the dietary guidelines’ recommendation of 2 to 3 servings per day.
It is important to emphasize that DASH was an
11-week feeding study. As such, it was not designed
to assess either adherence to the diets among people
selecting their own food or the long-term effects ofthe diets on blood pressure and clinical cardiovascular events. Nonetheless, the trial results have several
clinical and public health implications.

Apr il 1 7 , 1 9 9 7
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org at THE JIKEI UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE on August 1, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 1997 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.

E F F E C TS O F D I ETA RY PAT T E R N S O N B LO O D P R E S S U R EFirst, the blood-pressure reductions observed in
the subjects without hypertension suggest that following the DASH combination diet might be aneffective nutritional approach to preventing hypertension. It is noteworthy that the blood-pressure reductions occurred in the setting of stable weight, asodium intake of approximately 3 g per day, and consumption of two or fewer alcoholic drinks per day.
Hence, adoption of the DASH combination dietshould complement, rather than supplant, what iscurrently recommended (weight control, reduced
sodium chloride intake, and reduced alcohol consumption).
Second, in the subjects with hypertension, the reduction in blood pressure with the combination dietwas similar in magnitude to that observed in trials of
drug monotherapy for mild hypertension.26 Hence,
following the DASH combination diet might be aneffective alternative to drug therapy in people withstage I hypertension and might prevent or delay the
initiation of drug therapy in people with blood-pressure levels that straddle the thresholds for drug
treatment.
Third, adoption of the combination diet could
potentially shift the population distribution of bloodpressure downward, reducing the occurrence ofblood-pressure–related cardiovascular disease.27,28 It
is estimated that a population-wide reduction in systolic or diastolic blood pressure of the magnitude
observed with the combination diet would reduceincident coronary heart disease by approximately 15
percent and stroke by approximately 27 percent.29
In conclusion, a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, andlow-fat dairy foods and with reduced saturated andtotal fat can substantially lower blood pressure. Sucha diet offers an additional nutritional approach tothe prevention and treatment of hypertension.
Supported by grants (HL50981, HL50968, HL50972, HL50977,
HL50982, HL02642, RR02635, and RR00722) from the National Heart,
Lung, and Blood Institute, the Office of Research on Minority Health, andthe National Center for Research Resources of the National Institutes of
Health.
Presented at the 69th Scientific Sessions of the American Heart Association, New Orleans, November 13, 1996.

We are indebted to the trial participants for their sustained commitment to DASH; to the following companies, which donated food: Best
Foods, Campbell’s Soup Company, Coca-Cola Foods Company, Comstock Michigan Fruit, The Dannon Company, Dole Food Company,
H.J. Heinz Company, Harris Teeter Company, Hershey Foods Corporation, Lifelines Technology, Inc., McCormick & Company, Inc.,
Nabisco Foods Group, Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., Procter & Gamble, Quaker Oats Company, Ralston Foods, Sunkist Growers, Vandenbergh Foods, and Wawona Frozen Foods; and to the external Protocol
Review Committee and Data and Safety Monitoring Board, which
included Jerome Cohen, M.D., Patricia Elmer, Ph.D., James Neaton,
Ph.D., Jeremiah Stamler, M.D. (chair), Phyllis Stumbo, Ph.D., andJackson Wright, M.D., Ph.D.

APPENDIX
In addition to the authors, the DASH Collaborative Research Group includes the following institutions and individuals: Division of Epidemiology
and Clinical Applications, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Md. (sponsor) — M.A. Proschan; Kaiser Permanente Center for
Health Research, Portland, Oreg. (coordinating center) — P. LaChance,
R. Laws, C. Eddy, J. Rice, K. Linton, L. Haworth, N. Adams, K. Pearson,
L. Diller, and J. Taylor; Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston (clinical center) — P. Conlin, L. Jaffe, J. McKnight,
M. MacDonald, K. Nauth, and Y. Courtney; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. (clinical center) — M. Drezner, C. Bales, L. Carter,
J. Ard, C. Plaisted, K. Hoben, S. Norris, P. Reams, K. Aicher, and R. Fike;
Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University, Baton
Rouge (clinical center) — D.H. Ryan, C.M. Champagne, P.J. Wozniak,
B. McGee, S. Crawford, and B.M. Kennedy; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore (clinical center) — B. Caballero, S. Kumanyika, S. Jee, J. Charleston,
P. McCarron, S. Cappelli, B. Harnish, and P. Coleman; Virginia Polytechnic
Institute, Blacksburg (food-analysis coordinating center) — K.K. Stewart and
K. Phillips; Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland (central laboratory)— D. McCarron, J.-B. Roullet, and R. Illingworth; Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Md. (research kitchen for Johns Hopkins Clinical Center) — S. Burns, E. Lashley,
and J.T. Spence.

REFERENCES
1. Burt VL, Whelton P, Roccella EJ, et al. Prevalence of hypertension in
the US adult population: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1991. Hypertension 1995;25:305-13.
2. The Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. The fifth report of the Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure(JNC V). Arch Intern Med 1993;153:154-83.
3. Working Group on Primary Prevention of Hypertension. National High
Blood Pressure Education Program Working Group report on primary prevention of hypertension. Arch Intern Med 1993;153:186-208.
4. Sacks FM, Rosner B, Kass EH. Blood pressure in vegetarians. Am J Epidemiol 1974;100:390-8.
5. Rouse IL, Beilin LJ, Armstrong BK, Vandongen R. Blood-pressure-lowering effect of a vegetarian diet: controlled trial in normotensive subjects.
Lancet 1983;1:5-10.
6. Margetts BM, Beilin LJ, Vandongen R, Armstrong BK. Vegetarian dietin mild hypertension: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 1986;293:146871.
7. Ascherio A, Rimm EB, Giovannucci EL, et al. A prospective study ofnutritional factors and hypertension among US men. Circulation 1992;86:1475-84.
8. Harlan WR, Hull AL, Schmouder RL, Landis JR, Thompson FE, Larkin FA. Blood pressure and nutrition in adults: the National Health andNutrition Examination survey. Am J Epidemiol 1984;120:17-28.
9. Stamler J, Caggiula A, Grandits GA, Kjelsberg M, Cutler JA. Relationship to blood pressure of combinations of dietary macronutrients: findingsof the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT). Circulation 1996;
94:2417-23.
10. Stamler J, Elliott P, Kesteloot H, et al. Inverse relation of dietary protein markers with blood pressure: findings for 10 020 men and women in
the INTERSALT study. Circulation 1996;94:1629-34.
11. Obarzanek E, Velletri PA, Cutler JA. Dietary protein and blood pressure. JAMA 1996;275:1598-603.
12. The Trials of Hypertension Prevention Collaborative Research Group.
The effects of nonpharmacologic interventions on blood pressure of persons with high normal levels: results of the Trials of Hypertension Prevention, Phase I. JAMA 1992;267:1213-20. [Erratum, JAMA 1992;267:
2330.]
13. Whelton PK. Potassium and blood pressure. In: Izzo JL, Black HR,
eds. Hypertension primer: the essentials of hypertension. Dallas: American
Heart Association, 1993.
14. Allender PS, Cutler JA, Follmann D, Cappuccio FP, Pryer J, Elliott P.
Dietary calcium and blood pressure: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical
trials. Ann Intern Med 1996;124:825-31.
15. Whelton PK, Klag MJ. Magnesium and blood pressure: review of theepidemiologic and clinical trial experience. Am J Cardiol 1989;63:26G30G.
16. Eliasson K, Ryttig KR, Hylander B, Rossner S. A dietary fibre supplement in the treatment of mild hypertension: a randomized, double-blind,placebo-controlled trial. J Hypertens 1992;10:195-9.
17. Brussaard JH, van Raaij JMA, Stasse-Wolthuis M, Katan MB, Hautvast JGAJ. Blood pressure and diet in normotensive volunteers: absence

Vol ume 336

Numbe r 16

The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org at THE JIKEI UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE on August 1, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 1997 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.



1123

The New England Journal of Medicine

of an effect of dietary fiber, protein, or fat. Am J Clin Nutr 1981;34:
2023-9.
18. Morris MC, Sacks FM. Dietary fats and blood pressure. In: Swales
JD, ed. Textbook of hypertension. Oxford, England: Blackwell, 1994:
605-18.
19. Sacks FM, Obarzanek E, Windhauser MM, et al. Rationale and designof the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension trial (DASH): a multicenter controlled-feeding study of dietary patterns to lower blood pressure.
Ann Epidemiol 1995;5:108-18.
20. Blair SN, Haskell WL, Ho P, et al. Assessment of habitual physical activity by a seven-day recall in a community survey and controlled experiments. Am J Epidemiol 1985;122:794-804.
21. National Center for Health Statistics, Carroll MD, Abraham S, Dresser
CM. Dietary intake source data: United States, 1976-80. Vital and healthstatistics. Series 11. No. 231. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1983. (DHHS publication no. (PHS) 83-1681.)
22. National Research Council. Diet and health: implications for reducing
chronic disease risk. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1989:
301.
23. Krebs-Smith SM, Cook A, Subar AF, Cleveland L, Friday J. US adults’
fruit and vegetable intakes, 1989 to 1991: a revised baseline for the Healthy
People 2000 objective. Am J Public Health 1995;85:1623-9.

1124 

24. Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services. Nutrition and your health: dietary guidelines for Americans. 4th ed.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1995. (Home and garden
bulletin no. 232.)
25. Cleveland LE, Goldman JD, Borrud LG. Data tables: results from
U.S.D.A.’s 1994 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals and the1994 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey. Riverdale, Md.: Food Surveys
Research Group, 1996.
26. The Treatment of Mild Hypertension Research Group. The Treatmentof Mild Hypertension Study: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of anutritional-hygienic regimen along with various drug monotherapies. Arch
Intern Med 1991;151:1413-23.
27. Stamler J, Rose G, Stamler R, Elliott P, Dyer A, Marmot M. INTERSALT study findings: public health and medical care implications. Hypertension 1989;14:570-7.
28. Stamler J, Stamler R, Neaton JD. Blood pressure, systolic and diastolic,and cardiovascular risks: US population data. Arch Intern Med 1993;153:
598-615.
29. Cutler JA, Psaty BM, MacMahon S, Furberg CD. Public health issues
in hypertension control: what has been learned from clinical trials. In:
Laragh JH, Brenner BM, eds. Hypertension: pathophysiology, diagnosis,
and management. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. New York: Raven Press, 1995:253-70.

April 17, 1997
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org at THE JIKEI UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE on August 1, 2022. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 1997 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.