4.6 Article

Epidemiological evidence for an association between habitual tea consumption and markers of chronic inflammation

Journal

ATHEROSCLEROSIS
Volume 189, Issue 2, Pages 428-435

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2005.12.028

Keywords

inflammation; tea consumption; epidemiology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Tea consumption has been inversely related to the risk of cardiovascular disease, but the mechanism behind this cardioprotective role is not fully understood. In vitro and animal model studies suggest an anti-oxidative and/or anti-inflammatory role. We aimed at investigating the association between tea drinking and indicators of low-grade inflammation in humans. Methods: We used observational data from 1031 healthy men participating in a larger cross-sectional study (BELSTRESS). Tea consumption was determined according to a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire. Blood samples were analysed for Greactive protein (CRP), serum amyloid A (SAA), serum haptoglobin and plasma fibrinogen. Results: Of all participants, 22% consumed tea regularly while 10% drank more than two cups per day. Tea drinkers were less obese, smoked less and drank less alcohol and coffee. CRP, SAA and haptoglobin were significantly associated with tea consumption, the effect being graded for SAA. Multivariate analysis did confirm the independence of the observed beneficial role of tea drinking. Fibrinogen levels were however not different between habitual tea consumers and non-consumers. Coffee drinking proved unrelated to chronic inflammation. Conclusion: Tea drinking might be of interest in reducing the inflammatory process underlying cardiovascular disease. In light of the fact that tea is the most consumed beverage in the world after water, our findings might be of importance from a public health perspective. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available