4.2 Article

A High Legume Low Glycemic Index Diet Improves Serum Lipid Profiles in Men

期刊

LIPIDS
卷 45, 期 9, 页码 765-775

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1007/s11745-010-3463-7

关键词

Legume intake; Lipids; Insulin resistance

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [25XS101]
  2. General Clinical Research Center at Penn State University (NIH) [M01 RR 10732]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clinical studies have shown that fiber consumption facilitates weight loss and improves lipid profiles; however, the beneficial effects of high fermentable fiber low glycemic index (GI) diets under conditions of weight maintenance are unclear. In the Legume Inflammation Feeding Experiment, a randomized controlled cross-over feeding study, 64 middle-aged men who had undergone colonoscopies within the previous 2 years received both a healthy American (HA) diet (no legume consumption, fiber consumption = 9 g/1,000 kcal, and GI = 69) and a legume enriched (1.5 servings/1,000 kcal), high fiber (21 g/1,000 kcal), low GI (GI = 38) diet (LG) in random order. Diets were isocaloric and controlled for macronutrients including saturated fat; they were consumed each for 4 weeks with a 2-4 week break separating dietary treatments. Compared to the HA diet, the LG diet led to greater declines in both fasting serum total cholesterol (TC) and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (P < 0.001 and P < 0.01, respectively). Insulin-resistant (IR) subjects had greater reductions in high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C; P < 0.01), and triglycerides (TAG)/HDL-C (P = 0.02) after the LG diet, compared to the HA diet. Insulin-sensitive (IS) subjects had greater reductions in TC (P < 0.001), LDL-C (P < 0.01), TC/HDL-C (P < 0.01), and LDL-C/HDL-C (P = 0.02) after the LG diet, compared to the HA diet. In conclusion, a high legume, high fiber, low GI diet improves serum lipid profiles in men, compared to a healthy American diet. However, IR individuals do not achieve the full benefits of the same diet on cardiovascular disease (CVD) lipid risk factors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据