4.7 Review

A review of meat protein hydrolysates and hypertension

期刊

MEAT SCIENCE
卷 86, 期 1, 页码 110-118

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.04.032

关键词

Meat peptides; Muscle protein; Hypertension; Angiotension-converting enzyme; Functional foods

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We tested the hypothesis that meat is a source of peptides that are effective at preventing and reducing chronic lifestyle-related diseases (CLSRDs) such as hypertension. This analysis reflects the importance of empowering hypertensive people in quality versus quantity of life issues, and in offering nutritional treatment options rather than medical alternatives. For both hypertensive and normotensive individuals, chemically based medications may have harmful side effects. Functional food rich in antioxidant vitamins, and proteins or biologically active peptides, can lower blood pressure in persons with essential hypertension, possibly by preventing an underlying cause of the condition. Deficiency in consumption of crucial nutrients such as proteins from meat origins, along with abnormalities in carbohydrate and fat metabolism, may underlie the etiology of the clinical course of hypertension. Food derived from meat rich in nutrients may provide physiologically functional peptides, as well as improve digestion, and the metabolism of carbohydrate and fats, thus lowering blood pressure, and normalizing associated biochemical and histopathological changes. Meat was found to have value, because proteolysis of meat muscle generated a substantial number of multiamino acid peptides that have nutrafunctional roles, and some of which have strong angiotension-converting enzyme inhibitory activity. This also demonstrates that meat proteins might lead to better nutraceutical therapy that minimizes health problems, and might aid in finding the most effective approaches for meeting the needs of all hypertension patients. (C) 2010 The American Meat Science Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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