4.0 Article

Long-term vegetarians have low oxidative stress, body fat, and cholesterol levels

期刊

NUTRITION RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
卷 6, 期 2, 页码 155-161

出版社

KOREAN NUTRITION SOC
DOI: 10.4162/nrp.2012.6.2.155

关键词

Long-term vegetarian diet; oxidative stress; lipid profiles; d-ROM; Korean vegetarian

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Excessive oxidative stress and abnormal blood lipids may cause chronic diseases. This risk can be reduced by consuming an antioxidant- and fiber-rich vegetarian diet. We compared biomarkers of oxidative stress, antioxidant capacity, and lipid profiles of sex- and age-matched long-term vegetarians and omnivores in Korea. Forty-five vegetarians (23 men and 22 women; mean age, 49.5 +/- 5.3 years), who had maintained a vegetarian diet for a minimum of 15 years, and 30 omnivores (15 men and 15 women; mean age, 48.9 +/- 3.6 years) participated in this study. Their I-day, 24-h recall, and 2-day dietary records were analyzed. Oxidative stress was measured by the levels of diacron reactive oxygen metabolites (d-ROM). Antioxidant status was determined by the biological antioxidant potential (BAP) and levels of endogenous antioxidant enzymes such as superoxide dismutase, catalase, and glutathione peroxidase. We observed that vegetarians had a significantly lower body fat percentage (21.6 +/- 6.4%) than that of omnivores (25.4 +/- 4.6%; P < 0.004). d-ROM levels were significantly lower in vegetarians than those in omnivores (331.82 +/- 77.96 and 375.80 +/- 67.26 Carratelli units; P < 0.011). Additionally, total cholesterol levels in the vegetarians and omnivores were 173.73 +/- 31.42 mg/dL and 193.17 +/- 37.89 mg/dL, respectively (P < 0.018). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 101.36 +/- 23.57 mg/dL and 120.60 +/- 34.62 mg/dL (P < 0.005) in the vegetarians and omnivores, respectively, indicating that vegetarians had significantly lower lipid levels. Thus, oxidative stress, body fat, and cholesterol levels were lower in long-term vegetarians than those in omnivores.

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

4.0
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