4.4 Article

Consumption of whole purple and regular wheat modestly improves metabolic markers in adults with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein: a randomised, single-blind parallel-arm study

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 124, 期 11, 页码 1179-1189

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114520002275

关键词

Whole wheat and bran; Inflammation; Oxidative stress; Anthocyanins; Phenolic acids; Overweight and obesity

资金

  1. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
  2. Canadian Food Innovation Cluster
  3. InfraReady Products Ltd, Saskatoon, SK

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Whole-grain wheat, in particular coloured varieties, may have health benefits in adults with chronic metabolic disease risk factors. Twenty-nine overweight and obese adults with chronic inflammation (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein) > 1 center dot 0 mg/l) replaced four daily servings of refined grain food products with bran-enriched purple or regular whole-wheat convenience bars (approximately 41-45 g fibre, daily) for 8 weeks in a randomised, single-blind parallel-arm study where body weight was maintained. Anthropometrics, blood markers of inflammation, oxidative stress, and lipaemia and metabolites of anthocyanins and phenolic acids were compared at days 1, 29 and 57 using repeated-measures ANOVA within groups and ANCOVA between groups at day 57, with day 1 as a covariate. A significant reduction in IL-6 and increase in adiponectin were observed within the purple wheat (PW) group. TNF-alpha was lowered in both groups and ferulic acid concentration increased in the regular wheat (RW) group. Comparing between wheats, only plasma TNF-alpha and glucose differed significantly (P < 0 center dot 05), that is, TNF-alpha and glucose decreased with RW and PW, respectively. Consumption of PW or RW products showed potential to improve plasma markers of inflammation and oxidative stress in participants with evidence of chronic inflammation, with modest differences observed based on type of wheat.

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

4.4
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