4.4 Article

A pulse-based diet is effective for reducing total and LDL-cholesterol in older adults

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 108, 期 -, 页码 S103-S110

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114512000748

关键词

Lentils; Chickpeas; Beans; Peas; Lipids; Obesity; Hyperglycaemia

资金

  1. Canada's Agricultural Policy Framework (APF)
  2. Federal-Provincial-Territorial initiative
  3. Saskatchewan Pulse Growers
  4. Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our purpose was to determine the effects of a pulse-based diet in individuals 50 years or older for reducing CVD risk factors. A total of 108 participants were randomised to receive pulse-based foods (two servings daily of beans, chickpeas, peas or lentils; about 150 g/d dry weight) or their regular diet for 2 months, followed by a washout of 1 month and a cross-over to the other diet for 2 months. Anthropometric measures, body composition and biochemical markers (i.e. serum LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C), as the primary outcome, and other lipids, glucose, insulin and C-reactive protein) were assessed before and after each diet phase. A total of eighty-seven participants (thirty males and fifty-seven females; 59.7 (SD 6.3) years, body mass 76 (SD 16) kg) completed the study. Compared with the regular diet, the pulse-based diet decreased total cholesterol by 8.3% (pulse, 4.57 (SD 0.93) to 4.11 (SD 0.91) mmol/l; regular, 4.47 (SD 0.94) to 4.39 (SD 0.97) mmol/l; P<0.001) and LDL-C by 7.9% (pulse, 2.93 (SD 0.84) to 2.55 (SD 0.75) mmol/l; regular, 2.96 (SD 0.86) to 2.81 (SD 0.83) mmol/l; P=0.01). In a sub-analysis of individuals with high lipid levels at baseline (twenty individuals with high cholesterol), the pulse-based diet reduced cholesterol by 6% compared with the regular diet (pulse, 5.62 (SD 0.78) to 5.26 (SD 0.68) mmol/l; regular, 5.60 (SD 0.91) to 5.57 (SD 0.85) mmol/l; P=0.05). A pulse-based diet is effective for reducing total cholesterol and LDL-C in older adults and therefore reduces the risk of CVD.

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