4.5 Article

A high intake of dietary fiber influences C-reactive protein and fibrinogen, but not glucose and lipid metabolism, in mildly hypercholesterolemic subjects

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 53, 期 1, 页码 39-48

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00394-013-0496-8

关键词

Inflammatory markers; Dietary fiber; Oat; Rye; Sugar beet

资金

  1. VINNOVA grant [2004-02285]
  2. Nordic Center of Excellence on Systems biology in controlled dietary interventions and cohort studies, SYSDIET [070014]
  3. European Network of Excellence NuGO (The European Nutrigenomics Organization)
  4. EU project ECNIS2

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the study was to investigate how a diet high in dietary fiber, with several fiber sources included, modulates glucose and lipid metabolism and the inflammatory response in humans. Subjects (n = 25) aged 58.6 (1.1) years (mean and SD) with a BMI of 26.6 (0.5) kg/m(2) and a total cholesterol (TC) of 5.8 (0.1) mmol/L (mean and SEM) were given a high fiber (HF) and low fiber (LF) diet, in a randomized controlled 5-week crossover intervention, separated by a 3-week washout. The HF diet consisted of oat bran, rye bran, and sugar beet fiber incorporated into test food products; one bread roll, one ready meal, and two beverages consumed daily. Equivalent food products, without added fibers, were provided in the LF diet. Total dietary fiber intake was 48.0 g and 30.2 g per day for the HF and LF diet, respectively. Significant reduction in C-reactive protein (CRP) was observed between the diets (P = 0.017) and a significant reduction in fibrinogen within the HF diet (P = 0.044). There were no significant effects in other measured circulating cytokines or in glucose, insulin, and lipid levels. Our study suggests that a 5-week high dietary fiber intake of oat bran, rye bran, and sugar beet fiber might reduce the low-grade inflammatory response measured as CRP which could, together with reduced fibrinogen, help to prevent the risk of cardiovascular disease.

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

4.5
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