Loading…

Effect of 12 Weeks High Oleic Peanut Consumption on Cardio-Metabolic Risk Factors and Body Composition

Epidemiological evidence indicates an inverse association between nut consumption and obesity, inflammation, hyperlipidaemia and glucose intolerance. We investigated effects of high oleic peanut consumption vs. a nut free diet on adiposity and cardio-metabolic risk markers. In a randomised cross-ove...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Nutrients 2015-09, Vol.7 (9), p.7381-7398
Main Authors: Barbour, Jayne A, Howe, Peter R C, Buckley, Jonathan D, Bryan, Janet, Coates, Alison M
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Epidemiological evidence indicates an inverse association between nut consumption and obesity, inflammation, hyperlipidaemia and glucose intolerance. We investigated effects of high oleic peanut consumption vs. a nut free diet on adiposity and cardio-metabolic risk markers. In a randomised cross-over design, 61 healthy subjects (65 ± 7 years, body mass index (BMI) 31 ± 4 kg/m²) alternated either high oleic peanuts (15%-20% of energy) or a nut free diet for 12 weeks. Body composition and mass, waist circumference, C-reactive protein (CRP), lipids, glucose and insulin were assessed at baseline and after each phase. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) compared the two diets. Consistent with other nut studies, there were no differences in lipids, CRP, glucose and insulin with peanut consumption. In contrast, some reports have demonstrated benefits, likely due to differences in the study cohort. Energy intake was 10% higher (853 kJ, p < 0.05), following peanut consumption vs. control, attributed to a 30% increase in fat intake (p < 0.001), predominantly monounsaturated (increase 22 g, p < 0.05). Despite greater energy intake during the peanut phase, there were no differences in body composition, and less than predicted increase (0.5 kg) in body weight for this additional energy intake, possibly due to incomplete nutrient absorption and energy utilisation.
ISSN:2072-6643
2072-6643
DOI:10.3390/nu7095343