| Literature DB >> 21603015 |
Mohammad Reza Vafa1, Elham Haghighatjoo, Farzad Shidfar, Shirin Afshari, Mahmood Reza Gohari, Amir Ziaee.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Fruits and vegetables may be beneficial on lipid profile of hyperlipidemic subjects. The present study was aimed to verify the effect of golden delicious apple on Lipid Profile in hyperlipidemic and overweight men.Entities:
Keywords: Dietary fiber; Hyperlipidemia; Lipid profile; Malus; Overweight; Polyphenols
Year: 2011 PMID: 21603015 PMCID: PMC3093779
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Prev Med ISSN: 2008-7802
Characteristics of intervention and control group before the study
| Intervention group | Control group | |
|---|---|---|
| Number | 23 | 23 |
| Age | 41.08±4.19 | 41.65±3.79 |
| Weight (kg) | 80.04±5.53 | 79.82±8.69 |
| IBM (kg/m2) | 27.02±1.39 | 26.72±1.83 |
| Education: | ||
| No diploma received | 2 (8.7) | 3 (13) |
| Diploma | 9 (39.1) | 8 (34.8) |
| A.A. | 6 (26.1) | 3 (13) |
| B.A. | 6 (26.1) | 9 (39.1) |
| Number of people in household: | ||
| 2 | 1 (4.3) | 2 (8.7) |
| 3 | 8 (34.8) | 7 (30.4) |
| 4 | 8 (34.8) | 11 (47.8) |
| 5 | 4 (17.4) | 3 (13) |
| More than 5 Physical activity: | ||
| Light | 3 (13) | 10 (43.5) |
| Moderate | 16 (69.6) | 6 (26.1) |
| Severe | 4 (17.4) | 7 (30.4) |
Data listed in the table above are shown based on (mean ± standard deviation)
Data listed in the table above are shown based on Numbers and (Percent)
Upper Diploma
Bachelor of Science
Lipid profile in two groups before and after study
| Biochemical parameters | group | Before study | After study | Mean differences |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TG (mg/dl) | Intervention | 216.69±52.59 | 224.21±84.6 | 7.52±32.01 |
| Control | 219.52±67.54 | 183.17±53.38 | -6.35±14.16 | |
| TC (mg/dl) | Intervention | 220.13±13.47 | 213.43±18.76 | -6.7±5.29 |
| Control | 216.82±14.51 | 209.78±21.18 | -7.04±6.67 | |
| LDL-c (mg/dl) | Intervention | 130.69±13.28 | 125.34±13.59 | -5.35±0.31 |
| Control | 127.95±11.53 | 121.26±16.6 | -6.69±5.07 | |
| HDL-c (mg/dl) | Intervention | 42.13±7.05 | 39.6±6.2 | -2.53±0.85 |
| Control | 43.3±8.29 | 41.56±8.92 | -1.74±0.63 | |
| VLDL (mg/dl) | Intervention | 44.69±13.23 | 44.82±16.95 | 0.13±3.72 |
| Control | 43.86±13.45 | 36.43±10.86 | -7.43±2.59 | |
| LDL/HDL | Intervention | 3.15±0.63 | 3.13±0.63 | -0.02 |
| Control | 2.98±0.65 | 2.97±0.64 | -0.01±0.01 | |
| Lp(a) (mg/dl) | Intervention | 27.39±16.09 | 20±9.48 | -7.39±6.61 |
| Control | 23±13.23 | 19.34±8.98 | -3.36±4.25 | |
| Apo(B) (mg/dl) | Intervention | 130.04±13.58 | 131.3±10.43 | 1.26±3.15 |
| Control | 126.47±13.88 | 125.17±13.03 | -1.3±0.85 |
Data listed in the table above are shown based on (mean ± standard deviation)
The result of independent t-test shows that the mean level of differences in TG concentration has a significant decrease (p=0.01) among control group in relation to the intervention group
The result of independent t-test shows that the mean level of differences in VLDL concentration has a significant decrease (p=0.04) among control group in relation to the intervention group