| Literature DB >> 34073610 |
Anne Cathrine Thorup1, Hanne Lakkenborg Kristensen2, Ulla Kidmose2, Max Norman Tandrup Lambert1, Lars Porskjær Christensen3, Xavier Fretté3, Morten Rahr Clausen2, Steen Møller Hansen4, Per Bendix Jeppesen1.
Abstract
Vegetables rich in bitter-tasting phytochemicals may exert enhanced beneficial effects against key factors associated with type two diabetes (T2D). This study investigates whether selected cultivars of bitter and strong-tasting (BST) Brassica and root vegetables exert greater health benefits on T2D patients compared to equivalent modern mild and sweet tasting (MST) vegetables. A 12-week randomized, controlled, parallel intervention study involved 92 T2D patients, who were allocated three different diets: (1) 500 g daily of bitter and strong-tasting (BST) vegetables; (2) 500 g daily of mild and sweet-tasting (MST) vegetables; (3) 120 g daily MST normal diet (control). Both vegetable diets contained root vegetables and cabbages selected based on sensory differences and content of phytochemicals. Prior to and after the study, all participants underwent an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), 24 h blood pressure measurements, DEXA scans, and fasted blood samples. Both diets high in vegetables significantly reduced the participants' BMI, total body fat mass, and HbA1c levels compared to control, but in the BST group, significant differences were also found regarding incremental area under the curve glucose 240 min (OGTT) and fasting glucose levels. A high daily intake of root vegetables and cabbages showed significant health improvements in both vegetable groups. BST vegetables had the greatest impact on insulin sensitivity, body fat mass, and blood pressure compared to control; moreover, they further improved glycemic control compared to MST vegetables.Entities:
Keywords: cultivars; glucose tolerance; phytochemicals and sensory analysis; type 2 diabetes mellitus; vegetables
Year: 2021 PMID: 34073610 PMCID: PMC8227621 DOI: 10.3390/nu13061813
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1The study design. The far left shows the three groups in the top (A) the control group (green); (B) mild and sweet tasting (red); and finally (C) bitter and strong tasting (blue). Screening took place approximately 2 weeks prior to project start. At weeks 0 and 12, fasting blood and urine samples were taken, 24 h blood pressure (BP) and oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) were performed, and DEXA scans were conducted. At weeks 0, 6, and 12, participants filled out thorough questionnaires. Randomization took place at week 0.
Figure 2Flow chart of the participants in the study with the BST, MST, and control diet. BST; bitter strong tasting. MST; mild sweet tasting.
Cropping and storage strategies to produce vegetables of bitter and strong taste (BST) or mild and sweet taste (MST) sensory quality.
| Strategy | Bitter and Strong (BST) | Mild and Sweet (MST) |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional cultivars 1 | Curly kale | Curly kale ‘Høj Amager Toftø’ |
| Modern cultivars 1 | Carrot ‘Mellow Yellow’ | Celeriac ‘Rowena’ |
| Nitrogen and sulfur fertilization 2 | High (standard) nitrogen and sulfur fertilization of curly kale and pointed cabbage 3 | Low nitrogen (half) and sulfur (zero) fertilization of curly kale and pointed cabbage 3 |
| Storage conditions | Two weeks in ethylene atmosphere of carrot ‘Bolero’ | No storage of carrot ‘Bolero’ |
1 At standard fertilization of nitrogen and sulfur according to agronomic practice; 2 according to standard agronomic practice; 3 modern cultivars ‘Reflex’ and ‘Caraflex’.
Clinical baseline characteristics of the subjects in the three intervention groups.
| Experimental Diets | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control a | Mild and Sweet a | Bitter and Strong a | ||
| Participants ( | 27 | 28 | 27 | - |
| Age (years) | 63.6 ± 1.3 | 62.6 ± 1.4 | 61.6 ± 1.1 | 0.58 |
| Diagnosis (years) | 3.3 ± 0.7 | 2.8 ± 0.7 | 3.5 ± 1.3 | 0.43 |
| Daily vegetable intake (g) | 222 ± 23 | 157 ± 20 | 183 ± 25 | NS |
| β-carotene (μg/mL plasma) * | 0.5 ± 0.0 | 0.5 ± 0.0 | 0.5 ± 0.0 | NS |
| Weight (kg) | 96 ± 3.8 | 94 ± 3.3 | 91.3 ± 3.2 | 0.75 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 109.2 ± 3.8 | 104.1 ± 2.6 | 102.5 ± 2.2 | 0.26 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 33.1 ± 1.3 | 32.9 ± 1.5 | 31.8 ± 1 | 0.73 |
| Total body fat (%) | 39.3 ± 1.8 | 39 ± 2 | 37.9 ± 1.6 | 0.85 |
| Plasma glucose (mmol/L) | 7.3 ± 0.3 | 6.7 ± 0.3 | 7.6 ± 0.3 | 0.06 |
| HbA1c mmol/mol | 48.2 ± 1.0 | 47.8 ± 1.4 | 50.4 ± 1.7 | 0.37 |
| iAUC glucose (mmol/L) | 755 ± 59 | 706.9 ± 62.1 | 911.1 ± 100.3 | 0.15 |
| Plasma insulin (pmol/L) | 68.8 ± 8.3 | 67.2 ± 9.6 | 73.5 ± 7.0 | 0.87 |
| Plasma glucagon (pg/mL) | 64 ± 3.94 | 64.7 ± 2.96 | 72.1 ± 3.09 | 0.17 |
| HOMA-IR | 4.1 ± 0.6 | 3.3 ± 0.5 | 4.25 ± 0.4 | 0.39 |
| Plasma cholesterol (mmol/L) | 4.4 ± 0.2 | 4.4 ± 0.2 | 4.7 ± 0.2 | 0.58 |
| Plasma LDL–cholesterol (mmol/L) | 2.2 ± 0.2 | 2.4 ± 0.2 | 2.4 ± 0.2 | 0.74 |
| Plasma HDL–cholesterol (mmol/L) | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 0.93 |
| Plasma triglycerides (mmol/L) | 2.0 ± 0.3 | 1.6 ± 0.2 | 1.6 ± 0.2 | 0.37 |
| Free fatty acids (mmol/L) | 0.5 ± 0.3 | 0.5 ± 0.3 | 0.5 ± 0.3 | 0.56 |
a Values are presented as mean ± SEM or numbers (%). b Differences tested between groups at baseline (ANOVA). * n = 15 for CON, MST, and BST respectively making a total of n = 45.
Figure 3Change (Δ) in (A) area under the curve (AUC) glucose (240 min) during the OGTT, (B) fasting glucose changes, (C) HbA1c changes, and (D) changes in HOMA-IR; after 12-week intervention. p < 0.05 (*); p < 0.001 (**).
Figure 4OGTT before and after 12-weeks of intervention. (A) CON, (B) MST, (C) BST. Data are presented as mean (±SEM). Significance testing was performed on between group differences in change in iAUC OGTT glucose (please see Figure 3A).
Changes (Δ) in fasting insulin, glucagon, and area under the curve (AUC) from the Oral Glucose Tolerance Test regarding insulin (240 min), glucagon (240 min), and HOMA-IR calculations.
| Experimental Diets | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Mild and Sweet | Bitter and Strong | between Groups | ||||
| Changes a | Changes a | Changes a | |||||
| Fasting insulin (pmol/L) | −1.99 ± 4.1 | 0.63 | −7.77 ± 2.8 | <0.01 | −9.0 ± 3.33 | <0.05 | 0.29 |
| Fasting glucagon (pg/mL) | −2.25 ± 2.19 | 0.32 | −2.23 ± 1.73 | 0.21 | −2.17 ± 1.78 | 0.28 | 0.99 |
| AUC insulin240 min, (pmol/L ∗ 240 min) † | −632.7 ± 3355 | 0.85 | −2795 ± 2777 | 0.32 | −7199 ± 3476 | < 0.05 | 0.21 |
| AUC glucagon240 min (pg/mL ∗ 240 min) | 142.7 ± 561.3 | 0.80 | −159.5 ± 416.2 | 0.71 | −13.6 ± 524.3 | 0.98 | 0.92 |
| HOMA-IR † | −0.13 ± 0.42 | 0.76 | −0.46 ± 0.23 | 0.06 | −1.05 ± 0.23 | <0.0001 | 0.057 |
a Data are presented as mean ± SEM. b Statistical calculations are within-group differences (paired t-test). c Statistical calculations are between group differences (ANOVA). † denotes use of non-normally distributed data and use of the Kruskal–Wallis test.
Changes (Δ) in weight, waist circumferences, lean mass, and blood pressure after a 12-week intervention.
| Experimental Diets | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Mild and Sweet | Bitter and Strong | Between Groups | ||||
| Changes a | Changes a | Changes a | |||||
| Weight (kg) | −0.004 ± 0.39 | 0.99 | −2.54± 0.51 | <0.0001 | −2.4 ± 0.54 | <0.0001 | <0.01 d,e |
| Waist circumference (cm) | −3.82 ± 2.29 | 0.11 | −4.00 ± 0.63 | <0.0001 | −4.45 ± 0.86 | <0.0001 | 0.91 |
| DEXA | |||||||
| Lean mass (kg) | 0.40 ± 0.4 | 0.25 | −0.68 ± 0.3 | <0.05 | −0.04 ± 0.3 | 0.90 | 0.07 |
| 24 h Diastolic BP (mmHg) | 1.76 ± 1.06 | 0.11 | −1.15 ± 0.93 | 0.22 | −2.12 ± 1.28 | <0.05 | <0.05 f |
| 24 h Systolic BP (mmHg) | 3.16 ± 2.04 | 0.14 | −1.22 ± 1.5 | 0.42 | −3.23 ± 2.23 | 0.16 | 0.07 |
a Data are presented as mean ± SEM. b Statistical calculations are within-group differences (paired t-test). c Statistical calculations are between group differences (ANOVA). d control vs. mild and sweet <0.001, e control vs. bitter and strong <0.01, f control vs. bitter and strong <0.05.
Figure 5(A) Change (Δ) in BMI, (B) change in total body fat (†) percentage Data are presented as mean (±SEM). (*) p < 0.05, (**) p < 0.01.
Changes (Δ) in lipids, PTH, vitamin D, β-carotene lactate, and isoleucine after a 12-week intervention.
| Experimental Diets | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Mild and Sweet | Bitter and Strong | between Groups | ||||
| Changes a | Changes a | Changes a | |||||
| TC (mmol/L) | −0.03 ± 0.11 | 0.79 | −0.19 ± 0.11 | 0.11 | −0.30 ± 0.12 | <0.05 | 0.26 |
| Trig (mmol/L) † | −0.14 ± 0.11 | 0.23 | −0.11 ± 0.09 | 0.19 | −0.15 ± 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.42 |
| LDL (mmol/L) † | −0.01 ± 0.8 | 0.95 | −0.09 ± 0.8 | 0.24 | −0.14 ± 0.8 | 0.08 | 0.23 |
| FFA (mmol/L) | 0.05 ± 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.04 ± 0.02 | 0.30 | −0.05 ± 0.16 | 0.13 | 0.07 |
| HDL (mmol/L) | −0.01 ± 0.03 | 0.74 | −0.04 ± 0.04 | 0.28 | −0.01 ± 0.5 | 0.86 | 0.8 |
| PTH (mmol/l) | −0.37 ± 0.24 | 0.14 | 0.05 ± 0.2 | −0.56 | 0.02 ± 0.2 | 0.45 | 0.23 |
| Vitamin D2 + D3 (ng/mL) | −11.18 ± 4.1 | 0.11 | −13.96 ± 2.26 | <0.0001 | −17.04 ± 3.74 | <0.0001 | 0.49 |
| β-carotene (%) c | 1.26 ± 3.4 | NS | 2.58± 3.6 | NS | 9.44 ± 5.1 | NS | NS |
| Lactate (%) | −7.7 ± 4.3 | NS | −8.8 ± 5.3 | <0.05 | −13.6 | <0.01 | NS |
| Isoleucine (%) | −1.3 ± 5.9 | NS | 0.74 ± 5.8 | NS | −11.6 ± 4.5 | <0.05 |
a Data are presented as mean ± SEM. b Statistical calculations are within-group differences (paired t-test). c n = 15 in each group. d Statistical calculations are between group differences (ANOVA). † denotes use of Kruskal–Wallis test.
Sensory evaluation of the vegetables used in the BST and MST groups by a professional sensory panel using a triangle test for each vegetable type.
| Year 1 | Year 2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date | 27.9 | 15.11 | 25.09 | 13.11 | |
| Vegetable | Groups | ||||
| Carrot | Sweet vs. bitter | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.001 | <0.0001 |
| Celeriac | Sweet vs. bitter | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
| Kale | Sweet vs. bitter | <0.0001 | <0.001 | <0.0001 | NS |
| Pointed cabbage | Sweet vs. bitter | <0.0001 | NS | 0.0015 | <0.01 |
| White cabbage | Sweet vs. bitter | NI a | <0.0001 | NI a | <0.05 |
Determination of sweet vs. bitter sensory characteristics of vegetable cultivars used in the study by a professional sensory panel. Significant p value denotes a significant difference between the panels’ assessment of the bitter and sweet characteristics of the respective paired sweet and bitter cultivars. a NI = Not included.