Whole and fractionated yellow pea flours reduce fasting insulin and insulin resistance in hypercholesterolaemic and overweight human subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the present study was to compare whole pea flour (WPF) to fractionated pea flour (FPF; hulls only) for their ability to reduce risk factors associated with CVD and diabetes in overweight hypercholesterolaemic individuals. Using a cross-over design, twenty-three hypercholesterolaemic overweight men and women received two-treatment muffins/d containing WPF, FPF or white wheat flour (WF) for 28 d, followed by 28 d washout periods. Daily doses of WPF and FPF complied with the United States Department of Agriculture's recommended level of intake of half a cup of pulses/d (approximately 50 g/d). Dietary energy requirements were calculated for each study subject, and volunteers were only permitted to eat food supplied by the study personnel. Fasting insulin, body composition, urinary enterolactone levels, postprandial glucose response, as well as fasting lipid and glucose concentrations, were assessed at the beginning and at the end of each treatment. Insulin concentrations for WPF (37·8 (SEM 3·4) pmol/ml, P = 0·021) and FPF (40·5 (SEM 3·4) pmol/ml, P = 0·037) were lower compared with WF (50·7 (SEM 3·4) pmol/ml). Insulin homeostasis modelling assessment showed that consumption of WPF and FPF decreased (P < 0·05) estimates of insulin resistance (IR) compared with WF. Android:gynoid fat ratios in women participants were lower (P = 0·027) in the WPF (1·01 (sem 0·01) group compared with the WF group (1·06 (SEM 0·01). Urinary enterolactone levels tended to be higher (P = 0·087) in WPF compared with WF. Neither treatment altered circulating fasting lipids or glucose concentrations. In conclusion, under a controlled diet paradigm, a daily consumption of whole and fractionated yellow pea flours at doses equivalent to half a cup of yellow peas/d reduced IR, while WPF reduced android adiposity in women.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".