A 12‐week Randomised Controlled Trial to Evaluate Effects of Dietary Pulse Consumption on Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulses are rich in soluble fiber, protein and polyunsaturated fatty acids, and low in sodium and saturated fat. Some studies have reported that pulse (or legume) consumption improves lipid and glucose control, and there is emerging evidence that pulses may improve vascular health. The aim of the present study was to determine whether modest increases in pulse consumption could improve traditional cardiovascular (CV) disease risk factors in older, overweight adults. This study was a multi‐site, 12 week randomized controlled trial conducted in Australia (n=74) and Canada (n=66). One hundred and forty adults (63.0 ± 7.2 years, BMI 31.5 ± 4.0 kg/m 2 ) who were habitually low pulse consumers (i.e. ≤ ½ cup of pulses per week) were randomized to incorporate commercially available pulse‐enriched foods [~100g/day (i.e. ¾ cup/day) pulses] or energy‐matched control foods into their usual diet for 12 weeks. Body weight, blood pressure, arterial stiffness, lipids, glucose, insulin and C‐reactive protein were measured at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks. Five‐day weighed food records captured dietary data at baseline and Week 12 (data currently available for Australian cohort only). Pulse intake increased significantly in the Pulse vs Control group by week 12 (109 ± 39g vs. 2 ± 11g, respectively P<0.001). CV risk factors did not change in either group by Week 12. However, there was a significant inverse relationship between changes in pulse intake (g) and changes in plasma triglyceride levels (r = −0.23, P=0.036) after controlling for changes in carbohydrate intake. Data from the Australian Cohort suggest a dose‐response effect of pulse consumption on circulating triglycerides. Larger intakes of pulses may be required to facilitate changes in other CV risk factors. Our data indicate that the health effects associated with incorporating higher levels of pulses into the diet can be effectively obtained by employing canned pulses. Support or Funding Information Grain Research Development Corporation, Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology (DFEEST) and Manitoba Science, Energy & Technology (International Collaboration Fund)
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".