4.5 Article

Paper-filtered coffee increases cholesterol and inflammation biomarkers independent of roasting degree: A clinical trial

Journal

NUTRITION
Volume 29, Issue 7-8, Pages 977-981

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2013.01.003

Keywords

Antioxidants; Cardiovascular disease; Cholesterol; Coffee; Endothelial dysfunction; Inflammation; Risk factors

Funding

  1. FAPESP [2009/05792-7]
  2. TAFC [2008/10933-6]
  3. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of medium light roast (MLR) and medium roast (MR) paper-filtered coffee on cardiovascular risk factors in healthy volunteers. Methods: This randomized crossover trial compared the effects of consuming three or four cups (150 mL) of MLR or MR coffee per day for 4 wk in 20 healthy volunteers. Plasma lipids, lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]), total homocysteine, and endothelial dysfunction-related inflammation biomarkers, serum glycemic biomarkers, and blood pressure were measured at baseline and after each intervention. Results: Both roasts increased plasma total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, and soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (sVCAM-1) concentrations (10%, 12%, and 18% for MLR; 12%, 14%, and 14% for MR, respectively) (P < 0.05). MR also increased high-density lipoportein-cholesterol concentration by 7% (P = 0.003). Plasma fibrinogen concentration increased 8% after MR intake (P = 0.01), and soluble E-selectin increased 12% after MLR intake (P = 0.02). No changes were observed for Lp(a), total homocysteine, glycemic biomarkers, and blood pressure. Conclusion: Moderate paper-filtered coffee consumption may have an undesirable effect on plasma cholesterol and inflammation biomarkers in healthy individuals regardless of its antioxidant content. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available