4.6 Review

Effect of cocoa/chocolate ingestion on brachial artery flow-mediated dilation and its relevance to cardiovascular health and disease in humans

Journal

ARCHIVES OF BIOCHEMISTRY AND BIOPHYSICS
Volume 527, Issue 2, Pages 90-94

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.abb.2012.02.021

Keywords

Flavonoid; Flavanol; Chocolate; Endothelium; Endothelial function

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Prospective studies indicate that high intake of dietary flavanols, such as those contained in cocoa/chocolate, are associated with reduced rates of cardiovascular-related morbidity and mortality in humans. Numerous mechanisms may underlie these associations such as favorable effects of flavanols on blood pressure, platelet aggregation, thrombosis, inflammation, and the vascular endothelium. The brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD) technique has emerged as a robust method to quantify endothelial function in humans. Collectively, the preponderance of evidence indicates that FMD is a powerful surrogate measure for firm cardiovascular endpoints, such as cardiovascular-related mortality, in humans. Thus, literally thousands of studies have utilized this technique to document group differences in FMD, as well as to assess the effects of various interventions on FMD. In regards to the latter, numerous studies indicate that both acute and chronic ingestion of cocoa/chocolate increases FMD in humans. Increases in FMD after cocoa/chocolate ingestion appear to be dose-dependent such that greater increases in FMD are observed after ingestion of larger quantities. The mechanisms underlying these responses are likely diverse, however most data suggest an effect of increased nitric oxide bioavailability. Thus, positive vascular effects of cocoa/chocolate on the endothelium may underlie (i.e., be linked mechanistically to) reductions in cardiovascular risk in humans. (C) 2012 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available