Olive oil has a beneficial effect on impaired glucose regulation and other cardiometabolic risk factors. study

1] Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Diabetes y Enfermedades Metabólicas Asociadas (CIBERDEM), Barcelona, Spain [2] Department of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Hospital Universitario Carlos Haya (IBIMA), Málaga, Spain.
European journal of clinical nutrition (Impact Factor: 2.71). 07/2013; 67(9). DOI: 10.1038/ejcn.2013.130
Source: PubMed


Despite the marked increase in cardiovascular risk factors in Spain in recent years, the prevalence and incidence of cardiovascular diseases have not risen as expected. Our objective is to examine the association between consumption of olive oil and the presence of cardiometabolic risk factors in the context of a large study representative of the Spanish population.

Subjects and methods:
A population-based, cross-sectional, cluster sampling study was conducted. The target population was the whole Spanish population. A total of 4572 individuals aged ≥ 18 years in 100 clusters (health centers) were randomly selected with a probability proportional to population size. The main outcome measures were clinical and demographic structured survey, lifestyle survey, physical examination (weight, height, body mass index, waist, hip and blood pressure) and oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) (75 g).

Around 90% of the Spanish population use olive oil, at least for dressing, and slightly fewer for cooking or frying. The preference for olive oil is related to age, educational level, alcohol intake, body mass index and serum glucose, insulin and lipids. People who consume olive oil (vs sunflower oil) had a lower risk of obesity (odds ratio (OR)=0.62 (95% confidence interval (CI)=0.41-0.93, P=0.02)), impaired glucose regulation (OR=0.49 (95% CI=0.28-0.86, P=0.04)), hypertriglyceridemia (OR=0.53 (95% CI=0.33-0.84, P=0.03)) and low HDL cholesterol levels (OR=0.40 (95% CI=0.26-0.59, P=0.0001)).

The results show that consumption of olive oil has a beneficial effect on different cardiovascular risk factors, particularly in the presence of obesity, impaired glucose tolerance or a sedentary lifestyle.

18 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of the study was to analyze the association between aging and insulin resistance estimated by the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). This work involved two studies: (1) the [email protected] /* */ study is a cross-sectional study including 4,948 subjects, comprising a representative sample of the adult Spanish population; (2) the Pizarra study is a population-based cohort study undertaken in Pizarra (Spain), in which 1,051 subjects were evaluated at baseline and 714 completed the 6-year follow-up study. Study variables included a clinical and demographic structured survey, a lifestyle survey, a physical examination, and an oral glucose tolerance test in subjects without diabetes. In the [email protected] /* */ study overall, an increase occurred in blood glucose until the age of 50, after which it remained stable (data adjusted for gender, body mass index, abnormal glucose regulation [AGR]). The HOMA-IR increased significantly with age (p = 0.01), due to a higher prevalence of obesity (p < 0.0001) and AGR (p < 0.001). In non-obese subjects without AGR, HOMA-IR values were not modified with age (p = 0.30), but they were with body mass index (p < 0.001). In the Pizarra study, the HOMA-IR was significantly lower after 6-year follow-up in the whole study population. Subjects with a HOMA-IR level higher than the 75th percentile at baseline were more likely to develop diabetes (OR 2.2, 95 % CI 1.2–3.9; p = 0.007) than subjects with a lower HOMA-IR. We concluded that age per se did not increase HOMA-IR levels, changes that might be related to higher rates of obesity and AGR in older subjects. The HOMA-IR was associated with an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes 6 years later.
    Acta Diabetologica 04/2014; 51(6). DOI:10.1007/s00592-013-0523-5 · 2.40 Impact Factor
  • Avances en Diabetologia 07/2014; 30(4). DOI:10.1016/j.avdiab.2014.04.003
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of the present meta-analysis of cohort studies was to focus on monounsaturated fat (MUFA) and cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular mortality as well as all-cause mortality, and to distinguish between the different dietary sources of MUFA. Literature search was performed using the electronic databases PUBMED, and EMBASE until June 2nd, 2014. Study specific risk ratios and hazard ratios were pooled using a inverse variance random effect model. Thirty-two cohort studies (42 reports) including 841,211 subjects met the objectives and were included. The comparison of the top versus bottom third of the distribution of a combination of MUFA (of both plant and animal origin), olive oil, oleic acid, and MUFA:SFA ratio in each study resulted in a significant risk reduction for: all-cause mortality (RR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.83, 0.96, p = 0.001; I2 = 64%), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.88, 95% CI 0.80, 0.96, p = 0.004; I2 = 50%), cardiovascular events (RR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.86, 0.96, p = 0.001; I2 = 58%), and stroke (RR: 0.83, 95% CI 0.71, 0.97, p = 0.02; I2 = 70%). Following subgroup analyses, significant associations could only be found between higher intakes of olive oil and reduced risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, and stroke, respectively. The MUFA subgroup analyses did not reveal any significant risk reduction. The results indicate an overall risk reduction of all-cause mortality (11%), cardiovascular mortality (12%), cardiovascular events (9%), and stroke (17%) when comparing the top versus bottom third of MUFA, olive oil, oleic acid, and MUFA:SFA ratio. MUFA of mixed animal and vegetable sources per se did not yield any significant effects on these outcome parameters. However, only olive oil seems to be associated with reduced risk. Further research is necessary to evaluate specific sources of MUFA (i.e. plant vs. animal) and cardiovascular risk.
    Lipids in Health and Disease 10/2014; 13(1):154. DOI:10.1186/1476-511X-13-154 · 2.22 Impact Factor
Show more