ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

Abstract and Figures

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is an important pulse crop grown and consumed all over the world, especially in the Afro-Asian countries. It is a good source of carbohydrates and protein, and protein quality is considered to be better than other pulses. Chickpea has significant amounts of all the essential amino acids except sulphur-containing amino acids, which can be complemented by adding cereals to the daily diet. Starch is the major storage carbohydrate followed by dietary fibre, oligosaccharides and simple sugars such as glucose and sucrose. Although lipids are present in low amounts, chickpea is rich in nutritionally important unsaturated fatty acids such as linoleic and oleic acids. β-Sitosterol, campesterol and stigmasterol are important sterols present in chickpea oil. Ca, Mg, P and, especially, K are also present in chickpea seeds. Chickpea is a good source of important vitamins such as riboflavin, niacin, thiamin, folate and the vitamin A precursor β-carotene. As with other pulses, chickpea seeds also contain anti-nutritional factors which can be reduced or eliminated by different cooking techniques. Chickpea has several potential health benefits, and, in combination with other pulses and cereals, it could have beneficial effects on some of the important human diseases such as CVD, type 2 diabetes, digestive diseases and some cancers. Overall, chickpea is an important pulse crop with a diverse array of potential nutritional and health benefits.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Nutritional quality and health benefits of chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L.): a review
A. K. Jukanti1, P. M. Gaur1*, C. L. L. Gowda1 and R. N. Chibbar2
1 International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, AP 502 324, India
2 Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 5A8
British Journal of Nutrition
Vol. 108, S1, Pages S11-S26, August 2012
This is author version post print archived in the official Institutional Repository of
Full Title: Nutritional quality and health benefits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): A
Article type: Review
Authors: AK Jukanti1, PM Gaur1*, CLL Gowda1 and RN Chibbar2
Affiliation: 1International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
(ICRISAT), Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh-502324, India.
2Deptartment of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan,
S7N 5A8, Canada.
* Corresponding author: PM Gaur, Principal Scientist (Chickpea Breeding), ICRISAT,
Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh-502324, India. Email:
E-mail addresses of authors:;;;
Key words Chickpea: Quality: Nutrition: Health
Running Head: Chickpea: Nutritional Properties and Its Benefits
Nutritional Quality and Health Benefits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): A Review
Abstract Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is an important pulse crop grown and consumed
all over the world, especially in the Afro-Asian countries. It is a good source of
carbohydrates and protein, and the protein quality is considered to be better than other
pulses. Chickpea has significant amounts of all the essential amino acids except sulfur
containing types, which can be complemented by adding cereals to daily diet. Starch is
the major storage carbohydrate followed by dietary fibre, oligosaccharides and simple
sugars like glucose and sucrose. Lipids are present in low amounts but chickpea is rich in
nutritionally important unsaturated fatty acids like linoleic and oleic acid. β-sitosterol,
campesterol and stigmasterol are important sterols present in chickpea oil. Calcium,
magnesium, phosphorus and especially potassium are also present in chickpea seeds.
Chickpea is a good source of important vitamins such as riboflavin, niacin, thiamin,
folate and the vitamin A precursor, β-carotene. Like other pulses, chickpea seeds also
contain anti-nutritional factors which can be reduced or eliminated by different cooking
techniques. Chickpea has several potential health benefits and, in combination with other
pulses and cereals, it could have beneficial effects on some of the important human
diseases like cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, digestive diseases and some cancers.
Overall, chickpea is an important pulse crop with a diverse array of potential nutritional
and health benefits.
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), also called garbanzo bean or Bengal gram, is an Old
World pulse and one of the seven Neolithic founder crops in the Fertile Crescent of the
Near East(1). Currently, chickpea is grown in over 50 countries across the Indian
subcontinent, North Africa, the Middle East, southern Europe, the Americas and
Australia. Globally, chickpea is the third most important pulse crop in production, next to
dry beans and field pea(2). During 2006-09, the global chickpea production area was
about 11.3 million ha, with production of 9.6 million metric tonnes (mmt) and average
yield of 849 kg ha-1(2). India is the largest chickpea producing country with an average
production of 6.38 million MT during 2006-09, accounting for 66% of global chickpea
production(2). The other major chickpea producing countries include Pakistan, Turkey,
Australia, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Iran, Mexico, Canada and USA.
There are two distinct types of cultivated chickpea, Desi and Kabuli. Desi (microsperma)
types have pink flowers, anthocyanin pigmentation on stems, and a colored and thick
seed coat. The kabuli (macrosperma) types have white flowers, lack anthocyanin
pigmentation on stem, white or beige-colored seeds with a ram’s head shape, thin seed
coat and smooth seed surface(3). In addition an intermediate type with pea shaped seeds of
local importance is recognized in India. The seed weight generally ranges from 0.1 to
0.3g and 0.2 to 0.6g in desi and kabuli types respectively(4). The desi types account for
about 80-85% of the total chickpea area and are mostly grown in Asia and Africa(5). The
kabuli types are largely grown in West Asia, North Africa, North America and Europe.
There is a growing demand for chickpea due to its nutritional value. In the semi-arid
tropics chickpea is an important component of the diets of those individuals who cannot
afford animal proteins or those who are vegetarian by choice. Chickpea is a good source
of carbohydrates and protein, together constituting about 80% of the total dry seed
mass(6,7) in comparison to other pulses. Chickpea is cholesterol free and is a good source
of dietary fibre, vitamins and minerals(8,9).
Globally, chickpea is mostly consumed as a seed food in several different forms and
preparations are determined by ethnic and regional factors(10,11). In the Indian
subcontinent, chickpea is split (cotyledons) as dhal and ground to make flour (besan) that
is used to prepare different snacks(12,13). In other parts of the world, especially in Asia and
Africa chickpea is used in stews, soups/salads and consumed in roasted, boiled, salted
and fermented forms(14). These different forms of consumption provide consumers with
valuable nutrition and potential health benefits.
Despite chickpea being a member of the “founder crop package”(15) with potential
nutritional/medicinal qualities, it has not received due attention for research like other
founder crops (e.g. wheat or barley). Chickpea has been and is being consumed by
humans since ancient times owing to its good nutritional properties. Furthermore,
chickpea is of interest as a functional food with potential beneficial effects on human
health. Although other publications have described the physicochemical and nutritional
characteristics of chickpea, there is limited information relating its nutritional
components to health benefits. This review attempts to bridge this void and review the
literature regarding the nutritional value of chickpeas and their potential health benefits.
Chickpea Grain Composition
Classification of Carbohydrates
Different carbohydrates are classified into (i) available (mono and disaccharides), which
are enzymatically digested in the small intestine and (ii) unavailable (oligosaccharides,
resistant starch, non-cellulosic polysaccharides, pectins, hemicelluloses and cellulose),
which are not digested in the small intestine(16). The total carbohydrate content in
chickpea is higher than pulses (Table 2). Chickpea has: (i) monosaccharides- ribose,
glucose, galactose and fructose (ii) disaccharides-sucrose, maltose and (iii)
oligosaccharides- stachyose, ciceritol, raffinose and verbascose(20). The amount of these
fractions varies though not significantly, between desi and kabuli genotypes (Table 1).
Mono-, Di-, and Oligosaccharides
Sanchez-Mata et al.(17) reported chickpea monosaccharide concentration for galactose
(0.05 g 100-g), ribose (0.11 g 100-g), fructose (0.25 g 100-g) and glucose (0.7 g 100-g).
Maltose (0.6%) and sucrose (1-2%) have been reported to be the most abundant free
disaccharides in chickpea(9). Pulse seeds contain some of the highest concentrations of
oligosaccharides among all the crops. Oligosaccharides are not absorbed or hydrolyzed
by human digestive system but fermented by colonic bacteria to release gases or
flatulence(18). α-Galactosides are the second most abundant carbohydrates in the plant
kingdom after sucrose(19,20) and in chickpea they account for ~62% of total sugar (mono-,
di-, and oligosaccharides) content(17). The two important groups of α-galactosides present
in chickpea are: (i) raffinose family of oligosaccharides (RFOs) - raffinose
(trisaccharide), stachyose [tetrasaccharide], and verbascose [pentasaccharide](20) and (ii)
galactosyl cyclitols - including ciceritol (Table 1)(21). Ciceritol was isolated for the first
time from chickpea seeds by Quemener and Brillouet(22) and later confirmed by Bernabé
et al.(21). Ciceritol and stachyose, two important galactosides in chickpea constitutes 36-
43% and 25% respectively of total sugars (mono-, di-, and oligosaccharides) in chickpea
α-Galactosides are neither absorbed nor hydrolyzed in the upper gastro-intestinal tract of
humans, accumulating in the large intestine of the human digestive system. Humans lack
α-galactosidase, the enzyme responsible for degrading these oligosaccharides(20).
Therefore, α-galactosides undergo microbial fermentation by colonic bacteria resulting in
the production of hydrogen, methane and carbon dioxide, major components of flatulent
gases(24). The expulsion of these gases is responsible for abdominal discomfort. Gas
production is higher in chickpea compared to other pulses, and this could be due to a
higher content of oligosaccharides in chickpea(25,26). Germination decreases raffinose,
stachyose and verbascose content(27). Chickpea has lower values for absolute flatulent α-
galactosides [1.56 g 100-g] compared to other pulses like white beans [2.46 g 100-g],
lentils [2.44 g 100-g] and pinto beans [2.30 g 100-g](17).
Polysaccharides are high molecular weight monosaccharide polymers present as storage
carbohydrate (e.g. starch) or as structural carbohydrates (e.g. cellulose) providing
structural support(9). Among the storage polysaccharides, chickpea is reported to
synthesize and store starch and not galactomannans(9). Starch is the major storage carbon
reserve in pulse seeds(6). Starch is made up of two large glucan polymers, amylose and
amylopectin, in which the glucose residues are linked by α-(1→4) bonds to form a linear
molecule and the linear molecule is branched by α-(1→6) linkages(6). The amylopectin
side chains are packed into different polymorphic forms in the lamellae of the starch
grains: ‘A’ type in cereals and ‘C’ type in pulses. The ‘C’ polymorph is considered to be
of intermediate type between ‘A’ polymorph in cereals and ‘B’ polymorph in tubers in
packing density and structure(6). The content of starch varies from 41-50% of the total
carbohydrates(28-30), with kabuli types having more soluble sugars (sucrose, glucose and
fructose) compared to the desi types(28). The total starch content of chickpea seeds is
reported to be ~ 525 g kg-1 dry matter, about 35% of total starch is considered to be
resistant starch (RS) and the remaining 65% as available starch(23,31). Cereals such as
wheat have higher amount of starch compared to chickpea(32), but the chickpea seeds
have higher amylose content [30-40% versus 25% in wheat](33,34). The in vitro starch
digestibility values (ISDV) of chickpea vary from 37-60%(35,36) are higher than other
pulses like black grams, lentils and kidney beans(37). However, the ISDV of pulses in
general are lower than cereals due to higher amylose content(38).
Dietary Fibre
Dietary fibre (DF) is the indigestible part of plant food in the human small intestine. DF
is composed of poly/oligosaccharides, lignin and other plant-based substances(39). The
dietary fibres can be classified into soluble and insoluble. Soluble fibre, is digested
slowly in the colon whereas the insoluble fibre is metabolically inert and aid in bowel
movement(40). The insoluble fibre undergoes fermentation aiding in the growth of the
colonic bacteria(40). Total dietary fibre content (DFC) in chickpea is 18-22 g 100-g of raw
chickpea seed(23,40) and it has higher amount of DF among pulses (Table 2). Soluble and
insoluble DFC is about 4-8 and 10-18 g 100-g of raw chickpea seed respectively(29,41). The
fibre content of chickpea hulls on a dry weight basis is lower [75%] compared to lentils
[87%] and peas [89%](29). The lower DFC in chickpea hulls can be attributed to difficulty
in separating the hull from cotyledon during milling.
The DFC of chickpea seed is equal to or higher than other pulses like lentils [Lens
culinaris] and dry peas [Pisum sativum](40). The desi types have higher total DFC and
insoluble DFC compared to the kabuli types. This could be due to thicker hulls and seed
coat in desi (11.5 % of total seed weight) compared to the kabuli types (only 4.3-4.4 % of
total seed weight)(41). Further, Wood et al.(42) have reported that the thinner seed coat in
kabuli types is due to thinner palisade and parenchyma layers with fewer
polysaccharides. Usually no significant differences are found in soluble DFC between
kabuli and desi types due to similar proportion of hemicelluloses which constitute large
part (~ 55%) of the total seed dietary fibre in kabuli and desi(43). The hemicellulosic sugar
arabinose/rhamnose is present in appreciable amounts in hull and insoluble fibre fractions
of chickpea(29). Glucose is present in large amounts in hull and soluble fibre fractions of
chickpea. Xylose is the major constituent of soluble fibre fractions in chickpea(29).
Protein Content
Protein calorie malnutrition is observed in infants and young children in developing
countries and includes a range of pathological conditions arising due to lack of protein
and calories in the diet(44). Malnutrition affects about 170 million people especially
preschool children and nursing mothers of developing countries in Asia and Africa(45).
Pulses provide a major share of protein and calories in Afro-Asian diet. Among the
different pulses, chickpea is reported to have higher protein bioavailability(46,47).
The protein content in chickpea significantly varies as percentage of the total dry seed
mass before (17-22%) and after (25.3-28.9%) dehulling(13,48). The differences in crude
protein concentration of kabuli [K] and desi [D] types are inconsistent showing
significant differences at times [241 g kg-1 in ‘K’ vs 217 g kg-1 in ‘D’](49) and showing no
differences at other times [217 g kg-1 in ‘K’ vs 215 g kg-1in ‘D’](41). The seed protein
content of eight annual wild species of genus Cicer, ranged from 168 g kg-1 in Cicer
cuneatum to 268 g kg-1 in Cicer pinnatifidum with an average of 207 g kg-1 over the eight
wild species(50). Chickpea protein quality is better than some pulse crops such as black
gram [Vigna mungo L.], green gram [Vigna radiata L.] and red gram [Cajanus cajan
L.](51). Additionally, there is no significant difference in protein concentration of raw
chickpea seed compared to some pulses such as black gram, lentils, red kidney bean and
white kidney bean(37).
Protein Digestibility
The in vitro protein digestibility (IVPD) of raw chickpea seeds varies from 34-
76%(36,52,53). Chitra et al.(54) found higher IVPD values for chickpea genotypes [65.3-
79.4%] compared to those of pigeon pea [Cajanus cajan; 60.4 to 74.4%], mung bean
[Vigna radiata; 67.2 to 72.2%], urd bean [Vigna mungo; 55.7 to 63.3%] and soybean
[Glycine max; 62.7 to 71.6%]. The digestibility of protein from kabuli type is higher than
the protein from desi types(47,55).
Amino Acid Profile
The amino acid profiles of chickpea seed are presented in Table 3. There are some minor
variations in the quantity of a few amino acids such as lysine, tyrosine, glutamic acid,
histidine and the two combined aromatic amino acids (Table 3)(45). Generally the sulfur-
rich amino acids (methionine and cystine) are limiting in pulses. Commonly consumed
food pulses such as chickpea, field pea, green pea, lentil and common bean have ~ 1.10 g
16-g N of methionine and cystine(56), the exceptions being cowpea which has ~ 2.20 g 16-g
N of methionine and green pea which has, ~1.80 g 16-g N of cystine(45). There are no
significant differences in the amino acid profiles of kabuli and desi type chickpea(56,57).
The amino acid deficiencies in chickpea (or other pulses) could be complemented by
consuming cereals, which are rich in sulphur-containing amino acids(35). Pulses are
usually consumed along with cereals, especially in Asian countries, thereby allowing the
daily dietary amino acid requirements to be met.
Fat Content and Fatty Acid Profile
Total fat content in raw chickpea seeds varies from 2.70-6.48 %(51,58). Shad et al.(59)
reported lower values (~ 2.05 g 100-g) for crude fat content in desi chickpea varieties. Fat
content of 3.40-8.83% and 2.90-7.42% in kabuli and desi type chickpea seeds
respectively was reported by Wood and Grusak(9). Further, even higher levels (3.80-
10.20%) of fat content in chickpea was reported(24). The fat content in chickpea (6.04 g
100-g) is higher than the other pulses like lentil (1.06 g 100-g), red kidney bean (1.06 g
100-g), mungbean (1.15 g 100-g) and pigeonpea (1.64 g 100-g) and also cereals like
wheat (1.70 g 100-g) and rice (~0.60 g 100-g)(32). Chickpea is composed of
polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA; ~ 66%), monounsaturated fatty acids (~19%) and ~
15% saturated fatty acids (Table 4). On average oleic acid was higher in the kabuli types
and linoleic acid was higher in the desi types (Table 4). Chickpea is relatively a good
source of nutritionally important PUFA, linoleic acid (51.2 %; LA) and monounsaturated
oleic acid (32.6%; OA). Chickpea has higher amounts of linoleic and oleic acid compared
to other edible pulses like lentils (44.4% LA; 20.9 OA), pea (45.6 LA; 23.2 OA) and bean
46.7% LA; 28.1% OA)(56). Linoleic acid is the dominant fatty acid in chickpea followed
by oleic and palmitic acids (Table 4).
Oil Characteristics
Chickpea cannot be considered an oilseed crop since its oil content is relatively low [3.8-
10%](24,60) in comparison to other important oilseed pulses like soybean or groundnut.
However, chickpea oil has medicinal and nutritionally important tocopherols, sterols and
tocotrienols(61). The content of different sterols and tocopherols in chickpea is presented
in Table 5. Sitosterol (72.52-76.10%; Table 5) was the dominant sterol in chickpea oil
followed by campesterol. The α-tocopherol content reported by USDA(35) is lower than
other reported values in Table 5. But, α-tocopherol content in chickpea is relatively
higher (8.2 mg 100-g) than other pulses like lentil (4.9 mg 100-g), green pea (1.3 mg 100-
g), red kidney bean (2.1 mg 100-g) and mungbean (5.1 mg 100-g )(32). The α-tocopherol
content, coupled with concentration of δ-tocopherol, which is a potent antioxidant
property(62), makes chickpea oil oxidatively stable and contributes to better shelf life
during storage(63). Triacylglycerol is the predominant neutral lipid in desi chickpea oil
and phospholipids are also found in oil(61).
The physicochemical characteristics of chickpea oil are summarized in Table 6. The
relative index values of chickpea (1.49) are higher than those of soybean (1.46) and
groundnut (1.47), the two important oil-bearing pulses(64). The iodine values (IV) of
chickpea oil (111.87-113.69, Wijs method) were also higher than the IV of groundnut
(80-106, Wijs method) and Phaseolus vulgaris (80.5-92.3, Wijs method)(61,65). Higher
refractive index and iodine values indicate a substantial unsaturation in chickpea oil and
this is demonstrated by the dominance of linoleic acid content(61) (Table 4). The lower
acid values observed for chickpea (Table 6) makes its oil refining easier(66). The peroxide
value for chickpea oils (3.97-6.37 mequiv/kg; Table 6) was within the maximum limit of
Codex recommendation (10 mequiv/kg) for edible oils(64).
Chickpea, like other pulses, not only brings variety to the cereal-based daily diet of
millions of people in Asia and Africa, but also provides essential vitamins and
minerals(67,68). The different minerals present in chickpea seed are presented in Table 7.
Raw chickpea seed (100 g) on an average provides about 5.0 mg 100-g of iron, 4.1 mg
100-g of zinc, 138 mg 100-g of magnesium and 160 mg 100-g of calcium. About 100g of
chickpea seed can meet daily dietary requirements of iron (1.05 mg/day in males and 1.46
mg/day in females) and zinc (4.2mg/day and 3.0 mg/day) and 200g can meet that of
magnesium (260 mg/day and 220 mg/day)(69). There were no significant differences
between the kabuli and desi genotypes except for calcium, with desi types having a
higher content than kabuli types(56,70). The amount of total iron present in chickpea is
lower (5.45 mg 100-g) compared to other pulse crops like lentils (8.60 mg 100-g) and
beans (7.48 mg 100-g)(71). The data on other minerals present in chickpea is very limited.
Selenium, a nutritionally important essential trace element is also found in chickpea seed
[8.2 μg 100-g](32,67). Chickpea is reported to have other trace elements including
aluminum [10.2 μg /g], chromium [0.12 μg/g], nickel [0.26 μg/g], lead [0.48 μg/g], and
cadmium [0.01 μg/g](32,67). The quantities reported here for aluminum, nickel, lead and
cadmium do not pose any toxicological risk.
Vitamins are required in tiny quantities; this requirement is met through a well-balanced
daily diet of cereals, pulses, vegetable, fruits, meat and dairy products. Pulses are a good
source of vitamins. As shown in Table 8, chickpea can complement the vitamin
requirement of an individual when consumed with other foods. Chickpea is a relatively
inexpensive and good source of folic acid and tocopherols [both γ and α; Table 8](72). It is
a relatively good source of folic acid coupled with more modest amounts of water soluble
vitamins like riboflavin (B2), panthothenic acid (B5) and pyridoxine (B6), and these
levels are similar or higher than that observed in other pulses [Table 9](73). However,
the niacin concentration in chickpea is lower compared to pigeonpea and lentil [Table
Plant carotenoids are lipid soluble antioxidants/pigments responsible for bright colors
(usually red, yellow and orange) of different plant tissues(75). Carotenoids are classified
into (i) oxygenated referred to as xanthophylls, which-includes lutein, violaxanthin, and
neoxanthin and (ii) non-oxygenated referred to as carotenes which-includes β-carotene
and lycopene(76). The important carotenoids present in chickpea include β-carotene (Table
8), lutein, zeaxanthin, β-cryptoxanthin, lycopene and α-carotene. The average
concentration of carotenoids (except lycopene) is higher in wild accessions of chickpea
than in cultivated varieties or landraces [cv. Hadas](77). β-carotene is the most important
and widely distributed carotenoid in plants and is converted to vitamin A more efficiently
than the other carotenoids(77). On a dry seed weight basis chickpea has higher amount of
β-carotene than “golden rice” endosperm(77,78) or red colored wheats(32).
Chickpea contains several phenolic compounds in the seed(9). Two important phenolic
compounds found in the chickpea are the isoflavones, biochanin A [5, 7-dihydroxy-4'-
methoxyisoflavone] and formononetin [7-hydroxy-4'-methoxyisoflavone](9). The other
phenolics detected in chickpea oil are daidzein, genistein, matairesinol, and
secoisolariciresinol(79,80). The concentration of biochanin A is higher in kabuli seeds
[1420-3080 μg/100g] compared to the desi type seeds [838μg/100g](81). The amount of
formononetin in kabuli and desi seeds is 215μg/100g and 94-126 μg/100g respectively(81).
Anti-nutritional Factors (ANFs)
Despite the potential nutritional and health-promoting value of ANFs, their presence in
chickpea limits its biological value and usage as food. Anti-nutritional factors interfere
with digestion and also make the seed unpalatable when consumed in raw form by
monogastric animal species(82). ANFs can be divided into protein and non-protein
ANFs(83). Non-protein ANFs include alkaloids, tannins, phytic acid, saponins, and
phenolics while protein ANFs include trypsin inhibitors, chymotrypsin inhibitors,
lectins and antifungal peptides [Table 10](84,85). Chickpea protease inhibitors are of two
types: (i) Kunitz type single chain polypeptides of about 20 kDa with two disulphide
bridges which inhibit the enzyme activity of only trypsin but not chymotrypsin(86); and
(ii) Bowman-Birk Inhibitors (BBI) which are also single chain polypeptides of about 8
kDa in size with seven disulphide bridges which inhibit the enzyme activity of both
trypsin and chymotrypsin(87,88). Protease inhibitors interfere with digestion by irreversibly
binding with trypsin and chymotrypsin in the human digestive tract. They are resistant to
the digestive enzyme pepsin and the stomach’s acidic pH(84). They negatively affect
certain necessary enzymatic modifications required during food processing like water
retaining capacity, gel-forming and foaming ability of different products(89).
Phytic acid can bind to several important divalent cations (e.g. iron, zinc, calcium and
magnesium) forming insoluble complexes and making them unavailable for absorption
and utilization in the small intestine(90-92). Tannins inhibit enzymes, reducing the
digestibility and making chickpea astringent. Saponins are commonly found in several
pulses including chickpea [Table 10](93) giving the pulses a bitter taste and making them
less preferable for consumption by humans and animals(94). Saponin content in chickpea
(56 g kg-1) is higher than other pulses like green gram (16 g kg-1), lentil (3.7-4.6 g kg-1),
fababean (4.3 g kg-1) and broadbean (3.5 g kg-1)(95).
Though the ANFs act as limiting factors in chickpea consumption, they can be reduced or
eliminated by soaking, cooking, boiling and autoclaving(58). ANFs also have beneficial
effects and these are discussed below.
Health Benefits
Although pulses have been consumed for thousands of years for their nutritional
qualities(96), it is only during the past two to three decades that the interest in pulses as
food and their potential impact on human health been revived. Chickpea consumption is
reported to have some physiologic benefits that may reduce the risk of chronic diseases
and optimize health (discussed in detail in the following paragraphs). Therefore,
chickpeas could potentially be considered as a ‘functional food’ in addition to their
accepted role of providing proteins and fibre. Different definitions are proposed
describing the functional foods: (i) “one encompassing healthful products including,
modified food or ingredient that may provide health benefits beyond traditional
ingredients(97) (ii) “foods that, by virtue of the presence of physiologically-active
components, provide a health benefit beyond basic nutrition”(98). As discussed above,
chickpea is a relatively inexpensive source of different vitamins, minerals(9,99,100) and
several bioactive compounds (phytates, phenolic compounds, oligosaccharides, enzyme
inhibitors etc.) that could aid in potentially lowering the risk of chronic diseases. Due to
its potential nutritional value chickpea is gaining consumer acceptance as a functional
food. Recent reports of the importance of chickpea consumption in relation to health are
discussed below.
Cardiovascular Disease (CVD), Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) and Cholesterol
In general, increased consumption of soluble fibre from foods results in reduced serum
total cholesterol and low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) and has an inverse
correlation with coronary heart disease mortality(101-106). Usually pulses and cereals have
a comparable ratio of soluble to insoluble fibres per 100g serving [~ 1:3](107). Chickpea
seeds are a relatively cheap source of dietary fibre and bioactive compounds (e.g.
phytosterols, saponins and oligosaccharides); coupled with its low glycemic index,
chickpea may be useful for lowering the risk of CVD(108). Chickpea has higher total
dietary fibre content [~18-22g](40) compared to wheat [~ 12.7g](109) and higher amount of
fat compared to most other pulses or cereals(33,110). However, two polyunsaturated fatty
acids [PUFAs], linoleic and oleic constitute almost ~ 50-60% of chickpea fat. Intake of
PUFAs such as linoleic acid (the dominant fatty acid in chickpea; Table 4) has been
shown to have a beneficial effect on serum lipids, insulin sensitivity and hemostatic
factors, thereby it could be helpful in lowering the risk of coronary heart disease(111,112).
Isoflavones are diphenolic secondary metabolites that may lower the incidence of heart
disease due to (i) inhibition of LDL-C oxidation(113,114) (ii) inhibition of proliferation of
aortic smooth muscle cells(115) (iii) maintenance of physical properties of arterial
walls(116). Ferulic and p-coumaric acids are polyphenols that are found in chickpea seeds
at low concentrations and these have been shown to reduce blood lipid levels in
rats(117,118). β-carotene, the most studied carotenoid, is also present in chickpea seeds.
Some cross-sectional and prospective studies have shown an inverse relation between the
incidence of CVD and plasma levels of antioxidants like β-carotene and vitamin E(119).
However, a large scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) involving 22,071 healthy
individuals demonstrated no benefit or harm of β-carotene supplementation (50 mg on
alternate days) on CVD, although this study concluded that β-carotene supplementation
could have some apparent benefits on subsequent vascular events(120). These neutral
results have also been supported by several other intervention and prevention trials as
reviewed by Stanner et al.(121). Therefore, despite the evidence supporting increased
occurrence of CVD with low intake of antioxidants or low levels of antioxidants in
plasma there is at present no evidence from intervention trials to support the beneficial
effect of β-carotene on CVD or CHD. The role of β-carotene, along with other vitamins
or nutrients in helping to reduce the incidence of CVD needs to be further investigated.
Foods rich in saponins are reported to reduce plasma cholesterol by 16-24 %(122). The
mechanism of cholesterol reduction is by binding to dietary cholesterol(123) or bile acids,
thereby increasing their excretion through faeces(124,125). β-sitosterol (dominant
phytosterol in chickpea) is helpful in decreasing serum cholesterol levels and incidence of
coronary heart disease(126-128). Higher intake of folic acid helps in reducing the serum
homocysteine concentrations, a risk factor for CHD(129). Folic acid supplementation was
shown to reduce the homocysteine levels by 13.4-51.7%(130-132). However, although a
meta-analysis has shown an association between elevated levels of homocysteine and risk
of CHD and stroke(133), there are no RCTs that indicate a benefit of folic acid
supplementation on the risk of CVD, CHD or stroke.
Fibre-rich chickpea-based pulse (non-soybean) diet has been shown to reduce the total
plasma cholesterol levels in obese subjects(134). The study was conducted on thirty obese
subjects (body mass index [BMI] of 32.0 ± 5.3 kg/m2) with mean age group of 36 ± 8 yrs.
The subjects were divided into two groups of fifteen each and fed with hypocaloric diet
consisting of chickpea-based pulse diet (LD) and a control diet (CD; no pulses) for a
period of eight weeks (4 days/week). After eight weeks the total cholesterol levels in the
LD fed group decreased from 215 mg/dl to 182 mg/dl whereas a smaller decrease (181
mg/dl to 173mg/dl) was observed for CD fed group(134). The proposed mechanism for
this hypocholesterolemic effect is the inhibition of fatty acid synthesis in the liver by
fibre fermentation products like propionate, butyrate and acetate(134). Short-chain fatty
acids (ex. propionate) were shown to inhibit both cholesterol and fatty acid biosynthesis
by inhibiting the acetate (provides acetyl co-A) utilization(135). Feeding a chickpea diet to
rats also resulted in a favorable plasma lipid profile(136). Thirty healthy male ‘Sprague-
Dawley’ rats were fed three different diets for eight months: normal fat diet (NFD; 5 g
fat, 22 g protein and 1381 kJ/100 g), high fat diet (HFD; lard, 20 % w/w; sugar, 4 %,
w/w; milk powder 2 %, w/w; and cholesterol [1 %, w/w] into the standard laboratory
chow, which contained 25·71 g fat, 19·54 g protein and and 1987 kJ/100 g diet) and high
fat plus chickpea diet (HFD+CP; same as HFD, but 10% crushed chickpea seed replaced
the standard chow; it contained 25·11 g fat, 19·36 g protein and 1965 kJ/100 g). Several
pro-atherogenic factors, including triacylglycerol (TAG), LDL-C, and LDL-C:HDL-C,
decreased with consuming chickpea based diet(136). Eighty four healthy Sprague-
Dawley’ rats divided into fourteen groups of six each fed diets containing chickpea (49-
65.4% of diet) and peas (46-62% of diet) for thirty five days recorded lower levels of
plasma cholesterol(137). The decrease in cholesterol levels varied with the processing
method used; extrusion and boiling had similar effects for chickpeas whereas extrusion
was most effective in peas. Phytosterols present in chickpea along with other factors (e.g.
isoflavones, oligosaccharides) reduces the LDL-C levels in blood by inhibiting the
intestinal absorption of cholesterol due to the similarity in their chemical structure with
cholesterol thereby potentially reducing the risk of CHD(9,109).
Diabetes and Blood Pressure
Pulses like chickpea has a higher amount of resistant starch and amylose(109). Amylose
has a higher degree of polymerization (1667 glucose vs 540) rendering the starch in
chickpea more resistant to digestion in the small intestine ultimately resulting in lower
availability of glucose (109,138). The lower bioavailability of glucose results in slower entry
of glucose into the blood stream thus reducing the demand for insulin, resulting in
lowering the glycemic index (GI) and insulinemic postprandial response(139,140). Lowering
GI is an important aspect in reducing both the incidence and severity of type II
diabetes(141). Further, increased consumption of resistant starch is related to improved
glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity(102,142,143). Linoleic acid, a PUFA is
biologically important due to its involvement in production of prostaglandins.
Prostaglandins are involved in lowering of blood pressure and smooth muscle
constriction(144). Also, linoleic and linolenic acids are required for growth and performing
different physiological functions(145). Additionally, phytosterols like β-sitosterol, is
helpful in reducing blood pressure(126-128). Linoleic acid and β-sitosterol are the major
PUFA and phytosterol in chickpea seeds respectively, therefore chickpea seeds could be
incorporated as a part of regular diet that may help to reduce blood pressure.
Inclusion of chickpea in high-fat rodent feed reduced the deposition of visceral and
ecotopic fats resulting in hypolipidaemia and insulin-sensitizing effects in the rats(136).
Incorporation of chickpeas in a human study also led to improvements in fasting insulin
and total cholesterol content(146). Total cholesterol and fasting insulin were reduced by
7.7mg/dL and 0.75 µIU/mL respectively. In this study forty five healthy individuals were
fed with a minimum of 104 g of chickpeas per day for twelve weeks as a part of their
regular diet.
Butyrate is a principal SCFA (~ 18% of total volatile fatty acids) produced from
consumption of chickpea diet (200g day-1) in healthy adults(147). Butyrate is reported to
suppress cell proliferation(148) and induce apoptosis(149), which may reduce the risk of
colorectal cancer. Butyrate inhibits histone deacetylase, which prevents DNA compaction
and induces gene expression. It is also suggested that butyrate shunts the cells along the
irreversible pathway of maturation leading to cell death(149). Inclusion of β-sitosterol (the
major phytosterol in chickpea; Table 7) in rat diet reduced N-methyl-N-nitrosourea
(carcinogen)-induced colonic tumors(150). Saponin-rich food have been shown to inhibit
pre-neoplastic lesions caused by azoxymethane in the rat colon(151). Protease inhibitors
are also known to suppress carcinogenesis by different mechanisms, but their precise
targets are still unknown(83,152,153).
Lycopene, an oxygenated carotenoid present in chickpea seeds, may reduce the risk of
prostate cancer(154). Though there are association studies suggesting a role for lycopene in
protection against prostate cancer, the results from very few RCTs conducted are not
sufficient either to support or refute the role of lycopene in cancer prevention(155,156).
Ziegler(157) reported that lower levels of carotenoids either in the diet or body can enhance
the risk of certain types of cancers. Studies have shown a direct positive correlation
between carotenoid-rich diet and decreased incidence of lung and other forms of
cancer(158). The cancer prevention ability of carotenoids could be due to their antioxidant
properties(159), but the exact mode of action needs to be identified.
Biochanin A, a chickpea isoflavone, inhibits the growth of stomach cancer cells in vitro
and reduced tumor growth when the same cells were transferred to mice(79,160). Further,
chickpea isoflavone extract specifically inhibited epithelial tumour growth and had no
effect on healthy cells(161). Murillo et al.(162) have shown a 64% suppression of
azoxymethane-induced aberrant cryptic foci in rats fed with 10% chickpea flour and
indicated that saponins could be one of the factors for the reduction of lesions. N-
nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA), a nitrosoamine, is reported to cause carcinogenesis through
DNA mutation(163). Inclusion of chickpea seed-coat fibre in the diet was shown to reduce
the toxic effects of NDEA on lipid peroxidation (LPO) and anti-oxidant potential(163).
The average percentage decrease in LPO in: liver and lungs was ~21%, spleen and kidney
was ~ 15.50% and heart ~12.46%. Eighteen rats divided into three groups of six each
were fed hypercholesterolemic diet for four weeks; group I was fed the control
hypercholesterolemic diet (starch [63%], oil [10%], casein [15%], cellulose [5%], salt
mixture [5%], yeast powder [1%] and cholesterol [1%]), group II (hypercholesterolemic
diet plus NDEA [100mg/kg] and group III (group II diet + 5% chickpea seed coat fibre).
Weight Loss / Obesity
Intake of foods which are rich in dietary fibre is associated with lower body mass index
[BMI](164,165). Eating of foods with high fibre content helps in reaching satiety faster
(fullness post-meal) and this satiating effect lasts longer since fibre-rich foods require
longer time to chew and digest in the intestinal system(103,166). Additionally, consumption
of low GI foods results in increase of cholecystokinin (a gastrointestinal peptide and
hunger suppressant) and increased satiety(167-169). Diets with low GI foods resulted in
reduced insulin levels and higher weight loss compared to those with higher GI(170). Since
chickpea is considered to be a low GI food, it may help in weight loss and obesity
Chickpea supplementation in the diet prevented increased body weight and weight of
epididymal adipose tissues in rats(136). At the end of the eight month experimental period
the rats fed on high fat diet (HFD) weighed 654 g versus those fed with HFD plus
chickpea (HFD+CP; 562 g). The epididymal fat pad weight to total body weight ratio was
higher in rats fed on HFD (0·032 g/g) compared to those fed on HFD+CP (0·023 g/g;
details of this experiment are explained under CVD)(136). Therefore, chickpea being a low
GI food could be an effective choice in weight loss programs. Chickpea is reported to
decrease fat accumulation in obese subjects. This aids in improving fat metabolism and
could be helpful in correcting obesity-related disorders(136). Chickpea supplementation in
the diet resulted in increased satiation and fullness(171). Forty two participants consumed
chickpea supplemented diet (average 104g/day) for twelve weeks; this was preceded and
succeeded by their habitual diet for 4 weeks each.
Gut Health and Laxation
A significant increase (18%) in DF intake was recorded when 140g/day chickpea and
chickpea flour were consumed by nineteen healthy individuals for six weeks(172).
Similarly, Murty et al.(171) reported a 15% increase in DF intake in forty two volunteers
(were 52.17± 6.30 years old). These studies revealed an overall improvement in bowel
health accompanied by increased frequency of defecation, ease of defecation and softer
stool consistency while on chickpea diet compared to the habitual diet. The DF fibres
promote laxation/bowel function by aiding in the movement of material through the
digestive system.
Other Health Benefits
Chickpea seed oil contains different sterols, tocopherols and tocotrienols(173-175). These
phytosterols are reported to exhibit anti-ulcerative, anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, anti-
tumoric and anti-inflammatory properties coupled with a lowering effect on cholesterol
levels(171,176). Δ7-Avenasterol and Δ5-avenasterol, phytosterols present in chickpea oil
have antioxidant properties even at frying temperatures(177). Carotenoids like lutein and
zeaxanthin, the major carotenoids in chickpea seeds, are speculated to play a role in
senile or age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Though there are some
epidemiological and association studies suggesting a beneficial effect of lutein and
zeaxanthin on AMD, evidence from RCTs on the effect of carotenoids on AMD is not
presently available(178). Carotenoids are reported to increase natural killer cell activity(179).
Vitamin A, a derivative of β-carotene is important in several developmental processes in
humans like bone growth, cell division/differentiation and most importantly vision. It is
reported that at least three million children develop xerophthalmia (damage to cornea)
and about 250,000-500,000 children become blind due to Vitamin A deficiency(180).
Chickpea is reported to have higher levels of carotenoids (explained above) than “golden
rice” and it could be potentially be used as a source of dietary carotenoids.
Chickpea seeds have been used in traditional medicine as tonics, stimulants and
aphrodisiacs(181). Further, they are used to expel parasitic worms from the body
(anthelmintic property), as appetizers, for thirst quenching and reducing burning
sensation in the stomach(35). In the Ayurvedic system of medicine chickpea preparations
are used to treat a variety of ailments like throat problems, blood disorders, bronchitis,
skin diseases and liver or gall bladder related problems [biliousness](182). In addition to
these applications, the chickpea seeds are also used for blood enrichment, treating skin
ailments, ear infections, and liver and spleen disorders(183). Uygur people of China have
used chickpea in herbal medicine for treating hypertension and diabetes for over 2500
The information presented here shows the potential nutritional importance of chickpea
and its role in improved nutrition and health. It is an affordable source of protein,
carbohydrates, minerals and vitamins, dietary fibre, folate, β-carotene and health
promoting fatty acids. Scientific studies provide some evidence to support the potential
beneficial effects of chickpea components in lowering the risk for various chronic
diseases, although information pertaining to the role of individual chickpea components
in disease prevention and the mechanisms of action are limited to date. This is due to the
complex nature of disease etiology and various factors impacting their occurrence. It is
imperative the scientific community continues to unravel the mechanisms involved in
disease prevention and determine how food bio-actives from such foods as chickpea can
influence human health. Further research, especially well conducted RCTs, needs to be
performed to provide compelling evidence for the direct health benefits of chickpea
We would like to acknowledge the help provided by the ICRISAT library staff and other
researchers who provided us with copies of important publications used in writing this
review. The authors have no conflict of interests to declare. AKJ acquired the necessary
material and wrote most of the sections. PMG and RNC contributed to writing the
nutritional aspects of the paper. PMG also corresponded with other authors. CLLG
helped us with the introduction.
1. Lev-Yadun S, Gopher A & Abbo S (2000) The cradle of agriculture. Science 288,
2. FAOSTAT (2011) (Accessed
12th December 2011).
3. Moreno M & Cubero JI (1978) Variation in Cicer arietinum L. Euphytica 27,
4. Frimpong A, Sinha A, Tar’an B, et al. (2009) Genotype and growing environment
influence chickpea (Cicer arientinum L.) seed composition. J Sci Food Agric 89,
5. Pande S, Siddique KHM, Kishore GK, et al. (2005) Ascochyta blight of chickpea:
biology, pathogenicity, and disease management. Aust J Agric Res 56, 317-332.
6. Chibbar RN, Ambigaipalan P & Hoover R (2010) Molecular diversity in pulse
seed starch and complex carbohydrates and its role in human nutrition and health.
Cereal Chem 87, 342-352.
7. Geervani P (1991) Utilization of chickpea in India and scope for novel and
alternative uses. In Proceedings of a Consultants Meeting, pp. 47-54. AP, India:
8. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (2006) Chickpea: Situation and outlook. Bi-
weekly Bulletin 19.
9. Wood JA & Grusak MA (2007) Nutritional value of chickpea. In Chickpea
breeding and management. pp. 101-142 [SS Yadav, R Redden, W Chen and B
Sharma, editors]. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
10. Muehlbauer FJ & Tullu A (1997) Cicer arietinum L. In New CROP FactSHEET,
pp. 6. Seattle, WA: Washington State University, USDA-ARS.
11. Ibrikci H, Knewtson SJB & Grusak MA (2003) Chickpea leaves as a vegetable
green for humans: evaluation of mineral composition. J Sci Food Agric 83, 945-
12. Chavan JK, Kadam SS & Salunkhe DK (1986) Biochemistry and technology of
chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) seeds. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 25, 107-157.
13. Hulse JH (1991) Nature, composition and utilization of pulses. In Uses of
Tropical Grain Legumes, Proceedings of a Consultants Meeting, pp. 11-27. AP,
14. Gecit HH (1991) Chickpea utilization in Turkey. In Proceedings of a Consultants
Meeting, pp. 69-74. AP, India: ICRISAT.
15. Zohary D & Hopf M (2000) In Domestication of plants in the old world, 3rd ed.,
Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
16. Chibbar RN, Baga M, Ganeshan S, et al. (2004) Carbohydrate metabolism. In
Encyclopedia of grain science, pp. 168-179 [C Wrigley, H Corke and CE Walker,
editors]. London: Elsevier.
17. Sánchez-Mata MC, Peñuela-Teruel MJ, Cámara-Hurtado M, et al. (1998)
Determination of Mono-, di-, and oligosaccharides in legumes by high-
performance liquid chromatography using an amino-bonded silica column. J
Agric Food Chem 46, 3648-3652.
18. Kozlowska H, Aranda P, Dostalova J et al. (2001) Nutrition. In Carbohydrates in
grain legume seeds: Improving nutritional quality and agronomic characters.
Oxon, UK: CAB International.
19. Jones DA, DuPont MS, Ambrose MJ, et al. (1999) The discovery of
compositional variation for the raffinose family of oligosaccharides in pea seeds.
Seed Sci Res 9, 305-310.
20. Han IH & Baik B-K (2006) Oligosaccharide content and composition of legumes
and their reduction by soaking, cooking, ultrasound and high hydrostatic pressure.
Cereal Chem 83, 428-433.
21. Bernabé M, Fenwick R, Frias J, et al. (1993) Determination, by NMR
spectroscopy, of the structure of ciceritol, a pseudotrisaccharide isolated from
lentils. J Agric Food Chem 41, 870-872.
22. Quemener B & Brillouet JM (1983) Ciceritol, a pinitol digalactoside from seeds
of chickpea, lentil and white lupin. Phytochem 22, 1745-1751.
23. Aguilera Y, Martín-Cabrejas MA, Benítez V, et al. (2009) Changes in
carbohydrate fraction during dehydration process of common legumes. J Food
Composition and Analysis 22, 678-683.
24. Singh U (1985) Nutritional quality of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): current
status and future research needs. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 35, 339-351.
25. Jaya TV, Naik HS & Venkataraman LV (1979) Effect of germinated legumes on
the rate of in-vitro gas production by clostridium perfringens. Nutr Rep Int 20,
393- 401.
26. Rao PU & Belavady B (1978) Oligosaccharides in pulses: Varietal differences
and effects of cooking and germination. J Agri Food Chem 26, 316-319.
27. Ǻman P (1979) Carbohydrates in raw and germinated seeds from mung bean and
chickpea. J Sci Food Agri 30, 869-875.
28. Jambunathan R & Singh U (1980) Studies on desi and kabuli chickpea (Cicer
arietinum L.) cultivars. 1. Chemical composition. In Proceedings of the
International Workshop on Chickpea Improvement, pp. 61-66. AP, India:
29. Dalgetty DD & Baik BK (2003) Isolation and characterization of cotyledon fibres
from peas, lentils, and chickpea. Cereal Chem 80, 310-315.
30. Özer S, Karaköy T, Toklu F, et al. (2010) Nutritional and physicochemical
variation in Turkish kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) landraces. Euphytica
175, 237-249.
31. Aguilera Y, Esteban RM, Benítez V, et al. (2009) Starch, Functional Properties,
and Microstructural Characteristics in Chickpea and Lentil as Affected by
Thermal Processing. J Agric Food Chem 57, 10682-10688.
32. United States Department of Agriculture (2010) USDA National Nutrient
Database for Standard Reference, Release 22 (2009). (accessed 01/07/2010;
12/07/2010; 02/08/2010).
33. Williams PC & Singh U (1987) Nutritional quality and the evaluation of quality
in breeding programs. In The Chickpea, pp. 329-356 [MC Saxena and KB Singh,
editors]. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
34. Guillon F & Champ MM (2002) Carbohydrate fractions of legumes: uses in
human nutrition and potential for health. Br J Nutr 88, Suppl. 3, S293-306.
35. Zia-Ul-Haq M, Iqbal S, Ahmad S, et al. (2007) Nutritional and compositional
study of desi chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars grown in Punjab, Pakistan.
Food Chem 105, 1357-1363.
36. Khalil AW, Zeb A, Mahood F, et al. (2007) Comparative sprout quality
characteristics of desi and kabuli type chickpea cultivars (Cicer arietinum L.).
LWT-Food Sci Technol 40, 937-945.
37. Rehman Z & Shah WH (2005) Thermal heat processing effects on antinutrients,
protein and starch digestibility of food legumes. Food Chem 91, 327-331.
38. Madhusudhan B & Tharanathan RN (1996) Structural studies of linear and
branched fractions of chickpea and finger millet starches. Carbohydrate Res 184,
39. American Association of Cereal Chemists [AACC] (2001) The definition of
dietary fibre. (Report of the Dietary Fibre Definition Committee to the Board of
Directors of the AACC.) Cereal Foods World 46, 112-126.
40. Tosh SM & Yada S (2010) Dietary fibres in pulse seeds and fractions:
Characterization, functional attributes, and applications. Food Res Internl 43,
41. Rincón F, Martínez B & Ibáñez MV (1998) Proximate composition and
antinutritive substances in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) as affected by the
biotype factor. J Sci Food Agric 78, 382-388.
42. Wood JA, Knights EJ & Choct M (2011) Morphology of chickpea seeds (Cicer
arietinum L.): Comparison of desi and kabuli types. Int J Plant Sci 172, 632-643.
43. Singh U (1984) Dietary fibre and its constituents in desi and kabuli chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars. Nutr Rep Int 29, 419-426.
44. Haider M & Haider S (1984) Assessment of protein-calorie malnutrition. Clin
Chem 30, 1286-1299.
45. Iqbal A, Khalil IA, Ateeq N, et al. (2006) Nutritional quality of important food
legumes. Food Chem 97, 331-335.
46. Yust MM, Pedroche J & Giron-Calle J (2003) Production of ace inhibitory
peptides by digestion of chickpea legumin with alcalase. J Food Chem 81, 363-
47. Sánchez-Vioque R, Clemente A, Vioque J, et al. (1999) Protein isolates from
chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): chemical composition, functional properties and
protein characterization. Food Chem 64, 237-243.
48. Badshah A, Khan M, Bibi N, et al. (2003) Quality studies of newly evolved
chickpea cultivars. Advances in Food Sciences 25, 95-99.
49. Singh U & Jambunathan R (1981) Studies on desi and kabuli chickpea (Cicer
arietinum L.) cultivars: levels of protease inhibitors, levels of polyphenolic
compounds and in vitro protein digestibility. J Food Sci 46, 1364-1367.
50. Ocampo B, Robertson LD & Singh KB (1998) Variation in seed protein content
in the annual wild Cicer species. J Sci Food Agric 78, 220-224.
51. Kaur M, Singh N & Sodhi NS (2005) Physicochemical, cooking, textural and
roasting characteristics of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars. J Food Eng
69, 511-517.
52. Khattak AB, Zeb A & Bibi N (2008) Impact of germination time and type of
illumination on carotenoid content, protein solubility and in vitro protein
digestibility of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) sprouts. Food Chem 109, 797-801.
53. Clemente A, Sánchez-Vioque R, Vioque J, et al. (1998) Effect of cooking on
protein quality of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) seed. Food Chem 62, 1-6.
54. Chitra U, Vimala V, Singh U, et al. (1995) Variability in phytic acid content and
protein digestibility of grain legumes. Plant Foods for Hum Nutr 47, 163-172.
55. Paredes-López O, Ordorica-Falomir C & Olivares-Vázquez MR (1991) Chickpea
protein isolates: Physicochemical, functional and nutritional characterization. J
Food Sci 56, 726-729.
56. Wang N & Daun JK (2004) The Chemical Composition and Nutritive Value of
Canadian Pulses. Canadian Grain Commission Report 19-29.
57. Wang X, Gao W, Zhang J, et al. (2010) Subunit, amino acid composition and in
vitro digestibility of protein isolates from Chinese kabuli and desi chickpea (Cicer
arietinum L.) cultivars. Food Res Internl 43, 567-572.
58. Alajaji SA & El-Adawy TA (2006) Nutritional composition of chickpea (Cicer
arietinum L.) as affected by microwave cooking and other traditional cooking
methods. J Food Composition and Analysis 19, 806-812.
59. Shad MA, Pervez H, Zafar ZI, et al. (2009) Evaluation of biochemical
composition and physicochemical parameters of oil from seeds of desi chickpea
varieties cultivated in arid zone of Pakistan. Pak J Bot 41, 655-662.
60. Gül MK, Ömer EC & Turhan H (2008) The effect of planting time in fatty
acids and tocopherols in chickpea. Eur Food Res Technol 226, 517-522.
61. Zia-Ul-Haq M, Ahmad M, Iqbal S, et al. (2007) Characterization and
compositional study of oil from seeds of desi chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)
cultivars grown in Pakistan. J Am Oil Chem Soc 84, 1143-1148.
62. Tsaknis J (1998) Characterization of Moringa peregrine Arabian seed oil. Grases
Acei 49, 170-176.
63. Zia-ul-Haq M, Ahmad S, Ahmad M, et al. (2009) Effects of cultivar and row
spacing on tocopherol and sterol composition of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)
seed oil. J of Agric Sci (TARIM BİLİMLERİ DERGİSİ) 15, 25-30.
64. Kirk SR & Sawyer R (editors) (1991) Pearson’s composition and analysis of
foods, 9th ed., pp. 617-620. Essex: Longman Scientific and Technical Press.
65. Mabaleha MB & Yeboah SO (2004) Characterization and compositional studies
of the oils from some legume cultivars, Phaseolus vulgaris, grown in Southern
Africa. J Am Oil Chem Soc 81, 361-364.
66. Siddhuraju P, Becker K & Makkar HPS (2001) Chemical composition, protein
fractionation, essential amino acid potential and antimetabolic constituents of an
unconventional legume, Gilabean (Entada phaseoloides Merrill) seed kernel. J
Sci Food Agric 82, 192-202.
67. Cabrera C, Lloris F, Giménez R, et al. (2003) Mineral content in legumes and
nuts: contribution to the Spanish dietary intake. The Science of the Total
Environment 308, 1-14.
68. Duhan A, Khetarpaul N & Bishnoi S (1999) In starch digestibility (in vitro) of
various pigeonpea cultivars through processing and cooking. Ecology of Food and
Nutr 37, 557-568.
69. FAO (2002) Human vitamin and mineral requirement. Report of a joint
FAO/WHO expert consultation, Bangkok, Thailand.
70. Ibáñez MV, Rinch F, Amaro M, et al. (1998) Intrinsic variability of mineral
composition of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Food Chem 63, 55-60.
71. Quinteros A, Farre R & Lagarda MJ (2001) Optimization of iron speciation
(soluble, ferrous and ferric) in beans, chickpea and lentils. Food Chem 75, 365-
72. Ciftci H, Ozkaya A, Cevrimli BS, et al. (2010) Levels of Fat-Soluble Vitamins in
Some Foods. Asian J Chem 22, 1251-1256.
73. Lebiedzińska A & Szefer P (2006) Vitamins B in grain and cereal-grain food,
soy-products and seeds. Food Chem 95, 116-122.
74. Singh F & Diwakar B (1993) Nutritive value and uses of pigeon pea and
groundnut. In Skill Development Series no. 14, ICRISAT: India; available at
75. Bartley GE & Scolnik PA (1995) Plant Carotenoids: pigments for
photoprotection, visual attraction, and human health. The Plant Cell 7, 1027-1038.
76. DellaPenna D & Pogson BJ (2006) Vitamin Synthesis in Plants: Tocopherols and
Carotenoids. Annu Rev Plant Biol 57, 711-738.
77. Abbo S, Molina C, Jungmann R, et al. (2005) Quantitative trait loci governing
carotenoid concentration and weight in seeds of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.).
Theor Appl Genet 111, 185-195.
78. Ye X, Babili A, Kioti A, et al. (2000) Engineering the provitamin A biosynthetic
pathway into (carotenoid free) rice endosperm. Science 287, 303-305.
79. Dixon RA (2004) Phytoestrogens. Annu Rev Plant Biol 55, 225-61.
80. Champ MJM (2002) Non-nutrient bioactive substances of pulses. Br J Nutr 88,
Suppl. 3, S307-S319.Tungland B & Meyer D (2002) Non-digestible oligo- and
polysaccharides (dietary fibre): Their physiology and role in human health and
food. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 1, 90-109.
81. Mazur WM, Duke JA, Wahala K, et al. (1998) Isoflavonoids and lignans in
legumes: nutritional and health aspects in humans. J Nutritional Biochem 9, 193-
82. Domoney C (1999) Inhibitor of legume seeds. In Seed protein, pp. 635-655 [PR
Shewry and R Casey, editors]. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
83. Duranti M & Gius C (1997) Legume seeds: Protein content and nutritional value.
J of Field Crop Research 53, 31-45.
84. Roy F, Boye IJ & Simpson BK (2010) Bioactive proteins and peptides in pulse
crops: Pea, chickpea and lentil. Food Res International 43, 432-442.
85. Muzquiz M & Wood JA (2007) Antinutritional factors. In Chickpea Breeding and
Management, pp. 143-166 [SS Yadav, B Redden, W Chen and B Sharma,
editors]. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
86. Srinivasan A, Giri AP & Harsulkar AM (2008) A Kunitz trypsin inhibitor from
chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) that exerts anti-metabolic effect on podborer
(Helicoverpa armigera) larvae. Plant Mol Biol 57, 359-374.
87. Smirnoff P, Khalef S, Birk Y, et al. (1976) A trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitor
from chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Biochem J 157, 745-751.
88. Guillamon E, Pedrosa MM, Burbano C, et al. (2008) The trypsin inhibitors
present in seed of different grain legume species and cultivar. J Food Chem 107,
89. Garcia-Cerreno FL (1996) Proteinase inhibitors. Trends in Foods Sci and Technol
7, 197-204.
90. Sandberg AS (2002) Bioavailability of minerals in legumes. Br J Nutr 88, Suppl.
3, S281-S285.
91. van der Poel AFB (1990) Effect of processing on antinutritional factors and
protein nutritional value of dry beans. Animal Feed Sci Technol 2, 179-208.
92. Cheryan M (1980) Phytic acid interactions in food systems. CRC Critical Review
of Food Science 13, 297-335.
93. Oakenful D & Sidhu GS (1990) Could saponins be a useful treatment of
hypercholesterolemia? Eur J Nutr 44, 79-88.
94. Birk Y & Peri I (1980) Saponins. In Toxic Constituents of Plant Foodstuff, pp.
161-182 [IE Liener, editor]. New York: Academic Press.
95. Gupta Y (1987) Anti-nutritional and toxic factors in food legumes: a review.
Plant Fds Hum Nutr 37, 201-228.
96. Kerem Z, Lev-Yadun S, Gopher A, et al. (2007) Chickpea domestication in the
Neolithic Levant through the nutritional perspective. J Archaeological Sci 34,
97. Milner JA (2000) Functional foods: the US perspective. Am J Clin Nutr 71, Suppl.
98. Hasler CM (2002) Functional foods: benefits, concerns and challenges - a position
paper from the American Council on Science and Health. J Nutri 132, 3772-
99. Duke JA (1981). In Handbook of legumes of world economic importance, pp. 52-
57. New York: Plenum Press.
100. Huisman J & Van der Poel AFB (1994) Aspects of the nutritional quality and use
of cool season food legumes in animal feed. In Expanding the production and use
of cool season food legume, pp.53-76 [FJ Muehlbauer and WJ Kaiser, editors].
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
101. Kushi LH, Meyer KM & Jacobs DR (1999) Cereals, legumes, and chronic
disease risk reduction: evidence from epidemiologic studies. Am J Clin Nutr 70,
102. James SL, Muir JG, Curtis SL, et al. (2003) Dietary fibre: a roughage guide.
Intern Med J 33, 291-296.
103. Marlett JA, McBurney MI & Slavin JL (2002) Position of the American Dietetic
Association: health implications of dietary fibre. J Am Diet Assoc 102, 993-1000.
104. Anderson JW & Hanna TJ (1999) Impact of nondigestible carbohydrates on
serum lipoproteins and risk for cardiovascular disease. J Nutr 129, 1457S-1466S.
105. Noakes M, Clifton P & McMurchie T (1999) The role of diet in cardiovascular
health. A review of the evidence. Aust J Nutr Diet 56, S3-S22.
106. Fehily A (1999) Legumes: types and nutritional value. In Encyclopedia of human
nutrition, vol. 2, pp. 1181-1188 [Sadler M, editor]. New York: Academic Press.
107. Van Horn L (1997) Fibre, lipids, and coronary heart disease. A statement for
healthcare professionals from the nutrition committee, American Heart
Association. Circulation 95, 2701-2704.
108. Duranti M (2006) Grain legume proteins and nutraceutical properties. Fitoterapia
77, 67-82.
109. Pittaway JK, Ahuja KDK, Robertson IK, et al. (2007) Effects of a controlled diet
supplemented with chickpea on serum lipids, glucose tolerance, satiety and bowel
function. J Am Coll Nut 26, 334-340.
110. Messina MJ (1999) Legumes and soybeans: overview of their nutritional profiles
and health effects. Am J Clin Nutr 70, Suppl. S439-S450.
111. Hu FB, Manson JE & Willett WC (2001) Types of dietary fat and risk of coronary
heart disease: a critical review. J Am Coll Nutr 20, 5-19.
112. Sanders TA, Oakley FR, Miller GJ, et al. (1997) Influence of n-6 versus n-3
polyunsaturated PUFAs in diets low in saturated PUFAs on plasma lipoproteins
and hemostatic factors. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 17, 3449-3460.
113. Tikkanen MJ & Adlercreutz H (2000) Dietary soy-derived isoflavone
phytoestrogens: could they have a role in coronary heart disease prevention?
Biochem Pharmacol 60, 1-5.
114. Tikkanen MJ, Wahala K, Ojala S, et al. (1998) Effect of soybean phytoestrogen
intake on low density lipoprotein oxidation resistance. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
95, 3106-3110.
115. Pan W, Ikeda K, Takebe M, et al. (2001) Genistein, daidzein and glycitein
inhibit growth and DNA synthesis of aortic smooth muscle cells from stroke-
prone spontaneously hypertensive rats. J Nutr 131, 1154-1158.
116. van der Schouw YT, Pijpe A, Lebrun CEI, et al. (2002) Higher than usual dietary
intake of phytoestrogens is associated with lower aortic stiffness in
postmenopausal women. Arteriosclerosis Thrombosis Vascular Biol 22, 1316-
117. Sharma RD (1980) Effect of hydroxy acids on hypocholesterolemia in rats.
Atherosclerosis 37, 463-468.
118. Sharma RD (1984) Hypocholesterolemic effect of hydroxy acid components of
Bengal gram. Nutrition Reports International 29, 1315-1322.
119. Su L, Bui M, Kardinaal A, et al. (1998) Differences between plasma and adipose
tissue biomarkers of carotenoids and tocopherols. Cancer Epidemiology,
Biomarkers & Prevention 7, 10438.
120. Christen WG, Gaziano JM & Hennekens CH (2000) Design of Physicians' Health
Study II--a randomized trial of beta-carotene, vitamins E and C, and
multivitamins, in prevention of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and eye disease,
and review of results of completed trials. Ann Epidemiol 10, 125-34.
121. Stanner SA, Hughes J, Kelly CNM, et al. (2003) A review of the epidemiological
evidence for the ‘antioxidant hypothesis. Public Health Nutrition 7, 407422.
122. Thompson LU (1993) Potential health benefits and problems associated with
antinutrients in foods. Food Res Intnl 26, 131-149.
123. Gestener B, Assa Y, Henis Y et al. (1972) Interaction of lucerne saponins with
sterols. Biochemica Biophysica Acta 270, 181-187.
124. Sidhu GS & Oakenful DG (1986) A mechanism for the hypocholesterolemic
activity of saponins. Br J Nutr 55, 643-649.
125. Zulet MA & Martínez JA (1995) Corrective role of chickpea intake on a dietary-
induced model of hypercholesterolemia. Plant Fds Hum Nutr 48, 269-277.
126. Ling WH & Jones PJ (1995) Dietary phytosterols: a review of metabolism,
benefits and side effects. Life Sci 57, 195-206.
127. Clark J (1996) Tocopherols and sterols from soybeans. Lipid Technol 8, 111-114.
128. Moreau RA, Whitaker BD & Hicks KB (2002) Phytosterols, phytostanols, and
their conjugates in foods: structural diversity, quantitative analysis, and health-
promoting uses. Prog Lipid Res 41, 457-500.
129. Albert CM, Cook RN, Gaziano JM et al. (2008) Effect of Folic Acid and B
Vitamins on Risk of Cardiovascular Events and Total Mortality Among Women
at High Risk for Cardiovascular Disease. A Randomized Trial. JAMA 299, 2027-
130. Baker F, Picton D, Blackwood S, et al. (2002) Blinded comparison of folic acid
and placebo in patients with ischemic heart disease: an outcome trial [abstract].
Circulation 106, 741S.
131. Righetti M, Ferrario GM, Milani S, et al. (2003) Effects of folic acid treatment on
homocysteine levels and vascular disease in hemodialysis patients. Med Sci Monit
9, PI19-PI24.
132. Bazzano LA, Reynolds K, Holder KN, et al. (2006) Effect of Folic Acid
Supplementation on Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases. A Meta-analysis of
Randomized Controlled Trials. JAMA 296, 2720-2726 .
133. Homocysteine Studies Collaboration (2002) Homocysteine and risk of ischemic
heart disease and stroke: a meta-analysis. JAMA 288, 2015-2022.
134. Crujeiras AB, Parra D, Abete I, et al. (2007) A hypocaloric diet enriched in
legumes specifically mitigates lipid peroxidation in obese subjects. Free Radical
Research 41, 498-506.
135. Wright RS, Anderson JW & Bridges SR (1990) Propionate inhibits hepatocyte
lipid synthesis. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 195, 26-29.
136. Yang Y, Zhou L, Gu Y, et al. (2007) Dietary chickpea reverse visceral adiposity,
dyslipidaemia and insulin resistance in rats induced by a chronic high-fat diet. Br
J Nutr 98, 720-726.
137. Wang YHA & McIntosh GH (1996) Extrusion and boiling improves rat body
weight gain and plasma cholesterol lowering ability of peas and chickpea. J Nutr
126, 3054-3062.
138. Muir JG & O’Dea K (1992) Measurement of resistant starch: factors affecting the
amount of starch escaping digestion in vitro. Am J Clin Nutr 56, 123-127.
139. Kendall CW, Emam A, Augustin LS et al. (2004) Resistant starches and health. J
AOAC Int 87, 769-74.
140. Osorio-Díaz P, Agama-Acevedo E, Mendoza-Vinalay M, et al. (2008) Pasta
added with chickpea flour: chemical composition, in vitro starch digestibility and
predicted glycemic index. Cienc Tecnol Aliment 6, 6-12.
141. Regina A, Bird A, Topping D, et al. (2006) High-amylose wheat generated by
RNA interference improves indices of large-bowel health in rats. Proc Natl Acad
Sci USA 103, 3546-3551.
142. Tharanathan RN & Mahadevamma S (2003) Grain Legumes - a boon to human
nutrition. Trends Food Sci Technol 14, 507-518.
143. Jenkins DJ, Kendall CW, Augustin LS, et al. (2002) High-complex carbohydrate
or lente carbohydrate foods? Am J Med 113, Suppl. 9B, S30S-S37.
144. Aurand LW, Woods AE & Wells MR (1987) Food composition and analysis.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
145. Pugalenthi M, Vadivel V, Gurumoorthi P, et al. (2004) Comparative nutritional
evaluation of little known legumes, Tamarindus indica, Erythrina indica and
Sesbania bispinosa. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 4, 107-123.
146. Pittaway JK, Robertson IK & Ball MJ (2008) Chickpeas may influence fatty acid
and fiber intake in an ad libitum diet, leading to small improvements in serum
lipid profile and glycemic control. J Am Diet Assoc 108, 1009-1013.
147. Fernando WMU, Hill JE, Zello GA, et al. (2010) Diets supplemented with
chickpea or its main oligosaccharide component raffinose modify faecal microbial
composition in healthy adults. Beneficial Microbes 1, 197-207.
148. Cummings JH, Stephen AM & Branch WJ (1981) Implications of dietary fibre
breakdown in the human colon. In Banbury Report 7 Gastrointestinal Cancer, pp.
71-81 [WR Bruce, P Correa, M Lipkin, S Tannenbaum and TD Wilkins, editors].
New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
149. Mathers JC (2002) Pulses and carcinogenesis: potential for the prevention of
colon, breast and other cancers. Br J Nutr 88, Suppl. 3 S273-S279.
150. Raicht RF, Cohen BI, Fazzini EP, et al. (1980) Protective effect of plant sterols
against chemically induced colon tumors in rats. Cancer Res 40, 403-405.
151. Koratkar R & Rao AV (1997) Effect of soya bean saponins on azoxymethane-
induced preneoplastic lesions in the colon of mice. Nutr Cancer 27, 206-209.
152. Moy LY & Bilings PC (1994) A proteolytic activity in human breast cancer cell
which is inhibited by the anticarcinogenic Bowman-Birk protease inhibitor.
Cancer Letters 85, 205-210.
153. Kennedy AR (1993) Cancer prevention by protease inhibitors. Preventative Med
22, 796-811.
154. Giovannucci E, Ascherio A, Rimm EB, et al. (1995) Intakes of carotenoids and
retinal in relation to risk of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 87, 1767-1776.
155. Konijeti R, Henning S, Moro A, et al. (2010) Chemoprevention of prostrate
cancer with lycopene in the tramp model. Prostate 70, 15471554.
156. Ilic D, Forbes KM, & Hassed C (2011) Lycopene for the prevention of prostate
cancer (Review). In The Cochrane Collaboration, pp. 1-23. JohnWiley & Sons.
157. Ziegler RG (1989) A review of epidemiologic evidence that carotenoids reduce
the risk of cancer. J Nutr 119, 116-122.
158. Bendich A (1994) Recent advances in clinical research involving carotenoids.
Pure Appl Chem 66, 1017-1024.
159. Seis H, Stahl W & Sundquist AR (1992) Antioxidant functions of vitamins.
Vitamins E and C, beta-carotene, and other carotenoids. Ann NY Acad Sci 669, 7-
160. Yanagihara K, Ito A, Toge T, et al. (1993) Antiproliferative effects of isoflavones
on human cancer cell lines established from the gastrointestinal tract. Cancer Res
53, 5815-5821.
161. Girón-Calle J, Vioque J, del Mar Yust M, et al. (2004) Effect of chickpea aqueous
extracts, organic extracts and protein concentrates on cell proliferation. J Med
Food 7, 122-129.
162. Murillo G, Choi JK, Pan O, et al. (2004) Efficacy of garbanzo and soybean flour
in suppression of aberrant crypt foci in the colons of CF-1 mice. Anticancer
Research 24, 3049-3056.
163. Mittal G, Vadhera S, Brar APS, et al. (2009) Protective role of chickpea seed coat
fibre on N-nitrosodiethylamine-induced toxicity in hypercholesterolemic rats.
Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology 61, 363-370.
164. Howarth NC, Saltzman E & Roberts SB (2001) Dietary fibre and weight
regulation. Nutr Reviews 59, 129-139.
165. Pereira MA & Ludwig DS (2001) Dietary fibre and body-weight regulation.
Observations and mechanisms. Pediatric Clinics of North America 48, 96980.
166. Burley VJ, Paul AW & Blundell JE (1993) Influence of a high-fibre food (myco-
protein) on appetite: effects on satiation (within meals) and satiety (following
meals). Eur J Clin Nutr 47, 409-418.
167. Swinburn BA, Caterson I, Seidell JC, et al. (2004) Diet, nutrition and the
prevention of excess weight gain and obesity. Public Health Nutr 7, 123-146.
168. Brand-Miller J, Holt SHA, Pawlak DB, et al. (2002) Glycemic index and obesity.
Am J Clin Nut 76, 281S-285S.
169. Holt S, Brand J, Soveny C, et al. (1992) Relationship of satiety to postprandial
glycemic, insulin and cholecystokinin responses. Appetite 18, 129-41.
170. Slabber M, Barnard HC, Kuyl JM, et al. (1994) Effects of a low-insulin-response,
energy-restricted diet on weight loss and plasma insulin concentrations in
hyperinsulinemic obese females. Am J Clin Nutr 60, 48-53.
171. Murty CM, Pittaway JK & Ball MJ (2010) Chickpea supplementation in an
Australian diet affects food choice, satiety and bowel function. Appetite 54, 282-
172. Nestel P, Cehun M & Chronopoulos A (2004) Effects of long-term consumption
and single meals of chickpea on plasma glucose, insulin, and triacylglycerol
concentrations. Am J Clin Nutr 79, 390-395.
173. Akihisa T, Yasukawa K, Yamaura M, et al. (2000) Triterpene alcohol and sterol
formulates from rice bran and their anti-inflammatory effects. J Agric Food Chem
48, 2313-2319.
174. Gopala Krishna AG, Prabhakar JV & Aitzetmuller K (1997) Tocopherol and fatty
acid composition of some Indian pulses. J Am Oil Chem Soc 74, 1603-1606.
175. Akihisa T, Nishismura Y, Nakamura N, et al. (1992) Sterols of Cajanus cajan and
three other leguminosae seeds. Phytochem 31, 1765-1768.
176. Arisawa M, Kinghorn DA, Cordell GA, et al. (1985) Plant anti-cancer agents
xxxvI, schottenol glucoside from Accharis cordifolia and Ipomopsis aggregate.
Plant Med 6, 544-555.
177. Wang T, Hicks KB & Moreau R (2002) Antioxidant activity of phytosterols,
oryzanol, and other phytosterol conjugates. J Am Oil Chem Soc 79, 1201-1206.
178. Mozaffarieh M, Sacu S & Wedrich A (2003) The role of the carotenoids, lutein
and zeaxanthin, in protecting against age-related macular degeneration: A review
based on controversial evidence. Nutrition Journal 2, 20.
179. Santos MS, Leka LS, Ribaya JDM, et al. (1998) Beta-carotene-induced
enhancement of natural killer cell activity in elderly men: an investigation of the
role of cytokines. Am J Clin Nutr 66, 917-924.
180. Reifen R (2002) Vitamin A as an anti inflammatory agent. Proc Nutr Soc 3, 397-
181. Pandey G & Enumeratio G (1993) In Planta Medica Gyanendra Ausadhiya
Padapavali, pp. 116. Delhi, India: Spring.
182. Sastry CST & Kavathekar KY (1990) In Plants for reclamation of wastelands. pp.
684, New Delhi, India: Council of Scientific and Industrial Research.
183. Warner PKW, Nambiar VPK & Remankutty C (1995) In Indian medicinal plants,
pp. 773-774. Chennai, India: Orient Longman.
184. Li YH, Jiang B, Zhang T, et al. (2008) Antioxidant and free radicalscavenging
activities of chickpea protein hydrolysate (CPH). Food Chem 106, 444-450.
185. Zhang T, Jiang B & Wang Z (2007) Nutrition and application of chickpea.
Cereals and Oils 7, 18-20 (in Chinese).
186. Zhang T, Jiang B & Wang Z (2007) Gelation properties of chickpea protein
isolates. Food Hydrocolloids 21, 280-286.
187. Rao HK & Subramanian N (1970) Essential amino acid composition of
commonly used Indian pulses by paper chromatography. J Food Sci Technol 7,
188. Baker BE, Papaconstantinou JA, Cross CK, et al. (1961) Protein and lipid
constitution of Pakistani pulses. J Sci Food Agric 12, 205-207.
189. Rao DSS & Deosthale YG (1981) Mineral composition of four Indian food
legumes. J Food Sci 46, 1962-1963.
190. Singh U (1988) Anti-nutritional factors of chickpea and pigeonpea and their
removal by processing. Plant Fds Hum Nutr 38, 251-261.
Table 1. Different carbohydrate fractions in chickpea seeds
Wang & Daun(56)
et al.(23) (§)
41.1 36.4
(38.2-43.9) (33.1-40.4)
3.8 2.0
(3.10-4.41) (1.56-2.85)
0.6 0.5
(0.48-0.73) (0.46-0.77)
2.2 1.6
(1.76-2.72) (1.25-1.98)
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
K-Kabuli; D-Desi; *- in percentage of the dry weight of raw seed; -in g 100-g dry weight; -in mg g-1; §-in
g kg-1; -not measured; *and §-the type of chickpea is not specified.
Table 2. Nutrient composition of different legumes in g 100-g(32)
Total Sugars
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)
Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.)
Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
Mung bean (Vigna radiata L.)
Peas (Pisum sativum L.)
Faba bean (Vicia faba L.)
Table 3. Amino acid content in chickpea seeds
Amino Acid
Rao &
Wang & Daun(56)
Alajaji &
Wang et al.
5.80 5.90
(4.9-6.70) (5.2-6.90)
5.47 5.55
1.50 1.50
(1.1-2.10) (1.1-1.70)
1.92 2.05
1.30 1.40
0.19 0.15
(0.8-2.00) (1.1-1.60)
5.20 5.30
(4.5-6.20) (4.5-5.90)
5.81 5.42
2.80 2.30
(2.2-3.30) (1.4-3.10)
2.63 2.55
3.10 3.60
(2.6-3.90) (2.5-4.40)
3.90 3.70
6.40 7.00
(5.6-7.20) (5.6-7.70)
6.69 6.30
4.20 4.30
(3.3-5.10) (3.7-4.70)
3.13 3.23
3.70 4.00
(2.9-4.60) (2.8-4.70)
3.83 3.60
10.50 9.80
(8.3-13.7) (8.3-13.6)
8.07 8.11
2.10 2.20
(1.7-2.40) (1.7-2.70)
2.00 2.66
3.90 4.10
(3.5-4.70) (3.6-4.53)
3.44 3.40
Aspartic acid
12.10 12.80
(11.2-12.9) (11.1-15.9)
11.66 10.59
Glutamic acid
15.2 16.00
(13.1-17.5) (13.4-19)
20.24 16.70
3.80 3.90
(3.2-4.50) (3.3-4.20)
2.54 3.12
4.90 4.80
(3.8-6.50) (4.0-6.30)
4.04 3.95
5.90 6.00
(5.2-6.70) (5.5-6.90)
3.39 4.96
1.0 0.90
(0.7-1.60) (0.8-1.10)
K-Kabuli; D-Desi; N/D not determined; *-in mg g-1 protein; -in g 16-g N; -in g 100-g ; * & - chickpea
type is not specified.
Table 4. Fatty acid profiles of chickpea seeds
Fatty Acid
Baker et al.(188)
Wang & Daun (56)(†)
ND 0.02
- (0.0-0.10)
0.21 0.22
(0.19-0.26) (0.17-0.32)
9.41 9.09
(8.52-10.3) (8.56-11.0)
0.30 0.26
(0.27-0.34) (0.23-0.30)
1.42 1.16
(1.21-1.68) (1.04-1.60)
32.56 22.31
(27.7-42.46) (18.44-28.5)
51.20 61.62
(42.25-56.59) (53.10-65.25)
2.69 3.15
(2.23-3.91) (2.54-3.65)
0.66 0.51
(0.59-0.76) (0.45-0.74)
0.57 0.50
(0.48-0.70) (0.41-0.59)
0.06 0.12
(0.00-0.09) (0.08-0.15)
0.42 0.37
(0.29-0.48) (0.30-0.42)
0.07 0.13
(0.00-0.16) (0.00-0.21)
0.17 ND
(0.00-0.29) -
K-Kabuli; D-Desi; *-data in wt-% of total elute; -in % oil; -in g 100-g; numbers in paranthesis indicate
range; ND-measured but not detected; -not measured; *- chickpea type is not specified.
Table 5. Important sterols and tocopherols in oil from chickpea seeds
Sterols (%)
Gopala Krishna et al.(174)
Zia-Ul-Haq et al.(63)
Δ7- avenasterol
(mg/100g of oil)
33.94 ± 1.43
1.87 ± 0.17
186.17 ± 11.80
8.36 ± 1.40
3.67 ± 0.19
D-desi chickpea; *- the chickpea type is not specified.
Table 6. Chickpea seed oil: physical and chemical characteristics
Zai-Ul-Haq et al.(61)
Shad et al.(59)
Total oil (%)
Acid values (mg KOH/g)
Iodine values (Wijs method )
Saponification values(mg KOH/g)
Unsaponifiable matter (% w/w)
Specific gravity
Relative density (400C; g/cm3)
Refractive index (400C)
Peroxide value(mequiv/kg)
p-Anisidine value
Oxidation value
Flavor score
Monoacylglycerols (MAG; %)
Diacylglycerols (DAG; %)
Triacylglycerols (TAG; %)
Calorific value (kca/100g sample)
D-desi chickpea
Table 7. Mineral constituents of chickpea seed in mg 100-g
Rao &
Ibáñez et al.(70)
Wang & Daun(56)
1.25 1.20
1.00 1.00
(0.5-1.40) (0.7-1.40)
4.51 4.46
5.90 5.50
(4.6-7.00) (4.3-7.60)
3.57 3.50
3.60 4.40
(2.8-5.10) (3.6-5.60)
1.72 1.65
3.40 3.90
(2.8-4.10) (2.3-4.80)
210.0 154.0
161.70 106.60
(115-226.5) (80.5-144.3)
128.0 122.0
169.10 177.80
(143.7-188.6) (153-212.8)
22.9 21.07
- -
878.0 926.0
1215.70 1127.20
(1027.6-1479) (816-1580)
- -
377.30 505.1
(276.2-518.6) (294-828.8)
0.08 *
- -
- -
*-in μg g-1; -chickpea type is not specified.
Table 8. Vitamins in chickpea seed
Chavan et al.
Wang & Daun(56)
K (*)
Retinol (A)
Vitamin C
1.34 1.65
Vitamin (D2+D3)
Thiamin (B1)
0.4 0.29
Riboflavin (B2)
0.26 0.21
Niacin (B3)
1.22 1.72
Panthothenic acid (B5)
1.02 1.09
Pyridoxine (B6)
0.38 0.30
Cyanocobalamin (B12)
10.68 9.33
α-tocopherol (Vit E)
2.24 1.91
Choline, total
- -
(In μg 100-g)
Folic acid
299.21 206.48
Vitamin A, RAE
- -
- -
Vitamin K
- -
K-Kabuli; D-Desi; *- in mg 100-g; -in μg 100-g ; *&-chickpea type is not specified.
Table 9. Vitamin content in different legumes in mg 100-g (56)
(γ + α)
Red kidney
White kidney
Vit -Vitamin; Vitamin A & B12 not detected in these legumes; *- adopted from(32); - in μg 100-g.
Table 10. Anti-nutritional factors in chickpea
Alajaji & El-
Trypsin Inhibitor *
10.9 (6.7-14.6)
Chymotrypsin Inhibitor *
7.1 (5.7-9.4)
Amylase Inhibitor
8.7 (0-15.0)
Haemagglutinin activity
Total Phenols
3.03 (1.55-6.10)
400 **
0.8 ††
Mycotoxins (ppb)
18 (Traces-35)
Phytic Acid
Genistein §
Daidzein §
Secoisolariciresinol §
*-Units mg-1 protein; -in units g-1; -in units mg-1 sample; §-in mg 100-g; -in mg g-1; **- in units g-1; ††- in
mg 100-g; others in g 100-g dry weight of sample; Note: chickpea type is not specified in any of the citations
... Chickpea consumption was more common among non-white individuals than white individuals. This may be because chickpeas are commonly used in the cuisine of individuals from South Asia and the Caribbean, groups that make up a large proportion of the non-white population in the UK [19]. Despite this, the percentage consuming chickpeas increased in the white population, whereas non-whites' intake remained relatively unchanged. ...
... Whilst chickpea consumption has historically been associated with cultural dietary patterns from the Mediterranean, Middle East, and South Asia, contemporary consumption patterns, such as increasing interest in plant-based dietary patterns, may impact chickpea consumption. Chickpeas can be a valuable source of plant-based protein, and chickpea's protein quality is better than other beans, which is important for individuals relying on plant sources of proteins [19]. Between 2008-2019, the percentage of the population consuming a vegetarian-type dietary pattern increased from 4.8% (2008-2012) to 7.4% (2017-2019) among adults. ...
Full-text available
Background: Only 9% of individuals in the United Kingdom (UK) meet the recommendation for dietary fibre intake. Little is known about chickpea consumption in the UK. Methods: Chickpea intake trends and sociodemographic patterns were analysed using the National Diet and Nutrition Survey Rolling Programme data collected from 2008/09 to 2018/19 among 15,655 individuals ≥1.5 years completing a four-day food diary. Chickpea consumers were identified based on a list of chickpea-containing foods, with the most consumed foods being hummus, boiled chickpeas, chickpea flour, and low/reduced-fat hummus. Micronutrient and food group intakes were compared between chickpea consumers and non-consumers; the Modified Healthy Dietary Score was also assessed, which measures adherence to UK dietary recommendations. Results: Chickpea consumption increased from 6.1% (2008–2012) to 12.3% (2016–2019). Among 1.5–3 years, consumption increased from 5.7% to 13.4%, and among 19–64 years, consumption increased from 7.1% to 14.4%. The percentage of individuals eating chickpeas was higher among individuals with higher incomes and more education. Healthy-weight adults were more likely to consume chickpeas compared to those who were overweight or obese. Compared to both bean and non-bean consumers, chickpea consumers ate significantly more dietary fibre, fruits and vegetables, pulses, nuts, and less red meat and processed meat products. Chickpea consumers also had a higher Modified Healthy Dietary Score. Conclusions: In the UK, chickpea consumption more than doubled from 2008/09 to 2018/19. Chickpea consumers had a higher diet quality than non-consumers.
... Chickpea is pulses and also known as Bengal gram and are cultivated globally [10]. The protein quality of chickpeas is superior to that of other cereals, and they are a superb source of both carbohydrates and protein [11] pulses are called as "Nutritional seed for sustainable future" therefore year 2016 was announce as "The International year of pulses" by US and Food and Agricultural Organization [12]. ...
... Chickpea contains moderate amount of soluble fibers which can helps to reduce cholesterol level. Intake of chickpea which is god source of dietary fibers also, is related to a lower body mass index which can helps with the obesity or weight loss [10]. Compared to dairy equivalents, plant based dairy substitutes are effective for improving food safety, they have less allergens, improve nutrient profiles, and reduce lactose intolerance [13]. ...
Full-text available
In today's health conscious society. Plant-based diets have gained significant popularity due to their numerous benefits for both personal well being and environmental sustainability. This abstract introduces an innovative and enticing culinary creation: the vegan smoothie. This plant-based beverage combines a diverse array of nutrients-dense ingredients i.e. foxtail millet milk, white chickpea milk and mango pulp to offer a refreshing and nourishing experience for individuals seeking vibrant and wholesome dietary choice. The benefits of consuming vegan smoothie is manifold. Firstly, it provide a convenient and efficient way to incorporate a diverse range of nutrients into ones diet, contributing to improve digestion, immune function, and energy lavels. Secondly the abence of animal products in these smoothie aligns with ethical concern surrounding animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Furthermore, the high fiber content in vegan smoothie promotes weight management and supporting health metabolism. The two proportion of the vegan smoothie were formulated in the proportion of T1 (50:30:20), T2 (40:30:30). The result revealed that the proportion of sample T2which contained 40:30:30 was more acceptable in term of sensory parameters. T2 sample is analysed for its chemical and microbial evaluation. It content protein 4.7%, fat content 1.16%, crude fiber 1.81%, ash 0.18%. moisture 85.66%. Vegan smoothie is consumable product due to that microbial analysis also done by IS 5402:01 method and calculates standard plate count which is absent between 0 to 7 days of time span. Therefore the shelf life of vegan smoothie is up to 7 day. Keywords-vegan smoothie, plant based diet, foxtail millet, proximate analysis.
... Desi variety originated from India. It is a very important part of the human diet due to its nutritional and bioactive composition and its protein is considered better than some pulses [12]. ...
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of formulated ready-to-cook pancake (cheela) mix from blends of rice flour supplemented with ripe pumpkin powder with table salt, black salt, garam masala, kitchen king masala and refined oil was kept as constant (base recipe), rice flour supplemented with chickpea flour, rice flour supplemented with soybean flour and rice flour supplemented with green gram flour with pumpkin powder, table salt, black salt, garam masala, kitchen king masala and refined oil was kept as constant. Refined oil was used for the preparation of pancake (cheela) mix for serving. From each blend, six recipes were formulated, standardized and subjected to consumers for sensory evaluation. The best recipes from each blend based on sensory evaluation were prepared and referred to as R 1 , R 2 , R 3 and R 4. R 1 (75% rice flour+ 25% pumpkin powder), R 2 (65% rice flour +10% chickpea flour), R 3 (55% rice flour+20% soybean flour) and R 4 (45% rice flour+30% green gram flour) were prepared and kept to the Aluminiun Laminated Pouches (ALP) and glass jars for nutritional characteristics evaluation. Based on sensory evaluation, the ready-to-cook pancake (cheela) mix for serving from the recipe (R 1) had the highest overall acceptability score of 8.79 however all recipes had scores above the acceptable limit. The ready-to-cook pancake (cheela) mix supplemented with soybean flour (R 3) exhibited the highest nutritional values for crude protein 25.76%, crude fat 8.78 %, crude fibre 7.04 % and total energy 382.46 Kcal/100g. Soybean flour is very nutritious therefore, it should be incorporated into staple foods for children in least-developed countries to alleviate malnutrition, especially Protein Energy Malnutrition (PEM). The recipes of the present study are relevant to the Government, NGOs and other agencies to eradicate malnutrition.
... Moreover, chickpeas are among the legumes with the lowest content of antinutritional factors (Jukanti et al., 2012). When combined with cereals in appropriate proportions, it results in a protein with an improve amino acid profile (Cota et al., 2010). ...
Full-text available
Legumes constitute a significant protein source in the human diet. Among this category, the chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is recognized as an alternative crop due to its efficient water usage. This efficiency has generated a growing interest in its improvement, commercialization and generation of value-added products, particularly within the domain of functional foods. The literature contains a multitude of techniques for evaluating protein content in legumes, complicating the comparison of results among different research groups. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of four distinct extraction buffers on protein concentration in extracts of chickpea flour from two varieties, Costa 2004 and Blanoro, testing the effect of the extraction temperature at 25 and 37 °C. Additionally, the integrity of the samples was evaluated by analyzing the protein profile using SDS-PAGE. The results obtained showed a significant difference in protein concentration due to the choice of extraction buffer and extraction temperature. We propose the implementation of Tris buffer 500 mM pH 6.8 at 25°C to standardize the process of characterizing protein extracts from chickpea flour for comparative purposes. This standardized protocol serves as a valuable tool for agronomic characterization and offers a comprehensive framework for future research in this field.
... Nodulation and resultant symbiotic N fixation vary significantly with the agronomic practices (plant population, nutrient management and soil nitrogen availability). Among the pulses, chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), is drought tolerant, suitable for rainfed conditions in marginal areas and remained an important source of vegetarian protein (20-22%) and superior to other pulses (Jukanti et al., 2012). Apart from protein, it is a good source of minerals, calcium, essential amino acids and several bio-active compounds (phytates, lectins and enzyme inhibitors) that help in reducing the risk of chronic diseases like cardiovascular diseases, cancer, leukoderma etc., (Wallace et al., 2016) and considered as "functional food" (Yegrem, 2021). ...
Background: Among the agronomic practices, optimum plant population and balanced nutrient management are pivotal for enhanced pulse production besides ensuring soil health. Methods: Present study was conducted during rabi 2020-21 and 2021-22 in split plot design with four main plots viz; seed rate (52, 70, 77 and 105 kg ha-1) and seven sub-plot nutrient management practices viz., N1- absolute control , N2- 75% RDF, N3- 100% RDF (20:50:20 kg N, P2O5 and K2O ha-1), N4 -125 % RDF, S5- 75% RDF + soil application of microbial consortia (Azotobacter + Phosphorus solubilizing bacteria (PSB) + Potassium releasing bacteria (KRB)+ Zinc solubilizing bacteria (ZnSB) @ 5 kg ha-1), N6- 100 % RDF + MC and N7- 125% RDF + MC. Result: Higher nodulation, seed yield (25.8 q ha-1) and economics (net returns ₹ 88807 ha-1 and B-C ratio 2.92) were registered with seed rate of 105 kg ha-1. However, protein content of chickpea was better with seed rate of 52 kg ha-1. Among the nutrient management treatments, crop growth, nodulation, seed yield (25.8 q ha-1) and economics (net returns ₹ 84388 ha-1 and B-C ratio 2.90) were found to be better with application of 125% RDF + Microbial consortia. Significant and positive correlation was found between the parameters at p less than 0.01.
Full-text available
The soaking step of dry pulse products' – e.g. chickpeas' – food processing is a time consuming process. Soaking time can be significantly reduced by ultrasonic treatment or using higher processing temperatures. The effect of ultrasonic treatment can be investigated by examining the soaking water characteristics. Ultrasound-assisted soaking of chickpeas was performed at 25, 35 and 45 °C, respectively. Additionally, control samples were also prepared without ultrasonic treatment at the same temperatures. The dynamics of the fitted curve clearly shows the relationship namely the higher the treatment temperature, the faster the hydration of the raw material for both untreated and treated groups. In contrast to control group, swelling rate of 2.00 – except the group 45 °C – is not achieved during ultrasound-assisted soaking. In case of treated group, the swelling rate was about 1.90 for all temperatures applied. The ANOVA test shows that the color of the ultrasonically treated samples was significantly different compared to the control (F (5;12) = 207.86; P < 0.001). Average dry matter content and °Brix value were significantly higher in the ultrasound treated group compared to the control in case of all temperatures. This may indicate the destructive effect of ultrasound, which may cause more components to dissolve out of the raw material by the end of the soaking process.
Chickpea ( Cicer arietinum ) is a pulse crop that provides an integral source of nutrition for human consumption. The close wild relatives Cicer reticulatum and Cicer echinospermum harbor untapped genetic diversity that can be exploited by chickpea breeders to improve domestic varieties. Knowledge of genomic loci that control important chickpea domestication traits will expedite the development of improved chickpea varieties derived from interspecific crosses. Therefore, we set out to identify genomic loci underlying key chickpea domestication traits by both association and quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping using interspecific F 2 populations. Diverse phenotypes were recorded for various agronomic traits. A total of 11 high‐confidence markers were detected on chromosomes 1, 3, and 7 by both association and QTL mapping; these were associated with growth habit, flowering time, and seed traits. Furthermore, we identified candidate genes linked to these markers, which advanced our understanding of the genetic basis of domestication traits and validated known genes such as the FLOWERING LOCUS gene cluster that regulates flowering time. Collectively, this study has elucidated the genetic basis of chickpea domestication traits, which can facilitate the development of superior chickpea varieties.
Leguminous plants, which include beans, peas, and lentils, are vital to long-term agricultural sustainability because of their ability to thrive in regions with changing weather patterns and diminished precipitation. Active research is going on to generate new types of legumes that can thrive in temperatures 4 or 5 degrees higher than average. The discovery of novel bioactive chemicals and functional food ingredients for disease prevention has made significant strides in recent years. In the past, legumes were considered foods that were good for people’s health. Legumes are plants in the family Fabaceae. Since antiquity, their seeds have been essential to human nutrition. Legumes have high contents of proteins and complex carbohydrates such as dietary fiber and resistant starch, as well as low levels of lipids. Also, legumes are an essential source of minerals such as iron, zinc, and calcium. Legumes are rich in vitamins, including folate, which lessens the chance of neural tube abnormalities. In addition, they contribute to the prevention of chronic diseases by providing bioactive substances. In this chapter, we discuss several topics related to enriching legume protein contents.
Climate change and the rapidly growing global population, coupled with the problem of hidden hunger, necessitates the implementation of environmentally friendly agriculture practices to boost crop nutritional value and productivity. An effective solution for this is the use of plant growth–promoting bacteria (PGPB) in legume biofortification, which offers numerous health benefits and decreases the risk of various diseases. Legumes, being a significant source of plant proteins, can engage in symbiotic nitrogen (N) fixation, solubilize phosphorus (P), reduce CO2 emissions, improve plant resistance to pathogens, and enhance soil exploration, ultimately leading to improved plant growth and soil preservation. However, the potential of microbe-mediated legume biofortification has not yet been fully explored. This chapter focuses on the significance of microbe-mediated legume biofortification in improving plant nutritional value, agronomic traits, and yields. It also emphasizes the need for the integration of genetic, biochemical, physiological, and environmental data to achieve this. Hence, the use of beneficial rhizobacteria as biofertilizers constitutes a cost-effective and promising approach for sustainable agriculture and the resolution of food security issues around the world.
Full-text available
Although weight loss can be achieved by any means of energy restriction, current dietary guidelines have not prevented weight regain or population-level increases in obesity and overweight. Many high-carbohydrate, low-fat diets may be counterproductive to weight control because they markedly increase postprandial hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia. Many high-carbohydrate foods common to Western diets produce a high glycemic response [high-glycemic-index (GI) foods], promoting postprandial carbohydrate oxidation at the expense of fat oxidation, thus altering fuel partitioning in a way that may be conducive to body fat gain. In contrast, diets based on low-fat foods that produce a low glycemic response (low-GI foods) may enhance weight control because they promote satiety, minimize postprandial insulin secretion, and maintain insulin sensitivity. This hypothesis is supported by several intervention studies in humans in which energy-restricted diets based on low-GI foods produced greater weight loss than did equivalent diets based on high-GI foods. Long-term studies in animal models have also shown that diets based on high-GI starches promote weight gain, visceral adiposity, and higher concentrations of lipogenic enzymes than do isoenergetic, macronutrientcontrolled, low-GI-starch diets. In a study of healthy pregnant women, a high-GI diet was associated with greater weight at term than was a nutrient-balanced, low-GI diet. In a study of diet and complications of type 1 diabetes, the GI of the overall diet was an independent predictor of waist circumference in men. These findings provide the scientific rationale to justify randomized, controlled, multicenter intervention studies comparing the effects of conventional and low-GI diets on weight control.
There is growing evidence that cereals and legumes play important roles in the prevention of chronic diseases. Early epidemiologic studies of these associations focused on intake of dietary fiber rather than intake of grains or legumes. Generally, these studies indicated an inverse association between dietary fiber intake and risk of coronary artery disease; this observation has been replicated in recent cohort studies. Studies that focused on grain or cereal intake are fewer in number; these tend to support an inverse association between intake of whole grains and coronary artery disease. Studies on the association of dietary fiber with colon and other cancers have generally shown inverse relations, but whether these relations are attributable to cereals, other fiber sources, or other factors is less clear. Although legumes have been shown to lower blood cholesterol concentrations, epidemiologic studies are few and inconclusive regarding the association of legumes with risk of coronary artery disease. It has been hypothesized that legumes, in particular soybeans, reduce the risk of some cancers, but epidemiologic studies are equivocal in this regard. Overall, there is substantial epidemiologic evidence that dietary fiber and whole grains are associated with decreased risk of coronary artery disease and some cancers, whereas the role of legumes in these diseases appears promising but as yet inconclusive.
There is an increasing demand for food technologists who are not only familiar with the practical aspects of food processing and mer­ chandising but who are also well grounded in chemistry as it relates to the food industry. Thus, in the training of food technologists there is a need for a textbook that combines both lecture material and lab­ oratory experiments involving the major classes of foodstuffs and food additives. To meet this need this book was written. In addition, the book is a reference text for those engaged in research and technical work in the various segments of the food industry. The chemistry of representative classes of foodstuffs is considered with respect to food composition, effects of processing on composition, food deterioration, food preservation, and food additives. Standards of identity for a number of the food products as prescribed by law are given. The food products selected from each class of foodstuffs for lab­ oratory experimentation are not necessarily the most important eco­ nomically or the most widely used. However, the experimental methods and techniques utilized are applicable to the other products of that class of foodstuff. Typical food adjuncts and additives are discussed in relation to their use in food products, together with the laws regulating their usage. Laboratory experiments are given for the qualitative identification and quantitative estimation of many of these substances.
Conference Paper
Consumption of pulses as components of healthy diets is encouraged because it is believed that this is likely to help in reducing the risk of common non-communicable diseases, including cancers. However, the evidence base for the role of pulses in prevention of cancers is unconvincing because of the difficulties, using conventional epidemiological tools, in ascertaining the quantitive contribution made by pulses to cancer risk. Adances in understanding of the biological basis of cancer and of the mechanisms of action of cancer preventing compounds offer new insights into the role of food-derived substances and of diet-gene interactions in modulating cancer risk. Pulses contain a rich variety of compounds which, if consumed in sufficient quantities, may help to reduce tumour risk.
CONTEXT: It has been suggested that total blood homocysteine concentrations are associated with the risk of ischemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship of homocysteine concentrations with vascular disease risk. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE was searched for articles published from January 1966 to January 1999. Relevant studies were identified by systematic searches of the literature for all reported observational studies of associations between IHD or stroke risk and homocysteine concentrations. Additional studies were identified by a hand search of references of original articles or review articles and by personal communication with relevant investigators. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they had data available by January 1999 on total blood homocysteine concentrations, sex, and age at event. Studies were excluded if they measured only blood concentrations of free homocysteine or of homocysteine after a methionine-loading test or if relevant clinical data were unavailable or incomplete. DATA EXTRACTION: Data from 30 prospective or retrospective studies involving a total of 5073 IHD events and 1113 stroke events were included in a meta-analysis of individual participant data, with allowance made for differences between studies, for confounding by known cardiovascular risk factors, and for regression dilution bias. Combined odds ratios (ORs) for the association of IHD and stroke with blood homocysteine concentrations were obtained by using conditional logistic regression. DATA SYNTHESIS: Stronger associations were observed in retrospective studies of homocysteine measured in blood collected after the onset of disease than in prospective studies among individuals who had no history of cardiovascular disease when blood was collected. After adjustment for known cardiovascular risk factors and regression dilution bias in the prospective studies, a 25% lower usual (corrected for regression dilution bias) homocysteine level (about 3 micromol/L [0.41 mg/L]) was associated with an 11% (OR, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.96) lower IHD risk and 19% (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95) lower stroke risk. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of observational studies suggests that elevated homocysteine is at most a modest independent predictor of IHD and stroke risk in healthy populations. Studies of the impact on disease risk of genetic variants that affect blood homocysteine concentrations will help determine whether homocysteine is causally related to vascular disease, as may large randomized trials of the effects on IHD and stroke of vitamin supplementation to lower blood homocysteine concentrations.
Enzyme inhibitors are prevalent among many plant species and have been detected in many different plant organs. Plant proteins have been identified that inhibit many diverse enzymes, including animal digestive proteases and amylases; other animal enzymes, including elastase, thrombin, plasmin and kallikrein; bacterial enzymes, such as subtilisin; fungal enzymes; endogenous plant proteases and amylases; and insect digestive enzymes (García-Olmedo et al., 1987; Richardson, 1991; Hilder et al.,1990; Beïozersky et al., 1995). Classification of inhibitors according to either the type of enzyme inhibited or the source of inhibitor is not meaningful. The source of a particular enzyme can determine its degree of interaction with an inhibitor, so that proteins that are inhibitory towards a particular enzyme from one group of animals may have little or no effect on the equivalent enzyme from a different source. This distinction among enzymes is most striking in the case of α-amylase inhibitors that do not inhibit some α-amylases (Section 2) but even a small number of amino acid substitutions in, for example, bovine, compared with porcine, trypsin may be significant in affecting complex formation with inhibitors (Sweet et al., 1974), an effect that ultimately influences apparent inhibitory activity values (Le Guen and Birk, 1993). Furthermore many inhibitors can inhibit more than one enzyme at distinct, or the same, sites on the inhibitor protein and it has been speculated that some inhibitors could act on enzymes other than those tested and reported. In addition, DNA sequences have been isolated that encode proteins with homology to inhibitors but for which an inhibitory function has not been demonstrated for the corresponding protein, giving rise to nomenclature such as “probable amylase/protease inhibitor” (PAPI) in barley and rice and inclusion of these and other deduced protein sequences, having low similarity to known inhibitors, in amino acid sequence alignments of inhibitors (Richardson, 1991). Nonetheless, a classification of enzyme inhibitors based on sequence homologies has proved useful and up to twelve distinct classes of plant inhibitors are generally recognized (Chapter 25).