Content uploaded by Jane Pittaway
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jane Pittaway on Mar 15, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Fax +41 61 306 12 34
E-Mail karger@karger.ch
www.karger.com
Original Paper
Ann Nutr Metab 2006;50:512–518
DOI: 10.1159/000098143
Dietary Supplementation with Chickpeas
for at Least 5 Weeks Results in Small but
Significant Reductions in Serum Total and
Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterols in Adult
Women and Men
J.K. Pittaway
a
K.D.K. Ahuja
a
M. Cehun
b
A. Chronopoulos
b
I.K. Robertson
a
P. J. N estel
b
M.J. Ball
a
a
School of Human Life Sciences, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Tas. , and
b
Baker Heart Research Institute, Melbourne, Vic. , Australia
and dietary fibre contents between the two intervention di-
ets. Conclusions: Inclusion of chickpeas in an intervention
diet results in lower serum total and low-density lipoprotein
cholesterol levels as compared with a wheat-supplemented
diet. Copyright © 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel
Introduction
Research has indicated a strong association between di-
etary patterns and cardiovascular disease (CVD) [1] . A
high intake of saturated fats and a low intake of dietary fi-
bre have been strongly associated with high blood lipid
levels [1–4] , a prominent risk factor for CVD [5, 6] . Le-
gumes and pulses are low in saturated fat and higher in
polyunsaturated fat, protein and complex carbohydrates.
They are a good source of resistant starch and soluble and
insoluble dietary fibres [7–10] . Examination of the litera-
ture reveals a gradual development of interest in the con-
tribution of legumes and pulses to a healthy lifestyle [11,
12] . In human studies, the consumption of pulses has been
associated with a reduction of hypercholesterolaemia [13–
15] and a reduced risk of coronary heart disease [11]
.
Key Words
Chickpeas Legumes Cardiovascular diseases
Cholesterol reduction Intervention, cholesterol reduction
Abstract
Aim: To compare the effects of a chickpea-supplemented
diet and those of a wheat-supplemented diet on human se-
rum lipids and lipoproteins. Methods: Forty-seven free-
living adults participated in a randomized crossover weight
maintenance dietary intervention involving two dietary pe-
riods, chickpea-supplemented and wheat-supplemented
diets, each of at least 5 weeks duration. Results: The serum
total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol
levels were significantly lower (both p ! 0.01) by 3.9 and
4.6%, respectively, after the chickpea-supplemented diet as
compared with the wheat-supplemented diet. Protein (0.9%
of energy, p = 0.01) and monounsaturated fat (3.3% of total
fat, p ! 0.001) intakes were slightly but significantly lower
and the carbohydrate intake significantly higher (1.7% of en-
ergy, p ! 0.001) on the chickpea-supplemented diet as com-
pared with the wheat-supplemented diet. Multivariate anal-
yses suggested that the differences in serum lipids were
mainly due to small differences in polyunsaturated fatty acid
Received: November 1, 2005
Accepted: June 6, 2006
Published online: December 21, 2006
Prof. Madeleine J. Ball
School of Human Life Sciences, University of Tasmania
Locked Bag 1320
Launceston, Tas. 7250 (Australia)
Tel. +61 3 6324 5480, Fax +61 3 6324 3658, E-Mail madeleine.ball@utas.edu.au
© 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel
0250–6807/06/0506–0512$23.50/0
Accessible online at:
www.karger.com/anm
Effect of Chickpeas on Serum Lipids
Ann Nutr Metab 2006;50:512–518
513
Chickpeas have been a staple part of Indian, Mediter-
ranean, and African diets for many thousands of years
[10, 16] . Worldwide, they are the second most cultivated
pulse worldwide and the third largest in terms of the
amount of pulse produced worldwide [9, 17, 18] . They are,
however, a relatively novel addition to Western cuisine.
Every 100 g of dried chickpeas contain 19.3 g of protein
that compares favourably with wheat at 10.7 g [7] . In con-
trast to most other pulses and cereals, chickpeas have a
relatively high fat content. This makes them an important
energy source for vegans and those without regular ac-
cess to meat and dairy products – the fat is mostly poly-
unsaturated, with less than 1% saturated fat [7] . While
the ratio of soluble to insoluble fibre in legumes is com-
parable to that of grains (approximately 1:
3 for both) [19]
per 100 g edible portion, chickpeas contain 17.4 g total
dietary fibre as compared with 12.7 g for wheat [7] . Chick-
peas are a rich source of vitamins, minerals, and phyto-
oestrogens. They are relatively free from antinutrients,
such as lectins, but do contain small amounts of sapo-
nins, some tannins, and phytate [8, 9, 20] .
There are only two studies [21, 22] which have exam-
ined the potential beneficial effects of chickpeas on hu-
man health, especially with regard to hypercholesterolae-
mia. Additional research is required to gain a better un-
derstanding of the effects of chickpeas in the human diet,
especially on CVD risk factors. Thus, the aim of this re-
search was to compare the effects of a chickpea-supple-
mented diet with those of a wheat-supplemented diet on
serum lipids and lipoproteins. The latter diet was chosen
as a comparison, because the ‘usual Australian’ diet is
based on food products made from wheat, e.g., bread,
breakfast cereals, and pasta. This work presents results
obtained from two very similar Australian studies un-
dertaken in Launceston (Tasmania) and Melbourne (Vic-
toria).
Materials and Methods
Participants and Study Design
Free-living adults, aged 30–70 years, not taking cholesterol-
lowering medication were invited to participate. Each participant
provided signed, informed consent. The Northern Tasmania
Health and Medical Human Research Ethics Committee (Laun-
ceston) and the Alfred Research & Ethics Unit (Melbourne)
granted approval for the studies. The studies followed a random-
ized crossover design, with two periods of dietary intervention – a
chickpea-supplemented (chickpea) diet and a wheat-supplement-
ed (wheat) diet. The Launceston group had dietary intervention
periods of 5 weeks’ duration, separated by an 8-week period over
the Christmas recess, when food intake and lifestyle are usually
different. The Melbourne group had intervention periods of 6
weeks’ duration without an intervening period [23] , as they com-
menced the study in June and completed it before Christmas. The
comparison was of dietary intakes and blood lipid concentrations
at the end of the chickpea-supplemented and wheat-supplement-
ed diets. The study did not monitor the changes from a ‘baseline’
value influenced by an uncontrolled usual diet. It has been re-
ported that it takes 4 weeks for blood lipid levels to reflect the ef-
fects of an altered dietary intake, where iso-energetic conditions
prevail [24, 25] , and the intervention periods were a minimum of
5 weeks to allow stabilization.
Dietary Design
Before starting the dietary intervention periods, the study par-
ticipants were asked to record their complete food consumption
over 4 days (2 weekdays and 2 weekend days) in their weighed
food diet diaries that were used to calculate the usual dietary en-
ergy intake using Food Works version 2.10 with the Nuttab 95 and
AusNut databases (Xyris Software, Brisbane, Australia). The in-
tervention diets (chickpea and wheat) were then devised to be iso-
energetic with and based on the participants’ habitual diet. An
attempt was also made to match the total fat, carbohydrate, pro-
tein, and dietary fibre intakes between the two intervention peri-
ods.
The chickpea diet involved daily consumption of 140 g (2
serves) of canned, drained chickpeas, chickpea bread, and chick-
pea shortbread biscuits. The chickpeas (300 g net weight; Edgell
brand) from the same date/batch of canning were provided to the
participants. Bread and the shortbread biscuits containing 30%
chickpea flour were provided by The Grain Research Develop-
ment Corporation (Canberra, Australia). This ensured the intake
of the same type and variety of chickpeas and chickpea products
between participants in the two research centres. Chickpea and
chickpea-based foods (bread and biscuit) contributed approxi-
mately 3.4 MJ of energy per day with 16% of energy from protein,
19% of energy from total fats, and 65% of energy from carbohy-
drates and approximately 27 g of dietary fibre. The wheat diet
involved consumption of wholemeal (wheat) bread, high-fibre
(wheat) breakfast cereals ( 1 2.5 g fibre/100 g), and shortbread bis-
cuits that the participants purchased from their usual grocery
suppliers.
The participants were provided with a list of the amount and
variety of foods allowed during the two dietary periods. Fruit,
vegetable and fat intakes were kept similar between the two inter-
vention periods. The participants were requested to refrain from
eating any foods with cholesterol-lowering claims (e.g., phytos-
terol margarine), legumes (other than the chickpeas supplied), or
foods with high-fibre claims (e.g., ‘fibre-enriched’ yogurt or fruit
juices). The participants were advised not to take more than two
standard drinks of alcohol per day. They were also asked to main-
tain their usual pattern of physical activity and body weight
throughout the study period.
The participants were contacted regularly to discuss any prob-
lems related to diets and to provide encouragement and support.
The participants again recorded their 4 days of dietary intake in
the last week of the two intervention diets. These were analyzed
using FoodWorks software (Xyris Software) to calculate and com-
pare nutrient intake between the two intervention diets and to
check the dietary compliance.
Pittaway /Ahuja /Cehun /Chronopoulos /
Robertson
/Nestel /Ball
Ann Nutr Metab 2006;50:512–518
514
Laboratory Measurements and Statistics
Venous blood samples at the start and at the end (day 36 for
the Launceston Group and day 43 for the Melbourne group) of the
two dietary periods were collected at rest, after an overnight fast
of 10 h. For serum separation, the blood was allowed to coagulate
for 1 h and then centrifuged at 800 g at 4
° C for 20 min. Serum was
aliquoted and stored at –70
° C for later analysis. All biochemical
analyses were subsequently performed in the same run, to reduce
interassay variability.
Lipid measurements were performed in complete runs for
each participant using autoanalyzers: in Launceston an RA 1000
autoanalyzer (Technicon, Emeryville, Calif., USA) and Thermo-
trace reagents (Thermo Electron, Waltham, Mass., USA) and in
Melbourne a Hitachi 917 autoanalyzer and Roche reagents (both
Roche Diagnostics Australia, Castle Hill, Australia). Low-density
lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) for both groups was determined
using the Friedewald equation [26] .
Repeated-measures ANOVA (STATA version 8.2; StataCorp,
College Station, Tex., USA) performed by general linear modeling
was used to compare the ingestion of nutrients during the chick-
pea-supplemented and the wheat-supplemented diets and to de-
termine the effects of the diets on the serum lipids and lipopro-
teins. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to assess the
associations between dietary intakes and lipid profiles. All data
were adjusted for the order of diet (chickpea and then wheat or
wheat and then chickpea) and the chronological order of blood
sample collection (order and period effects). The results were ex-
pressed as the effect size. For categorical variables such as the diet
(chickpea or wheat), the effect size was the difference in choles-
terol levels (mmol/l) between the two group variables. For con-
tinuous dietary component variables [such as fibre, polyunsatu-
rated fatty acids (PUFA) as percentage of dietary fat], the standard
normal value or z-score = (subject variable value – group mean)/
standard deviation was calculated for each dietary variable for
each subject. The effect size for continuous variables was the
change in cholesterol levels (mmol/l) associated with a rise of 1 SD
in the dietary variable. Data from each study centre were analyzed
separately and as a combined group.
R e s u l t s
Fifty-two people commenced the study (Launceston
n = 31; Melbourne n = 21). Three participants withdrew
due to employment commitments and 2 more due to ab-
dominal discomfort attributed to the ingestion of chick-
peas. Thus, 47 participants (Launceston n = 27; Mel-
bourne n = 20) completed the study: 28 females and 19
males. Mean ( 8 SD) age, weight, and body mass index
(BMI) at the start of the intervention study were 53.0 8
9.8 years, 79.3 8 16.3 kg, and 27.6 8 4.1 kg/m
2
, respec-
tively.
There were no significant differences in body weight
and BMI between the start and the end of each dietary
period or at the ends of the two intervention diets (all
p 1
0.2). Body weight and BMI at the end of the chickpea
diet were 79.1 8 16.1 kg and 27.1 8 4.1 kg/m
2
, respec-
tively, while at the end of the wheat diet the values were
79.0 8 16.4 kg and 27.1 8 4.1 kg/m
2
, respectively. Simi-
larly, serum lipids and lipoproteins were not significantly
different at the start of the two intervention diets: p 1 0.6
for serum total cholesterol (TC), LDL-C, high-density
lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triacylglycerol.
Table 1 shows the mean daily energy, macronutrient,
and dietary fibre intakes of the study participants from
the final week of each dietary phase. Dietary records, par-
ticipant feedback, and a differential count of cans of chick-
peas provided indicated that the participants consumed
the requisite amount of chickpea and wheat products.
Launceston group: There was a small but significantly
lower intake of protein (1% of energy; p = 0.04) during the
chickpea diet as compared with the wheat diet. Further-
more, there was a significantly higher intake of PUFA
(2.9% of total fat; p = 0.01) and a lower intake of mono-
unsaturated fatty acids(MUFA; 3% of total fat; p = 0.03)
during the chickpea diet as compared with the wheat
diet.
Melbourne group: A small but statistically significant-
ly lower consumption of total fat (2.2% of energy; p =
0.02), saturated fatty acids (2.9% of total fat; p = 0.03), and
MUFA (3.7% of total fat; p = 0.002) was observed during
the chickpea diet as compared with the wheat diet. In
contrast, there was a significantly higher intake of dietary
fibre (7.0 g; p = 0.02) and carbohydrate (2.7% of energy;
p = 0.01) during the chickpea diet as compared with the
wheat diet.
There was no significant difference in total energy in-
take of the individual or combined group. The combined
group showed a small but statistically significantly lower
protein intake (0.9% of energy; p = 0.01) and MUFA in-
take (3.3% of total fat; p ! 0.001) on the chickpea diet as
compared with the wheat diet. Conversely, the carbohy-
drate intake was slightly but significantly higher (1.7% of
energy; p = 0.02) on the chickpea diet as compared with
the wheat diet. The alcohol intake was similar between
the two intervention diets (p = 0.49).
There was no heterogeneity in the effect of diet
between
the two centres (centre difference TC 0.08,
95%
confidence interval (CI) from –0.16 to 0.32, p =
0.51; LDL-
C 0.03, 95% CI from –0.18 to 0.25, p = 0.77).
Thus analysis to determine the effect of selected dietary
components on serum TC and LDL-C was performed on
the combined group.
Serum TC was 3.9% lower (0.22 mmol/l; 95% CI from
0.1 to 0.35; p = 0.001) and LDL-C was 4.6% lower
(0.18 mmol/l; 95% CI from 0.07 to 0.29; p = 0.002) at the
Effect of Chickpeas on Serum Lipids
Ann Nutr Metab 2006;50:512–518
515
completion of the chickpea diet as compared with the
wheat diet for the combined group ( table 2 ). The Laun-
ceston group showed a 4.1% lower (p = 0.01) TC level and
a 3.0% lower (p = 0.03) LDL-C value after the chickpea
diet as compared with the wheat diet. For the Melbourne
group TC was 3.5% (p = 0.05) and LDL-C 4.4% (p = 0.04)
lower after the chickpea-supplemented diet as compared
with the wheat-supplemented diet. Serum HDL-C and
triacylglycerol levels were not significantly different be-
tween the two intervention diets (either in the separate or
the combined groups).
Analysis revealed a substantial effect of the chickpea
diet as a whole on serum TC (p = 0.001) and LDL-C (p =
0.002) as compared with the wheat diet. The apparent
Table 2. Serum lipid profiles of the study participants at the end of each dietary period (mean values and 95% CI in parentheses) ad-
justed for order of diet and chronological order of measurement
Launceston (n = 27) Melbourne (n = 20) Combined (n = 47)
chickpea wheat chickpea wheat chickpea wheat
TC, mmol/l 5.88
a
(5.36–6.39)
6.13
(5.62–6.65)
5.58
a
(5.14–6.02)
5.78
(5.35–6.17)
5.75
a
(5.40–6.11)
5.98
(5.62–6.33)
LDL-C, mmol/l 3.89
a
(3.45–4.33)
4.01
(3.65–4.52)
3.46
a
(3.13–3.78)
3.62
(3.26–3.40)
3.71
a
(3.41–4.01)
3.89
(3.58–4.20)
HDL-C, mmol/l 1.33
(1.19–1.47)
1.36
(1.21–1.50)
1.46
(1.26–1.67)
1.49
(1.29–1.68)
1.39
(1.27–1.51)
1.41
(1.29–1.53)
Triacylglycerols, mmol/l 1.44
(1.14–1.75)
1.53
(1.31–1.75)
1.47
(0.85–2.09)
1.46
(1.03–1.89)
1.46
(1.15–1.76)
1.50
(1.28–1.72)
a
Mean values differ between chickpea-supplemented and wheat-supplemented diets (repeated-measures analysis of variance: p <
0.05).
Table 1. Daily macronutrient intake of the study participants during the chickpea-supplemented and wheat-supplemented diets (mean
values with 95% CI in parentheses)
Launceston (n = 24) Melbourne
(n = 19) Combined
(n = 43)
chickpea wheat chickpea wheat chickpea wheat
Total energy, MJ 8.9
(8.3–9.5)
9.1
(8.5–9.7)
7.4
(6.0–8.8)
7.5
(5.6–9.4)
8.2
(7.5–8.9)
8.4
(7.5–9.3)
Protein, % of energy 17.2
a
(16.0–18.3)
18.2
(16.9–19.6)
19.3
(18.2–20.4)
20.0
(18.9–21.0)
18.1
a
(17.3–18.9)
19.0
(18.1–19.9)
Carbohydrate, % of energy 43.6
(41.3–45.9)
42.6
(40.4–44.7)
48.7
a
(45.6–51.8)
46.0
(42.7–49.3)
45.8
a
(43.9–47.8)
44.1
(42.2–46.0)
Total fat, % of energy 33.9
(31.7–36.0)
34.0
(32.0–36.1)
29.7
a
(26.0–33.3)
31.9
(28.2–35.7)
32.0
(30.0–34.0)
33.1
(31.2–35.1)
Saturated fatty acids, % of total fat 40.5
(37.0–44.0)
40.4
(37.4–43.4)
34.7
a
(31.8–37.7)
37.7
(34.8–40.5)
38.0
(35.5–40.4)
39.2
(37.1–41.2)
PUFA, % of total fat 17.6
a
(15.6–19.5)
14.7
(13.3–16.0)
16.6
(13.7–19.5)
17.4
(14.6–20.1)
17.1
(15.5–18.7)
15.8
(14.4–17.3)
MUFA, % of total fat 42.0
a
(38.9–45.2)
45.0
(42.4–47.5)
31.3
a
(28.9–33.7)
35.0
(33.3–36.7)
37.3
a
(34.6–39.9)
40.6
(38.4–42.8)
Dietary fibre, g 28.4
(26.3–30.6)
29.3
(26.2–32.4)
33.1
a
(29.1–37.0)
26.1
(19.7–32.5)
30.5
(28.4–32.6)
27.9
(24.7–31.1)
a
Mean values differ between chickpea-supplemented and wheat-supplemented diets (repeated-measures analysis of variance: p <
0.05).
Pittaway /Ahuja /Cehun /Chronopoulos /
Robertson
/Nestel /Ball
Ann Nutr Metab 2006;50:512–518
516
association between individual nutrients and lipids was
assessed by univariate regression. Dietary fibre showed
the strongest association, with a reduction in serum TC
of 0.24 mmol/l (95% CI from –0.47 to –0.02; p = 0.03) and
in serum LDL-C of 0.21 mmol/l (95% CI from –0.42 to
–0.01; p = 0.04) for each increase in standard deviation
in fibre intake. Multivariate analyses showed that about
55% of the difference in serum TC and 78% in LDL-C
could be attributable to the combined effect of fibre and
PUFA in the chickpea diet ( table 3 ), as these were the re-
ductions in measured diet effect size when adjusted for
these confounding variables.
Discussion
This study investigated and compared a chickpea-sup-
plemented and a wheat-supplemented diet (of at least 5
weeks of dietary intervention) in 47 men and women at-
tending two separate centres and showed significantly
lower concentrations of serum TC and LDL-C after the
chickpea-supplemented diet.
Although a small but significant difference was ob-
served in protein, carbohydrate, and MUFA intakes be-
tween the two intervention diets, statistical analyses in-
dicated that this was not a significant effect. Most of the
differences in the lipids and lipoproteins could be attrib-
uted to the chickpea diet as a whole and the small differ-
ences in dietary fibre and PUFA to the chickpea diet as
compared with the wheat diet. Interpretation of this
should be cautious, since dietary fibre and PUFA are
characteristic components of the chickpeas, and regres-
sion analysis may be unreliable when separate measures
of the same property (in this case dietary fibre and PUFA
on the one hand and chickpea diet on the other) are in-
cluded in the same regression model. Certainty about
whether it is the fibre and PUFA components of chickpea
having the effect as opposed to some other property of
the chickpeas would require an experimental rather than
a statistical approach.
A wealth of data is available from other dietary inter-
vention trials showing much larger reductions in serum
TC and LDL-C with increased intake of fibre or PUFA.
However, most studies have included substantially higher
amounts of fibre or PUFA to show those changes. Cho-
lesterol lowering by high-fibre diets is best observed in
studies, where the dietary fibre intake is very high [27] ,
as much as two to three times the recommended intake
[28] . Similarly, although high-PUFA diets have shown
changes in serum lipids, concerns have been raised about
the effects of a high intake of PUFA ( 1 8% of total energy),
reducing the HDL-C concentrations [29] . In contrast, we
present here a pa latable food (chick pea) cont ai ni ng slight-
ly higher amounts of dietary fibre and PUFA as compared
Table 3. Combined effects of chickpea-supplemented versus wheat-supplemented diet and selected dietary components on TC and
LDL-C
1
TC, mmol/l LDL-C, mmol/l
effect size 95% CI p effect size 95% CI p
Diet
2
Chickpea versus wheat –0.10 –0.31 to 0.11 0.34 –0.04 –0.24 to 0.16 0.72
Total fat
(mean 32.6 8 SD 6.5)
% E
3
0.00 –0.19 to 0.19 0.99 0.15 –0.04 to 0.33 0.12
PUFA
(mean 16.5 8 SD 4.9)
% TF
4
–0.12 –0.35 to 0.11 0.33 –0.19 –0.33 to 0.07 0.21
MUFA
(mean 38.9 8 SD 8.0)
% TF
4
0.06 –0.14 to 0.25 0.56 –0.09 –0.25 to 0.07 0.26
Dietary fibre, g
(mean 29.2 8 SD 8.9)
–0.24 –0.48 to –0.0 0.05 –0.24 –0.47 to 0.00 0.05
1
Multivariate repeated-measures ANOVA using general linear modeling. Each model includes the variables with recorded coef-
ficients, adjusted for order of diet and chronological order of measurement (n = 47).
2
Effect size for diet is the difference in serum TC and LDL-C between the two intervention diets. For the dietary components, it
is the effect of an increase of 1 SD in the covariant on serum TC and LDL-C.
3
Values expressed as percentage of daily energy intake.
4
Values expressed as percentage of daily total fat intake.
Effect of Chickpeas on Serum Lipids
Ann Nutr Metab 2006;50:512–518
517
with wheat that can be easily substituted for small amounts
of wheat in weight maintenance ‘Western’ diets to show
a small but significant change in serum TC and LDL-C,
without affecting the HDL-C.
Earlier studies [21, 22] that investigated the hypocho-
lesterolaemic effects of chickpeas (the variety used was
Bengal gram) reported greater reductions in serum cho-
lesterol concentrations than were observed in the present
investigation. This may have been due to the differences
in the population studied, the study design and/or the
type of chickpeas used. While the earlier studies were
done in Indians, the present study groups were mainly
Caucasian. The chickpeas more commonly consumed in
India and Pakistan (Desi/Bengal gram) contain about
three times more fibre than the Kabuli chickpeas used in
our study [30] . In addition, the previous research proto-
cols first induced hypercholesterolaemia (with high-fat di-
ets for 10 weeks) before adding chickpeas to the diet [21] .
Thus, chickpeas may have a role in reducing coron ary
heart disease risk. Although the differences in serum
total and LDL-C were small (approximately 4%),
previ-
ous research suggests that a 5% reduction ( 0.3
mmol/l)
in TC through dietary intervention may reduce the risk
of ischemic heart disease by about 15% at the age of 60
years [31] . The results from the present investigation
would equate to a 13.5% reduced risk. They were achieved
with a practical dietary fibre intake around the recom-
mended dietary intake of 30 g/day [32] . Further research
is required to evaluate whether the differences observed
in the present controlled situation prevail or are accentu-
ated, when chickpeas are added to the long-term ad libi-
tum diet.
A c k n o w l e d g m e n t s
We would like to thank the participants of the study. The
Grain Research Development Corporation (Canberra) provided
the funds and the Clifford Craig Medical Research Trust (Laun-
ceston) the clinical room facilities.
References
1 James WP: Policy and a prudent diet; in Gar-
row JS, James WP, Ralph A (eds): Human
Nutrition and Dietetics, ed 10. London,
Churchill-Livingstone, 2000, pp 837–845.
2 Anderson JW, Hanna TJ: Impact of nondi-
gestible carbohydrates on serum lipopro-
teins and risk for cardiovascular disease. J
Nutr 1999;
129(7 Suppl):1457S–1466S.
3 Kushi LH, Meyer KA, Jacobs DR Jr: Cereals,
legumes, and chronic disease risk reduction:
evidence from epidemiologic studies. Am J
Clin Nutr 1999;
70(3 Suppl):451S–458S.
4 Menotti A, Kromhout D, Blackburn H, et al:
Food intake patterns and 25-year mortality
from coronary heart disease: cross-cultural
correlations in the Seven Countries Study.
The Seven Countries Study Research Group.
Eur J Epidemiol 1999;
15: 507–515.
5 AIHW: Heart, Stroke and Vascular Diseases
– Australian Facts 2004. AIHW Cat. No.
CVD 27. Canberra, Australian Institute of
Health and Welfare and National Heart
Foundation of Australia, 2004.
6 Yusuf S, Hawken S, Ounpuu S, et al: Effect of
potentially modifiable risk factors associat-
ed with myocardial infarction in 52 coun-
tries (the INTERHEART study): case-con-
trol study. Lancet 2004;
364: 937–952.
7 Nutrient Database for Standard Reference,
Release 15: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/
cgi-bin/list_nut.pl, 2002 (accessed August
23, 2002).
8 Pulses and Legumes as Functional Foods.
http:www.nutritionfoundationofindia.org/
PUBLICTN/Pub-cb1.html, 2002 (accessed
June 6, 2002).
9 Petterson DS, Sipsas S, Mackintosh JB:
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum) ; in: The Chemi-
cal Composition and Nutritive Value of Aus-
tralian Pulses, ed 2. Canberra, Grain Re-
search and Development Corporation, 1997,
pp 13–14.
10 Geil PB, Anderson JW: Nutrition and health
implications of dry beans: a review. J Am
Coll Nutr 1994;
13: 549–558.
11 Bazzano LA, He J, Ogden LG, et al: Legume
consumption and risk of coronary heart dis-
ease in US men and women. NHANES I Ep-
idemiologic Follow-Up Study. Arch Intern
Med 2001;
161: 2573–2578.
12 Duane WC: Effects of legume consumption
on serum cholesterol, biliary lipids, and ste-
rol metabolism in humans. J Lipid Res 1997;
38: 1120–1128.
13 Anderson JW: Dietary fibre, complex carbo-
hydrate and coronary artery disease. Can J
Cardiol 1995;
11(Suppl G):55G–62G.
14 Anderson JW, Johnstone BM, Cook-Newell
ME: Meta-analysis of the effects of soy pro-
tein intake on serum lipids. N Engl J Med
1995;
333: 276–282.
15 Nagata C, Takatsuka N, Kurisu Y, et al: De-
creased serum total cholesterol concentra-
tion is associated with high intake of soy
products in Japanese men and women. J Nutr
1998;
128: 209–213.
16 Sri Kantha S, Erdman JW Jr: Legume carot-
enoids. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 1987;
26: 137–
155.
17 Singh U, Subrahmanyam N, Kumar J: Cook-
ing quality and nutritional attributes of some
newly developed cultivars of chickpea. J Sci
Food Agric 1991;
55: 37–46.
18 Zulet MA, Macarulla MT, Portillo MP, et al:
Lipid and glucose utilization in hypercholes-
terolemic rats fed a diet containing heated
chickpea ( Cicer aretinum L.): a potential
functional food. Int J Vitam Nutr Res 1999;
69: 403–411.
19 Van Horn L: Fiber, lipids, and coronary heart
disease. A statement for healthcare profes-
sionals from the Nutrition Committee,
American Heart Association. Circulation
1997;
95: 2701–2704.
20 Dietary Fibre and Resistant Starch. http:
www.grdc.com.au, 2002 (accessed August
12, 2002).
21 Mathur KS, Khan MA, Sharma RD: Hypo-
cholesterolaemic effect of Bengal gram: a
long-term study in man. Br Med J 1968;
1:
30–31.
22 Ghorai M, Mandal SC, Pal M, et al: A com-
parative study on hypocholesterolaemic ef-
fect of allicin, whole germinated seeds of
bengal gram and guggulipid of gum gugglu.
Phytother Res 2000;
14: 200–202.
Pittaway /Ahuja /Cehun /Chronopoulos /
Robertson
/Nestel /Ball
Ann Nutr Metab 2006;50:512–518
518
23 Nestel P, Cehun M, Chronopoulos A: Effects
of long-term consumption and single meals
of chickpeas on plasma glucose, insulin, and
triacylglycerol concentrations. Am J Clin
Nutr 2004;
79: 390–395.
24 Schaefer EJ, Lichtenstein AH, Lamon-Fava S,
et al: Efficacy of a National Cholesterol Edu-
cation Program Step 2 diet in normolipid-
emic and hypercholesterolemic middle-aged
and elderly men and women. Arterioscler
Thromb Vasc Biol 1995;
15: 1079–1085.
25 Schaefer EJ, Lichtenstein AH, Lamon-Fava S,
et al: Body weight and low-density lipopro-
tein cholesterol changes after consumption
of a low-fat ad libitum diet. JAMA 1995;
274:
1450–1455.
26 Friedewald W, Levy R, Fredrickson D: Esti-
mation of the concentration of low-density
lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without
use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin
Chem 1972;
18: 499–502.
27 Champ M, Langkilde AM, Brouns F, et al:
Advances in dietary fibre characterisation. 1.
Definition of dietary fibre, physiological rel-
evance, health benefits and analytical as-
pects. Nutr Res Rev 2003;
16: 71–82.
28 Rimm EB, Ascherio A, Giovannucci E, et al:
Vegetable, fruit, and cereal fiber intake and
risk of coronary heart disease among men.
JAMA 1996;
275: 447–451.
29 Foley M, Ball M, Chisholm A, et al: Should
mono- or poly-unsaturated fats replace satu-
rated fat in the diet? Eur J Clin Nutr 1992;
46:
429–436.
30 Khan MA, Akhtar N, Ullah I, et al: Nutri-
tional evaluation of desi and kabuli chick-
peas and their products commonly con-
sumed in Pakistan. Int J Food Sci Nutr 1995;
46: 215–223.
31 Wald NJ, Law MR: Serum cholesterol and
ischaemic heart disease. Atherosclerosis
1995;
118(Suppl):S1–S5.
32 DHFS: The Australian Guide to Healthy Eat-
ing. Canberra, Department of Health and
Family Services, 1998.
