Nutrition facts per 100 g | PGBR | White rice |
Energy (kcal) | 357 | 345 |
Protein (g) | ≥ 7 | ≥ 5 |
Lipid (g) | ≥ 2 | ≥ 0.1 |
Carbohydrate (g) | ≥ 60 | ≥ 75 |
Fibre (g) | 3–4 | 0.5–0.9 |
Inositol (mg) | ≥ 10 | - |
GABA (mg) | 12–20 | 1–3 |
Citation: Georgi Kapitanov, Christina Alvey, Katia Vogt-Geisse, Zhilan Feng. An age-structured model for the coupled dynamics of HIV and HSV-2[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2015, 12(4): 803-840. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2015.12.803
[1] | Wenpeng You, Maciej Henneberg . Cereal Crops Are not Created Equal: Wheat Consumption Associated with Obesity Prevalence Globally and Regionally. AIMS Public Health, 2016, 3(2): 313-328. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2016.2.313 |
[2] | Junji Takaya . Small for Gestational Age and Magnesium: Intrauterine magnesium deficiency may induce metabolic syndrome in later life. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(4): 793-803. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.4.793 |
[3] | Hanan E. Badr, Travis Saunders, Omar Bayoumy, Angelie Carter, Laura Reyes Castillo, Marilyn Barrett . Reversal for metabolic syndrome criteria following the CHANGE program: What are the driving forces? Results from an intervention community-based study. AIMS Public Health, 2025, 12(1): 162-184. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2025011 |
[4] | Carla Gonçalves, Helena Moreira, Ricardo Santos . Systematic review of mediterranean diet interventions in menopausal women. AIMS Public Health, 2024, 11(1): 110-129. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2024005 |
[5] | Naomi Burn, Lynda Heather Norton, Claire Drummond, Kevin Ian Norton . Changes in Physical Activity Behaviour and Health Risk Factors Following a Randomised Controlled Pilot Workplace Exercise Intervention. AIMS Public Health, 2017, 4(2): 189-201. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2017.2.189 |
[6] | Joram Weber, Claudio R. Nigg . Promoting fruit and vegetable consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic – SportStudisMoveYou (SSMY): A randomized controlled trial. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(4): 690-702. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022048 |
[7] | Maryam Batool, Muhammad Farman, Aqeel Ahmad, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar . Mathematical study of polycystic ovarian syndrome disease including medication treatment mechanism for infertility in women. AIMS Public Health, 2024, 11(1): 19-35. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2024002 |
[8] | Nicola Tecce, Mattia Proganò, Davide Menafra, Annamaria Docimo, Stefano Zarrilli, Roberta Scairati, Anna Lisa Pelosi, Rosario Pivonello, Annamaria Colao . Integrated strategies for type 2 diabetes prevention: The role of diet and exercise. AIMS Public Health, 2025, 12(2): 418-450. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2025024 |
[9] | Jesús Álvarez-Herms, Adriana González, Francisco Corbi, Iñaki Odriozola, Adrian Odriozola . Possible relationship between the gut leaky syndrome and musculoskeletal injuries: the important role of gut microbiota as indirect modulator. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(3): 710-738. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023049 |
[10] | Jennifer L Lemacks, Laurie S Abbott, Cali Navarro, Stephanie McCoy, Tammy Greer, Sermin Aras, Michael B Madson, Jacqueline Reese-Smith, Chelsey Lawrick, June Gipson, Byron K Buck, Marcus Johnson . Passive recruitment reach of a lifestyle management program to address obesity in the deep south during the COVID-19 pandemic. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(1): 116-128. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023010 |
Metabolic syndrome (MetS) refers to a cluster of metabolic disorders such as hyperglycemia, insuline resistance, type II diabetes mellitus, and hyperlipidemia which cause obesity and cardiovascular diseases [1]. Diet quality is a strong predictor of this syndrome [1],[2]. A diet, which is high-carbohydrate and low fibre, increases directly postprandial levels of blood glucose and insuline, which leads to insuline resistance [3]. Insuline resistance is the cause of type II diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases [4]. Therefore, eating well-quality diets would be well-advised for controlling metabolic syndrome [5]. White rice is the most commonly starchy food staple, especially in developing countries of Asia and Africa [6]. However, its high glycemic index leads to white rice could not be frequent consumption food for diabetes patients [7]. Pre-germinated brown rice (PGBR) may be more benefits than white rice. PGBR, a newly developed type of rice, was made by soaking brown rice kernels in water to slightly germinated them [8]. There are few studies proved the effects of PGBR on the prevention and treatment of metabolic syndrome [9]–[11]. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of PGBR used to treat metabolic syndrome patients.
The protocol of this study was approved by the ethics committee of the National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), Hanoi, Vietnam (number 1656/QĐ-VDD) and also approval from all participants, before recruiting subjects. 80 subjects with the metabolic syndrome (MetS) were recruited in the intervention. All of them live in Bac Ninh City. Bac Ninh City is in the Red River Delta of northern Vietnam, approximately 40 km from the capital, Hanoi. All subjects were fully informed concerning the process of the study, and the study was designed in with the Helsinki Declaration on Human Studies. Eligibility criteria were: age from 55 to 70 years old, live in Bac Ninh City, and were diagnosed having MetS. A subject was defined as having MetS if he/she was any three of the following six factors: waist circumference > 90 cm for men and > 80 cm for women; blood triglyceride level ≥ 1.69 mmol/L; serum HDL-cholesterol concentration < 1.04 mmol/L for men and < 1.3 mmol/L for women; fasting plasma glucose > 6.1 mmol/L; systolic blood pressure ≥ 130 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 85 mmHg. Exclusion criteria included the following: subjects who were taking medicines that controlled blood glucose or lipid metabolic; subjects who were suffering from serious heart diseases, brain diseases, kidney diseases, liver diseases, or gastrointestinal diseases; subjects who were consuming PGBR daily; subjects who had body mass index (BMI) under 18.5; subjects who were not feeling well after starting the intervention. After screening, 86 subjects met the requirements. During 3 months of the intervention, 3 subjects in each group were excluded because of the individual health status.
The subjects were divided randomly into two groups: a PGBR group (n = 43) and a placebo group (n = 43). The subjects in PGBR group received 1 PGBR capsule (2.0 kg) containing 200 g PGBR/day for 10 days/time, and subjects in the placebo group took 1 capsule (2.0 kg) containing 200 g white rice/day for 10 days/time. The amount of energy, lipid, and protein is almost equivalent to the placebo and PGBR capsules. All subjects were advised to avoid change in their lifestyle, and no subjects were taking any medicines that affected cholesterol levels or body fat reduction during the time of the study.
We measured blood samples at the laboratory of NIN, Hanoi. Blood samples were taken an over-night fast. The PGBR and placebo groups were measured on the same day.
Weight, height, waist and hip circumferences were measured two times. Bodyweight and height were measured in light clothing and without shoes. BMI was calculated as body weight per height squared (kg/m2). Waist circumference was measured mid-way between the lower rib margin and the iliac crest, while hip circumference was measured at the broadest circumference around the buttocks.
We used the Semi-Quantitative Food Frequency Questionnaire for a nutrition survey at baseline and completion. Energy and nutrient intake were measured based on the Vietnamese Food Composition Table 2007 [12].
We used the structured questionnaire for a physical activity survey at baseline and completion. The levels of physical activity were built based on the Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health [13].
Blood samples were taken in the morning and after an overnight fast and were measured two times. Fasting glucose was measured by Accu-Chek glucometer. Venous blood samples were kept frozen at 8 °C for analysis: serum total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, concentrations of insuline, fasting triglyceride.
Blood pressure was measured by using the mercury sphygmomanometer. All subjects were measured in a quiet, air-conditioned room (the room temperature at 25 °C). The participants had to rest before and during measurements for about 20 min.
HOMA-IR was calculated using the following formula: fasting insuline (mU/l) × fasting glucose (mmol/l)/22.5. Fasting glucose and insuline were measured using an enzymatic method and chemiluminescence immunoassay, respectively.
Data were analyzed by using SPSS for windows 16.0. We calculated the change in percentage for each variable at completion and baseline. All variables of the PGBR and placebo groups were compared using an unpaired t-test, and data at baseline and completion were compared using a paired t-test. Varibales with confirmed homoscedasticity were compared by Student's t-test. p values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant for all analyses. Mann-Whitney test and Wilconxon test were used in non-normal distribution. Mc Nemar test – non parametrict test – was used on paired nominal data.
Eighty subjects completed the intervention; 3 subjects from the placebo group and 3 subjects from the PGBR group withdrew from the study, due to personal reasons. All subjects completed over 90% of the study process. No subjects in either group had any symptoms related to the intake of test substances.
Table 1 shows the amount of energy, protein, lipid, carbohydrate, ash, sodium, and γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) per 100 g GPBR and per 100 g white rice.
Nutrition facts per 100 g | PGBR | White rice |
Energy (kcal) | 357 | 345 |
Protein (g) | ≥ 7 | ≥ 5 |
Lipid (g) | ≥ 2 | ≥ 0.1 |
Carbohydrate (g) | ≥ 60 | ≥ 75 |
Fibre (g) | 3–4 | 0.5–0.9 |
Inositol (mg) | ≥ 10 | - |
GABA (mg) | 12–20 | 1–3 |
Table 2 shows the baseline parameters of both groups. There were no significant differences in parameters for age, sex, education levels, height, weight, BMI, abdominal circumference, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, fasting glucose, insuline, HOMA-IR, total cholesterol, triglyceride, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, percentage of constipation, physical activity levels, diet incides between the PGBR and the placebo groups.
Total sample |
PGBR group |
Placebo group |
||
N | 80 | 40 | 40 | |
Age(y) | 65.1 ± 3.81 | 65.2 ± 3.78 | 65.0 ± 3.85 | |
Sex | ||||
Male | 16 (20%) | 8 (20%) | 8 (20%) | |
Female | 72 (80%) | 36 (80%) | 36 (80%) | |
Education | ||||
Primary and secondary | 38 (47.5%) | 18 (45.0%) | 20 (50.0%) | |
High school | 31 (38.7%) | 16 (40.0%) | 15 (38.0%) | |
Colleges/University/Graduate School | 11 (13.8%) | 6 (15.0%) | 5 (12.0%%) | |
Occupation | ||||
Workers/Employees | 14 (17.5%) | 8 (20%) | 6 (15.0%) | |
Retirement | 46 (57.5%) | 20 (50.0%) | 26 (65.0%) | |
Business | 12 (15.0%) | 7 (17.5%) | 5 (12.5%) | |
Housewife | 8 (10.0%) | 5 (12.5%) | 3 (7.5%) | |
Height (cm) | 156.7 ± 5.3 | 156.5 ± 5.6 | 156.9 ± 6.3 | |
BMI (kg/m2) | 25.7 ± 2.2 | 25.9 ± 2.4 | 25.5 ± 2.3 | |
Abdominal circumference (cm) | ||||
Male | 92.9 ± 2.4 | 93.2 ± 3.1 | 92.6 ± 2.3 | |
Female | 87.6 ± 3.1 | 88.1 ± 4.6 | 87.1 ± 3.2 | |
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 124.8 ± 15.4 | 125.0 ± 15.7 | 124.7 ± 16.5 | |
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 81.9 ± 12.4 | 82.4 ± 12.2 | 81.7 ± 13.6 | |
Fasting glucose (mmol/l) | 6.4 ± 0.8 | 6.4 ± 1.2 | 6.3 ± 0.9 | |
Insuline (mU/l) | 9.5 ± 5.4 | 9.6 ± 6.0 | 9.4 ± 5.6 | |
HOMA-IR | 2.7 ± 1.7 | 2.7 ± 1.9 | 2.6 ± 1.8 | |
Total cholesterol (mmol/l) | 5.5 ± 0.8 | 5.5 ± 1.0 | 5.6 ± 0.9 | |
Triglyceride (mmol/l) | 2.4 ± 1.4 | 2.4 ± 1.6 | 2.3 ± 1.3 | |
LDL cholesterol (mmol/l) | 3.0 ± 0.8 | 3.0 ± 1.2 | 3.0 ± 0.6 | |
HDL cholesterol (mmol/l) | 1.12 ± 0.2 | 1.11 ± 0.2 | 1.12 ± 0.3 | |
Constipation status (%) | 22 (27.5%) | 12 (30.0%) | 10 (25.0%) | |
Physical activity levels | ||||
Moderate | 56 (70.0%) | 28 (70.0%) | 27 (67.5%) | |
Vigorous | 9 (11.3%) | 4 (10.0%) | 5 (12.5%) | |
Intensity | 38 (47.5%) | 18 (45.0%) | 20 (50.0%) |
In Table 3, we indicate the anthropometrics and blood pressures at all intervention times. No significant difference was observed between the placebo and PGBR groups in weight, BMI, systolic blood pressure or diastolic blood pressure. There were significant reductions in abdominal circumferences of both sexes of the PGBR group between baseline and completion (p < 0.05).
Baseline | End | ||
Weight (kg) | |||
PGBR | 63.5 ± 8.2 | 61.8 ± 8.6 | |
Placebo | 62.1 ± 7.9 | 62.6 ± 8.4 | |
BMI (kg/m2) | |||
PGBR | 25.9 ± 2.4 | 25.0 ± 2.3 | |
Placebo | 25.5 ± 2.3 | 25.8 ± 2.6 | |
Abdominal circumference in male (cm) | |||
PGBR | 93.2 ± 3.1 | 92.1 ± 3.7 a | |
Placebo | 92.6 ± 2.3 | 92.7 ± 2.6 | |
Abdominal circumference in female (cm) | |||
PGBR | 88.1 ± 4.6 | 86.2 ± 5.8 a | |
Placebo | 87.1 ± 3.2 | 86.2 ± 4.0 a | |
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | |||
PGBR | 125.0 ± 15.7 | 120.1 ± 16.4 | |
Placebo | 124.7 ± 16.5 | 121.9 ± 13.2 | |
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | |||
PGBR | 82.4 ± 12.2 | 74.6 ± 11.1 | |
Placebo | 81.7 ± 13.6 | 77.3 ± 15.3 |
Table 4 shows the results of blood tests at month 3 of the intervention. No significant difference was observed between the placebo and PGBR groups in fasting glucose, insuline, HOMA-IR, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglyceride. HDL cholesterol, and LDL-C/HDL-C ratio were significantly different between the placebo and PGBR groups. Both groups were significantly different in insuline when comparing baseline and completion. Fasting glucose, HOMA-IR, of the PGBR group showed a significant reduction from baseline to completion.
Table 5 shows the amount of energy and nutrient intake of both groups at baseline and completion; there were no significant differences in energy, protein, carbohydrate, lipid, and fiber between the PGBR and placebo groups at baseline or completion. Fibre was significantly different between the placebo and PGBR groups. Fibre of the PGBR group also showed a significant increase from baseline to completion. No significant difference was observed between placebo and PGBR groups in the physical activity level. At the end of the intervention, there were significant differences in the percentage of patients with MetS between placebo and PGBR group.
Baseline | End | ||
Fasting glucose (mmol/l) | |||
PGBR | 6.4 ± 1.2 | 5.7 ± 0.6 a | |
Placebo | 6.3 ± 0.9 | 6.2 ± 0.9 | |
Insulin (mU/l) | |||
PGBR | 9.6 ± 6.0 | 8.3 ± 4.6 a | |
Placebo | 9.4 ± 5.6 | 8.9 ± 4.1 a | |
HOMA-IR | |||
PGBR | 2.7 ± 1.9 | 1.5 ± 0.9 a | |
Placebo | 2.6 ± 1.8 | 2.4 ± 1.5 | |
Total cholesterol (mmol/l) | |||
PGBR | 5.5 ± 1.0 | 5.2 ± 0.9 | |
Placebo | 5.6 ± 0.9 | 5.5 ± 0.9 | |
HDL cholesterol (mmol/l) | |||
PGBR | 1.11 ± 0.2 | 1.44 ± 0.4¥, t | |
Placebo | 1.12 ± 0.3 | 1.11 ± 0.3 | |
LDL cholesterol (mmol/l) | |||
PGBR | 3.0 ± 1.2 | 2.9 ± 0.8 | |
Placebo | 3.0 ± 0.6 | 3.0 ± 0.9 | |
LDL-C/HDL-C ratio | |||
PGBR | 2.9 ± 1.1 | 2.3 ± 0.6¥, t | |
Placebo | 2.8 ± 0.9 | 2.9 ± 0.9 | |
Triglyceride (mmol/l) | |||
PGBR | 2.4 ± 1.6 | 2.0 ± 1.4 | |
Placebo | 2.3 ± 1.3 | 2.2 ± 0.9 |
Baseline | End | ||
Energy (kcal) | |||
PGBR | 1260.4 ± 387.7 | 1263.1 ± 401.0 | |
Placebo | 1264.0 ± 337.9 | 1271.8 ± 331.0 | |
Carbohydrate (g) | |||
PGBR | 220.4 ± 79.9 | 221.3 ± 72.1 | |
Placebo | 225.6 ± 78.2 | 227.6 ± 78.2 | |
Protein (g) | |||
PGBR | 51.0 ± 18.6 | 51.3 ± 14.9 | |
Placebo | 50.1 ± 12.8 | 50.0 ± 13.4 | |
Lipid (g) | |||
PGBR | 25.0 ± 10.7 | 24.9 ± 9.0 | |
Placebo | 24.5 ± 12.7 | 25.4 ± 13.8 | |
Dietary Fibre (g) | |||
PGBR | 5.3 ± 2.0 | 9.6 ± 1.8*, a | |
Placebo | 5.2 ± 1.8 | 5.4 ± 1.9 | |
Percentages of MetS reduction (%) | |||
PGBR | 0 | 30 (12)Φ, γ | |
Placebo | 0 | 10 (4) |
The study examined the effects of PGBR on patients with MetS in 3-month-intervention in Vietnam. The effects of PGBR on MetS patients were shown in the reduction significantly of MetS percentages in the PGBR group compared to the placebo group. Another intervention in Japanese males also showed that the increases significantly in glucose were lower after the ingestion of brown rice than after the ingestion of white rice [14]. In the present study, abdominal circumferences in the PGBR group was significantly reduced after the 3-month intervention, while those in the placebo group were unchanged with no differences in physical activity levels. Similar to our results, waist circumference (90.3 ± 10.3 cm) and systolic blood pressure (134 ± 13 mmHg) of Japanese males were also lower at the end of the 8-week brown rice diet period [14]. It might prove to be the case that PGBR reduces waist circumference over longer periods of time. Improvement in lipid metabolism and reduction of the abdominal circumference were observed in some studies that have been conducted with Taiwanese [8] and Vietnamese [9] subjects by replacing white rice with PGBR in two of the subjects' meals per day. However, the effect of PGBR on body weight and BMI are also not clear in present intervention.
In the present intervention, MetS definition of the National Cholesterol Education Program Treatment Panel III – Adults: 3rd Report (NECP ATP III) was used to define patients. MetS was diagnosed when patients have ≥ 3 of 5 following criteria which are about waist-line, triglycerides, HDL-cholesterol, fasting blood glucose, and blood pressure. Thus, although only HDL-cholesterol concentrations were significantly increased from 1.11 (mmol/l) to 1.44 (mmol/l) compared to the placebo group, the number of patient with MetS was reduced from 40 patients to 28 patients. Then the percentages of this reduction were higher significantly compared to the reduction of the placebo group (from 40 patients to 36 patients). Moreover, for triglyceride and blood pressure, significant differences between groups were not observed at endpoint. However, in PGBR group, abdominal circumference in both male and female, and fasting glucose decreased significantly compared to its baseline. Future research with longer time intervention is needed.
Our main findings were that PGBR is correlated with HDL cholesterol during comparison between the PGBR and placebo group. Several interventions showed LDL cholesterol in the PGBR group was significantly reduced after the 6-month intervention[11] and after 12-week intervention [15] while non-significant finding was showed in our study. Meanwhile, HDL cholesterol in the PGBR group was significantly increased after the 3-month intervention compared to placebo group and baseline. Fish – Rich diet should be a reason. Omega 3 from fish meat including α-Linolenic acid, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) has been suggested to be similar to that of fibric acids. EPA and DHA, as well as fibric acids, stimulate the β-oxidation of themselves or of other fatty acid substrates, by this mechanism, also elicit peroxisomal proliferation. Thus, polyunsaturated fatty acids may lead to an increase in the HDL cholesterol concentrations. Further researches need to be discovered this different result.
Although the difference of BMI was not significant, reductions significantly of fasting glucose and insuline compared to baseline showed that white rice may be a major cause of diabetes mellitus [16],[17], especially for East Asians, such as Vietnamese who take about 70% of their energy from rice [18]. In previous study, effects of PGBR on fasting glucose was proved by bioactives (γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA), acylated steryl glycoside, oryzanol, and phenolics) involve in PGBR's downregulation gluconeogenic genes (Fbp1 and Pck1) [19].
In this study, the fibre concentration of PGBR group was significantly different from placebo group and baseline while energy, carbohydrate, protein, and lipid were no differences. Fiber slows carbohydrate digestion and glucose absorption. In another intervention (2014), PGBR contains a higher amount of fiber help control blood glucose and lipid concentration in Vietnamese women with Impaired Glucose Tolerance [9]. Effects of fiber to prevent and treatment MetS and diabetes mellitus were also proved in several interventions [20],[21]. However, during the 3-month intervention, percentages of constipation among participants were decreased (the data not shown). This situation may cause a reduction in vegetable consumption's subjects. Thus, the decrease of vegetable intake in PGBR group should be a confounder.
The results of the present study suggest that PGBR benefits of MetS patients, and may provide long-term benefits of diabetes mellitus. Further studies with longer durations of intervention are warranted to examine the effects of substituting PGBR with white rice on MetS for future cardiovascular and blood glucose diseases.
[1] | Epidemics, 2 (2010), 173-182. |
[2] | The journal of infectious diseases, 191 (2005), 546-553. |
[3] | Annals of Internal Medicine, 121 (1994), 847-854. |
[4] | Annals of Internal Medicine, 131 (1999), 14-20. |
[5] | Clin Infect Dis, 39 (2004), S240-S247. |
[6] | International Statistical Review/Revue Internationale de Statistique, 62 (1994), 229-243. |
[7] | Nature Medicine, 4 (1998), 673-678. |
[8] | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97 (2000), 12385-12388, URL http://www.pnas.org/content/97/22/12385.abstract. |
[9] | Journal of Biosocial Science, 37 (2005), 499-518. |
[10] | Sexually Transmitted Infections, 82 (2006), iii26-iii33, URL http://sti.bmj.com/content/82/suppl_3/iii26.abstract. |
[11] | The Lancet, 371 (2008), 2109-2119, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673608609204. |
[12] | Open Journal of Epidemiology, 3 (2013), 139-148. |
[13] | Annals of Internal Medicine, 98 (1983), 958-972. |
[14] | J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr, 35 (2004), 435-445. |
[15] | PLoS ONE, 8 (2013), e66874. |
[16] | Social Science & Medicine, 65 (2007), 1235-1248, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953607002328. |
[17] | Social Science & Medicine, 59 (2004), 1581-1592, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953604000504. |
[18] | Mathematical Biosciences, 245 (2013), 171-187. |
[19] | Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 71 (2009), 720-749. |
[20] | AIDS, 20 (2006), 73-83. |
[21] | The Lancet, 373 (2009), 48-57. |
[22] | Journal of Infectious Diseases, 205 (2012), 351-352, URL http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/205/3/351.short. |
[23] | The Lancet, 357 (2001), 1149-1153. |
[24] | The Lancet, 370 (2007), 2127-2137. |
[25] | Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 32 (1994), 135-154. |
[26] | Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 91 (2006), 1175-1209. |
[27] | The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 198 (2008), 687-693, URL http://www.researchgate.net/publication/23132753_HIV-1_transmission_by_stage_of_infection. |
[28] | African Studies, 61 (2002), 99-120. |
[29] | Poster Presentation: The XIV International AIDS Conference. |
[30] | Demographic Research, 21 (2009), 289-340. |
[31] | American Journal of Public Health, 85 (1995), 1521-1525. |
[32] | Journal of Theoretical Medicine, 1 (1997), 25-34. |
[33] | Sexually Transmitted Infections, 89 (2013), A222, URL http://sti.bmj.com/content/89/Suppl_1/A222.2.abstract. |
[34] | American Journal of Epidemiology, 141 (1995), 1194-1200, URL http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/141/12/1194.abstract. |
[35] | New England Journal of Medicine, 341 (1999), 1432-1438, URL http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199911043411904, PMID: 10547406. |
[36] | AIDS, 23 (2009), 377-383, URL http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2009&issue=01280&article=00012&type=abstract. |
[37] | Annals of Internal Medicine, 116 (1992), 197-202. |
[38] | AIDS, 15 (2001), S61-S69. |
[39] | URL http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_surveillance_Epi-HIV-infection.pdf. |
[40] | south africa, 2010. |
[41] | Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 26 (1999), 374-380. |
[42] | SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 67 (2007), 731-756. |
[43] | Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications, 14 (2013), 1621-1633, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1468121812002489. |
[44] | Science Translational Medicine, 1 (2009), 7-16, URL http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/1/7/7ra16.abstract. |
[45] | Sexually Transmitted Infections, 85 (2009), i72-i80, URL http://sti.bmj.com/content/85/Suppl_1/i72.abstract. |
[46] | Sexually Transmitted Infections, 89 (2013), A218, URL http://sti.bmj.com/content/89/Suppl_1/A218.2.abstract. |
[47] | URL http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/countryreport/2010/201003_MOT_West_Africa_en.pdf. |
[48] | Mathematical Biosciences, 180 (2002), 29-48. |
[49] | The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 186 (2002), S34-S39, URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/30085233. |
[50] | Journal of Infectious Diseases, 191 (2005), 1403-1409, URL http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/191/9/1403.abstract. |
[51] | Herpes, 11 (2004), 24A-35A. |
[52] | Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 26 (2002), 339-370. |
[53] | URL http://www.who.int/hiv/data/en/. |
1. | Sarah M. Jung, Ella H. Haddad, Amandeep Kaur, Rawiwan Sirirat, Alice Y. Kim, Keiji Oda, Sujatha Rajaram, Joan Sabaté, A Non-Probiotic Fermented Soy Product Reduces Total and LDL Cholesterol: A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial, 2021, 13, 2072-6643, 535, 10.3390/nu13020535 | |
2. | Mahdieh Golzarand, Karamollah Toolabi, Sina Eskandari Delfan, Parvin Mirmiran, The effect of brown rice compared to white rice on adiposity indices, lipid profile, and glycemic markers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, 2021, 1040-8398, 1, 10.1080/10408398.2021.1914541 | |
3. | Siyu Liu, Wei Wang, Hongyun Lu, Qin Shu, Yu Zhang, Qihe Chen, New perspectives on physiological, biochemical and bioactive components during germination of edible seeds: A review, 2022, 123, 09242244, 187, 10.1016/j.tifs.2022.02.029 | |
4. | Jiayue Yu, Bhavadharini Balaji, Maria Tinajero, Sarah Jarvis, Tauseef Khan, Sudha Vasudevan, Viren Ranawana, Amudha Poobalan, Shilpa Bhupathiraju, Qi Sun, Walter Willett, Frank B Hu, David J A Jenkins, Viswanathan Mohan, Vasanti S Malik, White rice, brown rice and the risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis, 2022, 12, 2044-6055, e065426, 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065426 | |
5. | Xiuxiu Wu, Tianyi Guo, Feijun Luo, Qinlu Lin, Brown rice: a missing nutrient-rich health food, 2023, 12, 22134530, 1458, 10.1016/j.fshw.2023.02.010 | |
6. | Fengyi Zhao, Chuanying Ren, Lihua Li, Chao Huang, Qing Zhao, Yulian Zhong, Qiaosheng Hu, Wang Liao, Hui Xia, Ligang Yang, Shaokang Wang, Guiju Sun, Effects of germinated brown rice and germinated black rice on people with type 2 diabetes mellitus combined with dyslipidaemia, 2024, 15, 2042-6496, 6642, 10.1039/D3FO05070J | |
7. | Shuai Han, Xiuxiu Wu, Lingfeng Zhu, Han Lu, Xuke Ling, Yi Luo, Zuomin Hu, Yaping Zhou, Yiping Tang, Feijun Luo, Whole grain germinated brown rice intake modulates the gut microbiota and alleviates hypertriglyceridemia and hypercholesterolemia in high fat diet-fed mice, 2024, 15, 2042-6496, 265, 10.1039/D3FO03288D | |
8. | Tao Ying, Jianheng Zheng, Juntao Kan, Wenyun Li, Kun Xue, Jun Du, Yuwei Liu, Gengsheng He, Effects of whole grains on glycemic control: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials, 2024, 23, 1475-2891, 10.1186/s12937-024-00952-2 | |
9. | Sarah M. Jung, Amandeep Kaur, Rita I. Amen, Keiji Oda, Sujatha Rajaram, Joan Sabatè, Ella H. Haddad, Effect of the Fermented Soy Q-CAN® Product on Biomarkers of Inflammation and Oxidation in Adults with Cardiovascular Risk, and Canonical Correlations between the Inflammation Biomarkers and Blood Lipids, 2023, 15, 2072-6643, 3195, 10.3390/nu15143195 |
Nutrition facts per 100 g | PGBR | White rice |
Energy (kcal) | 357 | 345 |
Protein (g) | ≥ 7 | ≥ 5 |
Lipid (g) | ≥ 2 | ≥ 0.1 |
Carbohydrate (g) | ≥ 60 | ≥ 75 |
Fibre (g) | 3–4 | 0.5–0.9 |
Inositol (mg) | ≥ 10 | - |
GABA (mg) | 12–20 | 1–3 |
Total sample |
PGBR group |
Placebo group |
||
N | 80 | 40 | 40 | |
Age(y) | 65.1 ± 3.81 | 65.2 ± 3.78 | 65.0 ± 3.85 | |
Sex | ||||
Male | 16 (20%) | 8 (20%) | 8 (20%) | |
Female | 72 (80%) | 36 (80%) | 36 (80%) | |
Education | ||||
Primary and secondary | 38 (47.5%) | 18 (45.0%) | 20 (50.0%) | |
High school | 31 (38.7%) | 16 (40.0%) | 15 (38.0%) | |
Colleges/University/Graduate School | 11 (13.8%) | 6 (15.0%) | 5 (12.0%%) | |
Occupation | ||||
Workers/Employees | 14 (17.5%) | 8 (20%) | 6 (15.0%) | |
Retirement | 46 (57.5%) | 20 (50.0%) | 26 (65.0%) | |
Business | 12 (15.0%) | 7 (17.5%) | 5 (12.5%) | |
Housewife | 8 (10.0%) | 5 (12.5%) | 3 (7.5%) | |
Height (cm) | 156.7 ± 5.3 | 156.5 ± 5.6 | 156.9 ± 6.3 | |
BMI (kg/m2) | 25.7 ± 2.2 | 25.9 ± 2.4 | 25.5 ± 2.3 | |
Abdominal circumference (cm) | ||||
Male | 92.9 ± 2.4 | 93.2 ± 3.1 | 92.6 ± 2.3 | |
Female | 87.6 ± 3.1 | 88.1 ± 4.6 | 87.1 ± 3.2 | |
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 124.8 ± 15.4 | 125.0 ± 15.7 | 124.7 ± 16.5 | |
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 81.9 ± 12.4 | 82.4 ± 12.2 | 81.7 ± 13.6 | |
Fasting glucose (mmol/l) | 6.4 ± 0.8 | 6.4 ± 1.2 | 6.3 ± 0.9 | |
Insuline (mU/l) | 9.5 ± 5.4 | 9.6 ± 6.0 | 9.4 ± 5.6 | |
HOMA-IR | 2.7 ± 1.7 | 2.7 ± 1.9 | 2.6 ± 1.8 | |
Total cholesterol (mmol/l) | 5.5 ± 0.8 | 5.5 ± 1.0 | 5.6 ± 0.9 | |
Triglyceride (mmol/l) | 2.4 ± 1.4 | 2.4 ± 1.6 | 2.3 ± 1.3 | |
LDL cholesterol (mmol/l) | 3.0 ± 0.8 | 3.0 ± 1.2 | 3.0 ± 0.6 | |
HDL cholesterol (mmol/l) | 1.12 ± 0.2 | 1.11 ± 0.2 | 1.12 ± 0.3 | |
Constipation status (%) | 22 (27.5%) | 12 (30.0%) | 10 (25.0%) | |
Physical activity levels | ||||
Moderate | 56 (70.0%) | 28 (70.0%) | 27 (67.5%) | |
Vigorous | 9 (11.3%) | 4 (10.0%) | 5 (12.5%) | |
Intensity | 38 (47.5%) | 18 (45.0%) | 20 (50.0%) |
Baseline | End | ||
Weight (kg) | |||
PGBR | 63.5 ± 8.2 | 61.8 ± 8.6 | |
Placebo | 62.1 ± 7.9 | 62.6 ± 8.4 | |
BMI (kg/m2) | |||
PGBR | 25.9 ± 2.4 | 25.0 ± 2.3 | |
Placebo | 25.5 ± 2.3 | 25.8 ± 2.6 | |
Abdominal circumference in male (cm) | |||
PGBR | 93.2 ± 3.1 | 92.1 ± 3.7 a | |
Placebo | 92.6 ± 2.3 | 92.7 ± 2.6 | |
Abdominal circumference in female (cm) | |||
PGBR | 88.1 ± 4.6 | 86.2 ± 5.8 a | |
Placebo | 87.1 ± 3.2 | 86.2 ± 4.0 a | |
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | |||
PGBR | 125.0 ± 15.7 | 120.1 ± 16.4 | |
Placebo | 124.7 ± 16.5 | 121.9 ± 13.2 | |
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | |||
PGBR | 82.4 ± 12.2 | 74.6 ± 11.1 | |
Placebo | 81.7 ± 13.6 | 77.3 ± 15.3 |
Baseline | End | ||
Fasting glucose (mmol/l) | |||
PGBR | 6.4 ± 1.2 | 5.7 ± 0.6 a | |
Placebo | 6.3 ± 0.9 | 6.2 ± 0.9 | |
Insulin (mU/l) | |||
PGBR | 9.6 ± 6.0 | 8.3 ± 4.6 a | |
Placebo | 9.4 ± 5.6 | 8.9 ± 4.1 a | |
HOMA-IR | |||
PGBR | 2.7 ± 1.9 | 1.5 ± 0.9 a | |
Placebo | 2.6 ± 1.8 | 2.4 ± 1.5 | |
Total cholesterol (mmol/l) | |||
PGBR | 5.5 ± 1.0 | 5.2 ± 0.9 | |
Placebo | 5.6 ± 0.9 | 5.5 ± 0.9 | |
HDL cholesterol (mmol/l) | |||
PGBR | 1.11 ± 0.2 | 1.44 ± 0.4¥, t | |
Placebo | 1.12 ± 0.3 | 1.11 ± 0.3 | |
LDL cholesterol (mmol/l) | |||
PGBR | 3.0 ± 1.2 | 2.9 ± 0.8 | |
Placebo | 3.0 ± 0.6 | 3.0 ± 0.9 | |
LDL-C/HDL-C ratio | |||
PGBR | 2.9 ± 1.1 | 2.3 ± 0.6¥, t | |
Placebo | 2.8 ± 0.9 | 2.9 ± 0.9 | |
Triglyceride (mmol/l) | |||
PGBR | 2.4 ± 1.6 | 2.0 ± 1.4 | |
Placebo | 2.3 ± 1.3 | 2.2 ± 0.9 |
Baseline | End | ||
Energy (kcal) | |||
PGBR | 1260.4 ± 387.7 | 1263.1 ± 401.0 | |
Placebo | 1264.0 ± 337.9 | 1271.8 ± 331.0 | |
Carbohydrate (g) | |||
PGBR | 220.4 ± 79.9 | 221.3 ± 72.1 | |
Placebo | 225.6 ± 78.2 | 227.6 ± 78.2 | |
Protein (g) | |||
PGBR | 51.0 ± 18.6 | 51.3 ± 14.9 | |
Placebo | 50.1 ± 12.8 | 50.0 ± 13.4 | |
Lipid (g) | |||
PGBR | 25.0 ± 10.7 | 24.9 ± 9.0 | |
Placebo | 24.5 ± 12.7 | 25.4 ± 13.8 | |
Dietary Fibre (g) | |||
PGBR | 5.3 ± 2.0 | 9.6 ± 1.8*, a | |
Placebo | 5.2 ± 1.8 | 5.4 ± 1.9 | |
Percentages of MetS reduction (%) | |||
PGBR | 0 | 30 (12)Φ, γ | |
Placebo | 0 | 10 (4) |
Nutrition facts per 100 g | PGBR | White rice |
Energy (kcal) | 357 | 345 |
Protein (g) | ≥ 7 | ≥ 5 |
Lipid (g) | ≥ 2 | ≥ 0.1 |
Carbohydrate (g) | ≥ 60 | ≥ 75 |
Fibre (g) | 3–4 | 0.5–0.9 |
Inositol (mg) | ≥ 10 | - |
GABA (mg) | 12–20 | 1–3 |
Total sample |
PGBR group |
Placebo group |
||
N | 80 | 40 | 40 | |
Age(y) | 65.1 ± 3.81 | 65.2 ± 3.78 | 65.0 ± 3.85 | |
Sex | ||||
Male | 16 (20%) | 8 (20%) | 8 (20%) | |
Female | 72 (80%) | 36 (80%) | 36 (80%) | |
Education | ||||
Primary and secondary | 38 (47.5%) | 18 (45.0%) | 20 (50.0%) | |
High school | 31 (38.7%) | 16 (40.0%) | 15 (38.0%) | |
Colleges/University/Graduate School | 11 (13.8%) | 6 (15.0%) | 5 (12.0%%) | |
Occupation | ||||
Workers/Employees | 14 (17.5%) | 8 (20%) | 6 (15.0%) | |
Retirement | 46 (57.5%) | 20 (50.0%) | 26 (65.0%) | |
Business | 12 (15.0%) | 7 (17.5%) | 5 (12.5%) | |
Housewife | 8 (10.0%) | 5 (12.5%) | 3 (7.5%) | |
Height (cm) | 156.7 ± 5.3 | 156.5 ± 5.6 | 156.9 ± 6.3 | |
BMI (kg/m2) | 25.7 ± 2.2 | 25.9 ± 2.4 | 25.5 ± 2.3 | |
Abdominal circumference (cm) | ||||
Male | 92.9 ± 2.4 | 93.2 ± 3.1 | 92.6 ± 2.3 | |
Female | 87.6 ± 3.1 | 88.1 ± 4.6 | 87.1 ± 3.2 | |
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 124.8 ± 15.4 | 125.0 ± 15.7 | 124.7 ± 16.5 | |
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 81.9 ± 12.4 | 82.4 ± 12.2 | 81.7 ± 13.6 | |
Fasting glucose (mmol/l) | 6.4 ± 0.8 | 6.4 ± 1.2 | 6.3 ± 0.9 | |
Insuline (mU/l) | 9.5 ± 5.4 | 9.6 ± 6.0 | 9.4 ± 5.6 | |
HOMA-IR | 2.7 ± 1.7 | 2.7 ± 1.9 | 2.6 ± 1.8 | |
Total cholesterol (mmol/l) | 5.5 ± 0.8 | 5.5 ± 1.0 | 5.6 ± 0.9 | |
Triglyceride (mmol/l) | 2.4 ± 1.4 | 2.4 ± 1.6 | 2.3 ± 1.3 | |
LDL cholesterol (mmol/l) | 3.0 ± 0.8 | 3.0 ± 1.2 | 3.0 ± 0.6 | |
HDL cholesterol (mmol/l) | 1.12 ± 0.2 | 1.11 ± 0.2 | 1.12 ± 0.3 | |
Constipation status (%) | 22 (27.5%) | 12 (30.0%) | 10 (25.0%) | |
Physical activity levels | ||||
Moderate | 56 (70.0%) | 28 (70.0%) | 27 (67.5%) | |
Vigorous | 9 (11.3%) | 4 (10.0%) | 5 (12.5%) | |
Intensity | 38 (47.5%) | 18 (45.0%) | 20 (50.0%) |
Baseline | End | ||
Weight (kg) | |||
PGBR | 63.5 ± 8.2 | 61.8 ± 8.6 | |
Placebo | 62.1 ± 7.9 | 62.6 ± 8.4 | |
BMI (kg/m2) | |||
PGBR | 25.9 ± 2.4 | 25.0 ± 2.3 | |
Placebo | 25.5 ± 2.3 | 25.8 ± 2.6 | |
Abdominal circumference in male (cm) | |||
PGBR | 93.2 ± 3.1 | 92.1 ± 3.7 a | |
Placebo | 92.6 ± 2.3 | 92.7 ± 2.6 | |
Abdominal circumference in female (cm) | |||
PGBR | 88.1 ± 4.6 | 86.2 ± 5.8 a | |
Placebo | 87.1 ± 3.2 | 86.2 ± 4.0 a | |
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | |||
PGBR | 125.0 ± 15.7 | 120.1 ± 16.4 | |
Placebo | 124.7 ± 16.5 | 121.9 ± 13.2 | |
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | |||
PGBR | 82.4 ± 12.2 | 74.6 ± 11.1 | |
Placebo | 81.7 ± 13.6 | 77.3 ± 15.3 |
Baseline | End | ||
Fasting glucose (mmol/l) | |||
PGBR | 6.4 ± 1.2 | 5.7 ± 0.6 a | |
Placebo | 6.3 ± 0.9 | 6.2 ± 0.9 | |
Insulin (mU/l) | |||
PGBR | 9.6 ± 6.0 | 8.3 ± 4.6 a | |
Placebo | 9.4 ± 5.6 | 8.9 ± 4.1 a | |
HOMA-IR | |||
PGBR | 2.7 ± 1.9 | 1.5 ± 0.9 a | |
Placebo | 2.6 ± 1.8 | 2.4 ± 1.5 | |
Total cholesterol (mmol/l) | |||
PGBR | 5.5 ± 1.0 | 5.2 ± 0.9 | |
Placebo | 5.6 ± 0.9 | 5.5 ± 0.9 | |
HDL cholesterol (mmol/l) | |||
PGBR | 1.11 ± 0.2 | 1.44 ± 0.4¥, t | |
Placebo | 1.12 ± 0.3 | 1.11 ± 0.3 | |
LDL cholesterol (mmol/l) | |||
PGBR | 3.0 ± 1.2 | 2.9 ± 0.8 | |
Placebo | 3.0 ± 0.6 | 3.0 ± 0.9 | |
LDL-C/HDL-C ratio | |||
PGBR | 2.9 ± 1.1 | 2.3 ± 0.6¥, t | |
Placebo | 2.8 ± 0.9 | 2.9 ± 0.9 | |
Triglyceride (mmol/l) | |||
PGBR | 2.4 ± 1.6 | 2.0 ± 1.4 | |
Placebo | 2.3 ± 1.3 | 2.2 ± 0.9 |
Baseline | End | ||
Energy (kcal) | |||
PGBR | 1260.4 ± 387.7 | 1263.1 ± 401.0 | |
Placebo | 1264.0 ± 337.9 | 1271.8 ± 331.0 | |
Carbohydrate (g) | |||
PGBR | 220.4 ± 79.9 | 221.3 ± 72.1 | |
Placebo | 225.6 ± 78.2 | 227.6 ± 78.2 | |
Protein (g) | |||
PGBR | 51.0 ± 18.6 | 51.3 ± 14.9 | |
Placebo | 50.1 ± 12.8 | 50.0 ± 13.4 | |
Lipid (g) | |||
PGBR | 25.0 ± 10.7 | 24.9 ± 9.0 | |
Placebo | 24.5 ± 12.7 | 25.4 ± 13.8 | |
Dietary Fibre (g) | |||
PGBR | 5.3 ± 2.0 | 9.6 ± 1.8*, a | |
Placebo | 5.2 ± 1.8 | 5.4 ± 1.9 | |
Percentages of MetS reduction (%) | |||
PGBR | 0 | 30 (12)Φ, γ | |
Placebo | 0 | 10 (4) |