Search

We aimed to prospectively assess the association between variety and quantity of fruits and vegetables (FV) and cardiovascular diseases (CVD) incidence and mortality due to the limited evidence. Our analysis included 2,918 adults with a follow-up period of 29,559 person-years. An inverse association was detected between fruit intake and the risk of incidence and mortality from CVD. We found no association between diversity scores of fruits, vegetables, and FV with CVD risk. Subjects with high quantity-high variety, high quantity-low variety, and low quantity-high variety of fruits, vegetables, or FV exhibited no difference in CVD risk compared to the subjects with low quantity-low variety intake. Increasing the variety of FV was associated with increases in the intake of β-carotene, lycopene, lutein, vitamin C, selenium, fibre, fat, and protein after adjustment for the quantity and covariates. We detected an inverse association between fruit intake and the incidence and mortality rates of CVD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Knowing the true levels of nutrients and dietary bioactives in fruit juices at the point of consumption is key to properly understand their potential health benefits. The objective was to characterise the vitamin C and flavanone content in commercial orange juices consumed in Europe, compared with fresh-squeezed juices. Commercial juices were a rich source of vitamin C (>30% of the Nutrient Reference Value). Vitamin C in fresh-squeezed juices, at the end of their shelf-life, remained 33% higher than the levels found in the commercial juices. Flavanones had similar values from both commercial and fresh juices, except for fresh samples stored for 48 h, where fresh juices had higher values (22.36 mg/100 mL). Thus, orange juices preserve their bioactive compounds during storage, with very little influence of the brand, country, industrial process or storage conditions. Main bioactive compounds in commercial juices are present at nutritionally significant levels to the freshly-squeezed ones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Results from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) testing the effect of vitamin C supplementation on blood pressure (BP) have been inconsistent. This systematic review evaluated the effects of vitamin C supplementation on BP and included RCTs testing the effects of vitamin C supplementation alone, on systolic and diastolic BP in adult participants (≥18 years). Random-effect models were conducted to estimate the pooled effects of vitamin C supplementation on BP. A total of 20 studies with 890 participants were included. The median dose of vitamin C was 757.5 mg/d, the median duration was 6 weeks. Vitamin C supplementation was found to reduce systolic BP by −3.0 mmHg (95%CI: −4.7, −1.3 mmHg; p = 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed a more pronounced effect on systolic BP in patients with hypertension (−3.2 mmHg, 95%CI −5.2, −1.2 mmHg, p = 0.002) and diabetes (−4.6 mmHg, 95%CI −8.9, −0.3 mmHg, p = 0.03). Further research needs to evaluate the long-term effect of vitamin C on BP in populations with impaired cardio-metabolic health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this article was to assess the existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses for the association between vitamin C intake and multiple health outcomes. A total of 76 meta-analyses (51 papers) of randomised controlled trials and observational studies with 63 unique health outcomes were identified. Dose–response analysis showed that vitamin C intake was associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), oesophageal cancer, gastric cancer, cervical cancer and lung cancer with an increment of 50–100 mg per day. Beneficial associations were also identified for respiratory, neurological, ophthalmologic, musculoskeletal, renal and dental outcomes. Harmful associations were found for breast cancer and kidney stones for vitamin C supplement intake. The benefits of vitamin C intake outweigh the disadvantages for a range of health outcomes. However, the recommendation of vitamin C supplements needs to be cautious. More prospective studies and well-designed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]