Legumes and pulses - a scoping review for Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023

Liv Elin Torheim; Lars T. Fadnes

doi:10.29219/fnr.v68.10484

Liv Elin Torheim Department of Physical Health and Ageing, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway;
Lars T. Fadnes Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

DOI: https://doi.org/10.29219/fnr.v68.10484

Keywords: pulses, legumes, Fabaceae, dietary recommendations

Abstract

Consumption of legumes and pulses is associated with various health outcomes. Therefore, when updating the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (NNR), summarizing the best available evidence on key health outcomes regarded as relevant for the Nordic and Baltics related to the consumption of legumes was essential. The aim of this scoping review was to evaluate the updated evidence on the effect of the consumption of legumes and pulses on various health outcomes, as well as their dose-response relationship in updated systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The scoping review is built on a de novo systematic review published in 2023 and additional searches on the consumption of legumes and pulses and its various health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer, type 2 diabetes, and obesity. Current available evidence shows that the consumption of legumes and pulses is associated with a lower risk of several cancers (evidence: low-moderate), and lower all-cause mortality (evidence: moderate). The associations with CVDs are neutral or inverse, with studies generally showing favourable changes in biomarkers for CVDs. Legume consumption is associated with a lower risk of obesity (evidence: low). For type 2 diabetes, no association was found with incidence, but trials on consumption of legumes and pulses and biomarkers generally indicated protective effects. Overall, the current evidence supports dietary recommendations to increase the consumption of legumes and pulses.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1.
Martín-Cabrejas MA. Legumes: an overview. In: Martín-Cabrejas MA, ed. Legumes: nutritional quality, processing and potential health benefits. London: Royal Society of Chemistry; 2019.

2.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Nutritional benefits of pulses. Rome: FAO; 2016.

3.
Thórisdottír B, Arnesen EK, Bärebring L, Dierkes J, Lamberg-Allardt C, Ramel A, et al. Legume consumption in adults and risk of cardiovascular disease or type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Food Nutr Res 2023; 67: 9541. doi: 10.29219/fnr.v67.9541

4.
Semba RD, Ramsing R, Rahman N, Kraemer K, Bloem MW. Legumes as a sustainable source of protein in human diets. Glob Food Sec 2021; 28: 100520. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100520

5.
Bredsdorff L, Fagt S, Boberg J, Pilegaard K, Widenfalk A, Steffensen IL. Soy intake and possible adverse health effects in children and pregnant women (unborn children). Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers; 2020.

6.
Messina V. Nutritional and health benefits of dried beans. Am J Clin Nutr 2014; 100: s437–42. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.071472

7.
Hughes J, Pearson E, Grafenauer S. Legumes – a comprehensive exploration of global food-based dietary guidelines and consumption. Nutrients 2022; 14(15): 3380. doi: 10.3390/nu14153080

8.
Willett W, Rockstrom J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019; 393(10170): 447–92. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4

9.
Lappi J, Silventoinen-Veijalainen P, Vanhatalo S, Rosa-Sibakov N, Sozer N. The nutritional quality of animal-alternative processed foods based on plant or microbial proteins and the role of the food matrix. Trends Food Sci Technol 2022; 129: 144–54. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2022.09.020

10.
Norwegian Directorate of Health. Anbefalinger om kosthold, ernæring og fysisk aktivitet [Recommendations for diet, nutrition and physical activity]. Oslo: Norwegian Directorate of Health; 2014.

11.
Hoyer A, Christensen JJ, Arnesen EK, Andersen R, Eneroth H, Erkkola M, et al. The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2022 – prioritisation of topics for de novo systematic reviews. Food Nutr Res 2021; 65: 7828. doi: 10.29219/fnr.v65.7828

12.
Viguiliouk E, Glenn AJ, Nishi SK, Chiavaroli L, Seider M, Khan T, et al. Associations between dietary pulses alone or with other legumes and cardiometabolic disease outcomes: an umbrella review and updated systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Adv Nutr 2019; 10(Suppl_4): S308–19. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmz113

13.
Blomhoff R, Andersen R, Arnesen EK, Christensen JJ, Eneroth H, Erkkola M, et al. Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers; 2023.

14.
Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017; 358: j4008. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008

15.
Thorisdottir B, Arnesen EK, Bärebring L, Dierkes J, Lamberg- Allardt C, Nwaru BI, et al. Legume consumption in adults and risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Food Nutr Res 2023, 67:9541 - doi: 10.29219/fnr.v67.9541

16.
Holm Totland T, Kjerpeseth Melnæs B, Lundberg-Hallén N, Helland-Kigen KM, Lund-Blix NA, Borch Myhre J, et al. Norkost 3 En landsomfattende kostholdsundersøkelse blant menn og kvinner i Norge i alderen 18–70 år, 2010–11. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet; 2012.

17.
Lemming EW, Pitsi T. The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2022 – food consumption and nutrient intake in the adult population of the Nordic and Baltic countries. Food Nutr Res 2022; 66: 8572. doi: 10.29219/fnr.v66.8572

18.
Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). University of Washington. Global burden of disease (GBD) compare from Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). Seattle, WA. Available from: http://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare [cited 15 October 2023].

19.
Foreman KJ, Marquez N, Dolgert A, Fukutaki K, Fullman N, McGaughey M, et al. Forecasting life expectancy, years of life lost, and all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 250 causes of death: reference and alternative scenarios for 2016–40 for 195 countries and territories. Lancet 2018; 392(10159): 2052–90. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31694-5

20.
Jin S, Je Y. Nuts and legumes consumption and risk of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Epidemiol 2022; 37(6): 569–85. doi: 10.1007/s10654-022-00881-6

21.
Wang Y, Wang Z, Fu L, Chen Y, Fang J. Legume consumption and colorectal adenoma risk: a meta-analysis of observational studies. PLoS One 2013; 8(6): e67335. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067335

22.
Kazemi A, Barati-Boldaji R, Soltani S, Mohammadipoor N, Esmaeilinezhad Z, Clark CCT, et al. Intake of various food groups and risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. Adv Nutr 2021; 12(3): 809–49. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmaa147

23.
Wang Y, Guo J, Yu F, Tian Y, Wu Y, Cui L, et al. The association between soy-based food and soy isoflavone intake and the risk of gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sci Food Agric 2021; 101(13): 5314–24. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.11334

24.
Zhong XS, Ge J, Chen SW, Xiong YQ, Ma SJ, Chen Q. Association between dietary isoflavones in soy and legumes and endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Acad Nutr Diet 2018; 118(4): 637–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2016.09.036

25.
Li J, Mao QQ. Legume intake and risk of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Oncotarget 2017; 8(27): 44776–84. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.16794

26.
Martini D, Godos J, Marventano S, Tieri M, Ghelfi F, Titta L, et al. Nut and legume consumption and human health: an umbrella review of observational studies. Int J Food Sci Nutr 2021; 72(7): 871–8. doi: 10.1080/09637486.2021.1880554

27.
Nachvak SM, Moradi S, Anjom-Shoae J, Rahmani J, Nasiri M, Maleki V, et al. Soy, soy isoflavones, and protein intake in relation to mortality from all causes, cancers, and cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. J Acad Nutr Diet 2019; 119(9): 1483–500.e17. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2019.04.011

28.
Schwingshackl L, Schwedhelm C, Hoffmann G, Lampousi AM, Knuppel S, Iqbal K, et al. Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Am J Clin Nutr 2017; 105(6): 1462–73. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.117.153148

29.
Schlesinger S, Neuenschwander M, Schwedhelm C, Hoffmann G, Bechthold A, Boeing H, et al. Food groups and risk of overweight, obesity, and weight gain: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. Adv Nutr 2019; 10(2): 205–18. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmy092

30.
Solfrizzi V, Custodero C, Lozupone M, Imbimbo BP, Valiani V, Agosti P, et al. Relationships of dietary patterns, foods, and micro- and macronutrients with alzheimer’s disease and late-life cognitive disorders: a systematic review. J Alzheimers Dis 2017; 59(3): 815–49. doi: 10.3233/jad-170248

31.
Khrisanapant P, Kebede B, Leong SY, Oey I. A comprehensive characterisation of volatile and fatty acid profiles of legume seeds. Food 2019; 8(12): 651. doi: 10.3390/foods8120651

32.
World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR). Wholegrains, vegetables and fruits. Continuous update project expert report 2018. World Cancer Research Fund; 2018.

33.
Li N, Wu X, Zhuang W, Xia L, Chen Y, Zhao R, et al. Soy and isoflavone consumption and multiple health outcomes: umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies and randomized trials in humans. Mol Nutr Food Res 2020; 64(4): e1900751. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201900751

34.
Rafie N, Golpour Hamedani S, Barak F, Safavi SM, Miraghajani M. Dietary patterns, food groups and telomere length: a systematic review of current studies. Eur J Clin Nutr 2017; 71(2): 151–8. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2016.149

35.
Kim SJ, de Souza RJ, Choo VL, Ha V, Cozma AI, Chiavaroli L, et al. Effects of dietary pulse consumption on body weight: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr 2016; 103(5): 1213–23. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.115.124677

36.
Schwingshackl L, Hoffmann G, Iqbal K, Schwedhelm C, Boeing H. Food groups and intermediate disease markers: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am J Clin Nutr 2018; 108(3): 576–86. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy151

37.
Messina M, Mejia SB, Cassidy A, Duncan A, Kurzer M, Nagato C, et al. Neither soyfoods nor isoflavones warrant classification as endocrine disruptors: a technical review of the observational and clinical data. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2022; 62(21): 5824–85. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2021.1895054

38.
Versluis A, Knulst AC, Kruizinga AG, Michelsen A, Houben GF, Baumert JL, et al. Frequency, severity and causes of unexpected allergic reactions to food: a systematic literature review. Clin Exp Allergy 2015; 45(2): 347–67. doi: 10.1111/cea.12328

39.
Strömberg A, Öhrvik V. Lektiner i baljväxter [Lectins in legumes]. Swedish National Food Agency; 2017.

40.
Fadnes LT, Økland J-M, Haaland ØA, Johansson KA. Estimating impact of food choices on life expectancy: a modeling study. PLoS Med 2022; 19(1): e1003889. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003889

Legumes and pulses - a scoping review for Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023

Abstract

Downloads

References

Most read articles by the same author(s)