Affiliation:
1. Department of Nutritional Sciences Faculty of Medicine University of Toronto Ontario Canada
2. Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Center St. Michael’s Hospital Toronto Ontario Canada
3. Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trial Unit Toronto Ontario Canada
4. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute St. Michael’s Hospital Toronto Ontario Canada
5. Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism St. Michael’s Hospital Toronto Ontario Canada
6. College of Pharmacy and Nutrition University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon Saskatchewan Canada
Abstract
Background
Public health policies reflect concerns that certain fruit sources may not have the intended benefits and that vegetables should be preferred to fruit. We assessed the relation of fruit and vegetable sources with cardiovascular outcomes using a systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective cohort studies.
Methods and Results
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane were searched through June 3, 2019. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed study quality (Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale). Data were pooled (fixed effects), and heterogeneity (Cochrane‐Q and I
2
) and certainty of the evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) were assessed. Eighty‐one cohorts involving 4 031 896 individuals and 125 112 cardiovascular events were included. Total fruit and vegetables, fruit, and vegetables were associated with decreased cardiovascular disease (risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.89–0.96]; 0.91 [0.88–0.95]; and 0.94 [0.90–0.97], respectively), coronary heart disease (0.88 [0.83–0.92]; 0.88 [0.84–0.92]; and 0.92 [0.87–0.96], respectively), and stroke (0.82 [0.77–0.88], 0.82 [0.79–0.85]; and 0.88 [0.83–0.93], respectively) incidence. Total fruit and vegetables, fruit, and vegetables were associated with decreased cardiovascular disease (0.89 [0.85–0.93]; 0.88 [0.86–0.91]; and 0.87 [0.85–0.90], respectively), coronary heart disease (0.81 [0.72–0.92]; 0.86 [0.82–0.90]; and 0.86 [0.83–0.89], respectively), and stroke (0.73 [0.65–0.81]; 0.87 [0.84–0.91]; and 0.94 [0.90–0.99], respectively) mortality. There were greater benefits for citrus, 100% fruit juice, and pommes among fruit sources and allium, carrots, cruciferous, and green leafy among vegetable sources. No sources showed an adverse association. The certainty of the evidence was “very low” to “moderate,” with the highest for total fruit and/or vegetables, pommes fruit, and green leafy vegetables.
Conclusions
Fruits and vegetables are associated with cardiovascular benefit, with some sources associated with greater benefit and none showing an adverse association.
Registration
URL:
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov
; Unique identifier: NCT03394339.
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Subject
Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
Reference177 articles.
1. Fructose: It's “Alcohol Without the Buzz”
2. The toxic truth about sugar
3. Zurger A. A diet manifesto: drop the apple and walk away. The New York Times . 6. 2010. Accessed December 27.
4. Government of Canada
. Canada’s food guide consultations: guiding principles. Government of Canada; 2017. https://www.foodguideconsultation.ca/guiding-principles-detailed. Accessed August 5 2020.
5. International Diabetes Federation
. International Diabetes Federation framework for action on sugar. 2015. https://www.idf.org/images/site1/content/Framework-for-Action-on-Sugar-010615.pdf. Accessed April 24 2018.