Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-45ctf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-28T18:04:19.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Increasing the proportion of plasma MUFA, as a result of dietary intervention, is associated with a modest improvement in insulin sensitivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2020

I. Johns
Affiliation:
Nutrition and Dietetic Research Group, Imperial College London, London, UK
G. Frost*
Affiliation:
Nutrition and Dietetic Research Group, Imperial College London, London, UK
A. Dornhorst
Affiliation:
Nutrition and Dietetic Research Group, Imperial College London, London, UK
*
*Corresponding author: G. Frost, fax +44 20 8383 8320, email g.frost@imperial.ac.uk

Abstract

The effect of modifying dietary fatty acid (FA) composition on insulin sensitivity remains unclear. We aimed to investigate whether changes in plasma phospholipid (PL) FA composition, as a result of dietary intervention, correspond with changes in insulin sensitivity. The RISCK study was a 6-month randomised controlled dietary intervention study, which assessed the effect of modifying dietary fat and the glycaemic index (GI) of carbohydrates on insulin sensitivity. Total NEFA levels, fasting plasma PL FA profiles and an insulin sensitivity index (Si), derived from intravenous glucose tolerance minimal-model analysis, were available from 533 participants, all at elevated risk of type 2 diabetes. Bivariate correlations between changes in saturated PL FA (SFA), MUFA (as a percentage of total plasma NEFA) and changes in Si were assessed according to treatment group. Age, sex, ethnicity, percentage change in body mass and change in dietary GI were controlled for. Increasing total NEFA concentration was associated with worsening Si (r −0·152; P = 0·001). In the high-MUFA/low-GI diet group, change in PL-MUFA was positively and independently associated with change in Si (r 0·297; P = 0·002). Among MUFA, change in oleic acid (18 : 1) was most strongly correlated with change in Si (r 0·266; P = 0·005), as was change in minor FA 24 : 1 (r 0·244; P = 0·011) and 17 : 1 (r 0·196; P = 0·042). In the high-SFA/high-GI group, change in SFA concentration was not significantly associated with change in Si. In conclusion, increases in the proportion of plasma PL-MUFA following a high-MUFA dietary intervention were associated with improvements in insulin sensitivity.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020
Figure 0

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of study participants(Mean values and standard deviations; numbers of participants and percentages; medians and ranges)

Figure 1

Table 2. Plasma phospholipid fatty acid levels according to intervention group (percentage of total fatty acids) at baseline (post-run-in) and post-intervention(Mean values and standard deviations)

Figure 2

Table 3. Results of multiple regression analysis assessing the relationship between the change in plasma MUFA concentration (as a percentage of the total plasma phospholipid fatty acid pool) and changes in insulin sensitivity index (Si), according to study group, controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, change in body weight and changes in SFA and PUFA levels (as a percentage of the total plasma phospholipid fatty acid pool)

Figure 3

Table 4. Result of binary logistic regression analysis assessing the relationship between change in plasma phospholipid MUFA concentration (as a percentage of the total plasma fatty acid pool) and change in insulin sensitivity index categorised as positive and negative for subjects receiving high-MUFA diets*(Unstandardised coefficients (B) with their standard errors; odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals)

Supplementary material: File

Johns et al. supplementary material

Johns et al. supplementary material

Download Johns et al. supplementary material(File)
File 164.9 KB