*Editorial* **The Special Issue on "The Nutritional Value of Pulses and Whole Grains": A Continued Endeavor to Delineate Their Benefits for Today and Addressing the Challenges of the Future**

**Christopher P. F. Marinangeli**

Regulatory Centre of Excellence, Protein Industries Canada, 200-1965 Broad Street, Regina, SK S4P 1Y1, Canada; christopher@proteinsupercluster.ca; Tel.: +1-905-330-0514

Dietary patterns are increasingly focusing on the interplay between nutritional adequacy, reduction of chronic disease, and environmental sustainability. While both pulses and whole grains have a rich history as part of healthy and sustainable dietary patterns [1,2], there is ongoing interest in the use of these foods, and their ingredient derivatives, to delineate effects on multiple aspects of human health and quantify their individual and societal benefits. Both pulses and whole grains are considered to be nutrient dense foods, with fibre and micronutrients being common nutritional attributes that are promoted in dietary guidelines [3]. Pulses contain considerably higher levels of protein compared to whole grains [3]. However, amino acid complementarity between these foods is an additional value proposition, as pulses are leveraged in diets that index higher on plant protein sources and can be an efficient means of replacing animal-derived proteins with those from plants [4].

This Special Edition of Nutrients, "The Nutritional Value of Pulses and Whole Grains" provides a series of papers that touch on various topics and themes that are relevant to a changing food landscape aimed at incorporating more pulses and whole grains into diets. In addition to identifying near and future benefits of these foods, the provided analysis underscores some of the underlying challenges around their incorporation into diets and examination of benefits, which could be critical for using whole grains and pulses in a manner that aligns with global dietary objectives.

Whole grains and pulses are a common thread in healthy dietary patterns. Whether emphasized by specific dietary guidelines in a jurisdiction, as a pattern of eating based on shared attributes across a region, such as the Mediterranean diet, or to tackle societal challenges across metrics of health and sustainability, both pulses and whole grains are touted for their nutritional contributions. Low consumption of whole grains and pulses (and other legumes) are associated with well over 3 million deaths, primarily due to cardiovascular disease [5]. On its own, diets low in dietary fibre have been associated with ≥1million deaths from cardiovascular disease and diabetes and ≥20 million disabilityadjusted life years globally [5]. Studies have reviewed the effects of pulses and whole grains on reducing risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases, such as lipids, blood pressure, and glycemic response [6–8]. Two reviews published as part of this compendium offer an update and summation of data linking whole grain and pulse (lentil) on markers of inflammation and post-prandial glycemic response, respectively.

The review by Milesi et al. [9] provides a systematic assessment of whole grain consumption on inflammatory biomarkers using criteria that aligns with an accepted definition of whole grains in adults. Analysis of 31 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) showed that overweight/obese individuals and those with pre-existing health conditions demonstrated a reduction in markers of inflammation, primarily CRP [9]. The study by Clark et al. [10] showed that at least 110 g lentils is required to generate a relative reduction in postprandial glycemic response by 20%, with effects most strongly correlated with levels of

**Citation:** Marinangeli, C.P.F. The Special Issue on "The Nutritional Value of Pulses and Whole Grains": A Continued Endeavor to Delineate Their Benefits for Today and Addressing the Challenges of the Future. *Nutrients* **2022**, *14*, 3381. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14163381

Received: 5 August 2022 Accepted: 16 August 2022 Published: 17 August 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

protein (r = 0.5513) and fibre (r = 0.3326). Low glycemic response and glycemic index foods have been promoted for reducing risk of cardiometabolic diseases and diabetes management [11–14]. Using the diabetic rat model, the study by Ren et al. [15] investigated mechanisms for hypoglycemic effects of foxtail millet, a cereal grain that is cultivated across 26 countries. 16S RNA sequencing revealed a correlation between abundance of Lactobaccillus and Ruminococcus\_2 and lower fasting and post-prandial glycemic levels. Molecular analysis demonstrated activation of the P13K/AKT signaling pathway, leading to decreased gluconeogenesis and increased glycolysis; and inflammation was suggested given the observed down regulation of NFκB. Collectively, these studies strengthen the importance of carbohydrate quality in food choices, which encompasses "whole food" constituents, low glycemic response and glycemic index foods, and dietary fibre [16]. Carbohydrate quality is increasingly emphasized as a value proposition for consumers to choose foods with significant effects on dietary quality and reduced risk factors for chronic disease [17,18]. The information disseminated in this Special Issue brings new perspectives and data to support the use of pulses and whole grains as healthy carbohydrate foods.

As briefly discussed above, the global burden of disease reports have been effective at translating the societal costs of unhealthy dietary patterns. Over the last decade, additional analyses have aimed to assign a "cost-of-illness" as a novel perspective by evaluating potential healthcare savings when a proportion of a population adopts a healthy diet. In the past, various diets [19], and their components, including, pulses, and whole grains have been associated with significant direct and indirect healthcare cost savings by estimating putative associations with constipation, cardiovascular disease, and cancer in Canada [20,21] and the US [22,23]. In this issue, this analysis was expanded to Australia and Finland. Abdullah et al. [24] showed that increasing whole grain consumption to a 48 g/day target across 5 to 100% of the population could decrease healthcare costs associated total and colorectal cancer by 126.2 M to 1.37 B AUD over 20 years. Similarly, Martikainen et al. [25] used 3 theoretical scenarios (1. 10% unit increase in the Finnish population consuming at least one whole grain serving per day; 2. Increase consumption of one or more whole grain food servings per day among adults already consuming at least one whole grain serving per day; 3 a combination of scenarios 1 and 2) for increasing servings whole grains to estimate potential reductions healthcare costs associated with type 2 diabetes in Finland [25]. Despite already high consumption rates of whole grains compared to other countries in the EU, 286 M€ to 989 M€ in healthcare and productivity cost savings were projected over 10 years, respectively, across scenarios 1–3. Over 30 years, modeled savings increased from over 1.2 B€ to 4.2 B€ and generated 44,237 to 154,094 quality-adjusted life years [25]. In addition to better health, these and other data support top-down dietary guidelines and policies in the context of a balanced and healthy diet to drive broad societal benefits.

One cannot ignore current and future challenges for expanding consumption of both pulses and whole grains. While promoted in dietary guidelines, consumption of these two foods remains relatively low relative to recommendations [1]. The analysis of 6 cycles of NHANES by Mitchell et al. [26] from this collection demonstrated no significant trend in pulse consumption from 2003–2014 with per capita consumption ranging between 19.3 and 24.9 g/day. Although pulse consumers reported higher intakes of dietary fibre, folate, potassium, iron, and protein at intakes ≥69.4 g/day compared to non-pulse consumers, only 27% of adults consumed pulses on one of the two days of the survey [26]. These low consumption rates of pulses mirror previous analysis of the NHANES [27] and the Canadian Community Health Survey [28]. This is corroborated by other data demonstrating that pulses are relatively minor contributors to total protein intakes of diets in Canada [29], the US (~1.3%) [30], France (<1%) [31,32], and the UK (not reported as a significant source of protein) [33]. While consumers are somewhat more familiar with whole grains, in some regions, such as the US, only a fraction of the recommended level of intake have been shown to be consumed on any given day [34].

Over the last decade however, there has been significant growth in the number of manufactured food products that are leveraging whole grains and pulses as ingredients to bolster their actual or perceived nutritional density. The study by Bielefeld et al. [35] demonstrated that the number of legume food products grew from 312 products in 2019 to 610 in 2021 across four major grocery retail outlets in Sydney Australia. Furthermore, legume-formulated snack foods showed the greatest increase (n = 88), with the legume chip category growing by 357%. Nutrient content claims represented the most prominent type of claim used across foods, with most claims promoting foods as a source of dietary fibre (n = 246), gluten free (n = 216), and source of protein (n = 208) [35]. Claims identifying legume foods as clean label (no artificial colours, flavours or preservatives) (n = 252), vegetarian/vegan (n = 232), and organic (n = 115) were also prominent in the 2021 food audit. However, the analysis of nutritional quality of whole grain cereal-based products within the Italian retail market suggested that, without a harmonized legal definition of whole grains, the presence of whole grains cannot be used as a stand alone marker of nutritional quality [36]. Levels of dietary fibre were similar between foods formulated entirely or partially with whole grain ingredients, with these foods containing more sodium than refined grain products. These results speak to some of the consumer challenges in food innovation, with varying motivations and priorities of food attributes across consumer segments [36]. In the same regard, the study by Sajdakowska et al. [37] evaluated consumer motivations and perceptions of pasta and pasta with added fibre. Results segmented consumers as quality, sensory, convenience, or neutral-oriented, with health and fibre promoting statements scoring highest in the quality-oriented segment compared to other groups. Sensory-oriented individuals also indicated that pasta with added fibre has a less appealing taste and visual appearance compared to other groups. These results align with other consumer analysis where taste and price have been the top two purchase drivers in the US over the last 10 years [38]. Overall results corroborate various initiatives to enhance the nutritional profile of manufactured foods, where pulses and whole grains, can underpin such efforts. However, deliverance on those functional drivers will be required for these foods to support adoption of healthy dietary patterns, but likely cannot be achieved without understanding consumer attitudes and motivations toward food choices.

Finally, the final two articles target some of the ongoing challenges for facilitating and understanding the impacts of whole grains and pulses on dietary patterns. The first was led by members of the Whole Grain Initiative; a global consortium comprised of members of academia, government, and industry with a focus on promoting whole grain consumption [39]. The consortium stresses that lack of consensus on a definition of whole grains, and a whole grain food, creates inconsistencies for consumers achieving evidenced-based benefits from whole grain consumption [39]. Recall, that using an acceptable definition of whole grain foods was used by Melesi et al. [9] to summarize the association between whole grain intake and markers of systemic inflammation and the study by Dall'Asta et al. [36] suggested that not having a legal definition of whole grains has created a heterogeneous food environment in Italy with inconsistent nutritional attributes around whole grain foods. In this regard, van der Kamp et al. [39] suggest that only foods containing a minimum of 25% whole grain ingredients (based on dry weight) be eligible for a front-of-pack whole grain claim. Given the breadth of experts establishing proposed definitions for whole grain foods, the proposed definitions and labelling requirements could be used by regulatory agencies for the development of nutritional policies.

The remaining paper by Mitchell et al. [40] discusses the limited data that is available for evaluating intakes of pulses and pulse-derived ingredients. As mentioned previously, consumption levels of pulses are low in many developed jurisdictions that acquire populational food intake data through national surveys. However, given that pulses are legumes, but not all legumes are pulses, pulse consumption is often measured as part of a broader legume food group [40]. This presents some challenges, as pulses have unique nutritional attributes and patterns of consumption compared to other legumes, such as soy and peanuts. The editorial by Mitchell et al. [40] highlights this challenge in the context of

the US, where, not until the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans" had the term "pulse" been recognized. With a global focus on enhancing consumption of pulses as part of healthy and sustainable dietary patterns, using the specific terminology to identify pulses in epidemiologic databases is required for generating optimal consumption rates and to create more robust data sets regarding the effects of pulses on nutrient intakes and chronic disease outcomes.

This Special Issue of Nutrients provides a snapshot of interesting developments in the value of pulses and whole grains in healthy dietary patterns. These foods and their ingredients can be useful for bolstering the nutritional value of manufactured food products. However, understanding the expectations of consumers could be critical for offering foods that deliver on individual and societal benefits. At the same time, a judicious examination of policies, regulations, and research methods could be a meaningful exercise to further delineate and ascertain benefits from using these foods more liberally in the food system. Whole grains and pulses continue to be dietary assets that align with global dietary objectives across various nutrition, health, and economic goals.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Conflicts of Interest:** C.P.F.M. is an employee of Protein Industries Canada and was a former employee of Pulse Canada and Kellogg Canada.

#### **References**


## *Review* **Whole Grain Consumption and Inflammatory Markers: A Systematic Literature Review of Randomized Control Trials**

**Genevieve Milesi <sup>1</sup> , Anna Rangan <sup>1</sup> and Sara Grafenauer 2,3,\***


**Abstract:** Whole grain foods are rich in nutrients, dietary fibre, a range of antioxidants, and phytochemicals, and may have potential to act in an anti-inflammatory manner, which could help impact chronic disease risk. This systematic literature review aimed to examine the specific effects of whole grains on selected inflammatory markers from human clinical trials in adults. As per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) protocol, the online databases MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched from inception through to 31 August 2021. Randomized control trials (RCTs) ≥ 4 weeks in duration, reporting ≥1 of the following: C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor (TNF), were included. A total of 31 RCTs were included, of which 16 studies recruited overweight/obese individuals, 12 had pre-existing conditions, two were in a healthy population, and one study included participants with prostate cancer. Of these 31 RCTs, three included studies with two intervention arms. A total of 32 individual studies measured CRP (10/32 were significant), 18 individual studies measured IL-6 (2/18 were significant), and 13 individual studies measured TNF (5/13 were significant). Most often, the overweight/obese population and those with pre-existing conditions showed significant reductions in inflammatory markers, mainly CRP (34% of studies). Overall, consumption of whole grain foods had a significant effect in reducing at least one inflammatory marker as demonstrated in 12/31 RCTs.

**Keywords:** whole grain; refined grain; inflammation; inflammatory markers; C-reactive protein; tumor necrosis factor; interlukin-6

#### **1. Introduction**

Whole grains are defined by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ), to be ' . . . intact, dehulled, ground, cracked or flaked grains where the components– endosperm, germ and bran are present in substantially the same proportions as they exist in the intact grain' and includes wholemeal [1]. More recently, a consensus definition of whole grain as a food and as an ingredient was published with the aim of assisting in nutrition education and food labeling, but this also provides useful guidance for research [2]. Foods containing whole grains are both higher in nutrients and dietary fiber, as compared to refined grain alternatives, and in observational studies, diets higher in whole grains positively impact chronic disease, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus [3], cardiovascular disease (CVD) [4], certain cancers [4] including colorectal cancer [5–8], and other influencing risk factors, such as weight [9], and markers for CVD, such as triglyceride and cholesterol levels [10]. In addition, the nutrient bundle within whole grains contains potential anti-inflammatory properties, which is of importance as elevated levels of inflammatory biomarkers are linked to an increase in chronic disease risk [2,3]. The benefits of whole grain foods, including pseudo grains, quinoa, buckwheat, and amaranth, have been known for several decades, and included in the Australian Dietary Guidelines since 1979 [11].

**Citation:** Milesi, G.; Rangan, A.; Grafenauer, S. Whole Grain Consumption and Inflammatory Markers: A Systematic Literature Review of Randomized Control Trials. *Nutrients* **2022**, *14*, 374. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14020374

Academic Editors: Marinangeli Christopher P. F. and Rosa Casas

Received: 14 December 2021 Accepted: 11 January 2022 Published: 16 January 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

Chronic disease was responsible for 9 out of 10 deaths in Australia in 2018, and 61% of the total burden of disease in Australians in 2017 [12], indicating the potential importance of improved dietary guidance and dietary patterns. However consumption of whole grain foods continues to remain at a low level, with Australian adults only consuming 21 g/day, less than half of the 48 g daily target intake (DTI) [11,13]. Furthermore, diets low in whole grains have been identified as the second greatest dietary risk factor for mortality in the Global Burden of Disease studies [14], highlighting the importance of dietary patterns.

The anti-inflammatory effects of whole grains can be examined via inflammatory markers, such as C-reactive protein, (CRP), interleukin-6, (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factors (TNF), and can potentially downregulate an inflammatory response [15]. Inflammatory markers change in response to a cascade of internal metabolic processes, where chronic inflammation can lead to chronic disease [15].

There is a growing body of evidence linking whole grain consumption with overall health benefits; however, the specific influence of whole grains on inflammatory markers is conflicting [11,16]. To date, systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have focused on the consumption of whole grains and their association with individual chronic health diseases, such as CVD or T2D [17]. Others have focused specifically on dietary fiber levels in whole grains and associated effects; however, there is no current summation of the literature focusing solely on the consumption of whole grains and their direct effect on inflammatory markers. Although there are two previously published systematic reviews in this area [17,18], an update was necessary that focused only on adults, with a strict criteria for whole grain to meet the accepted definition and to clarify other discrepancies. This systematic literature review aimed to examine the specific effects of whole grains on inflammatory markers from human clinical trials in adults. The intent was to investigate whether the consumption of whole or pseudo grains, over refined grains, resulted in changes in inflammatory markers, based on results in human subjects in studies ≥ 4 weeks duration.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

This systematic literature review of RCT was performed to assess the effect of whole grain consumption on inflammatory markers following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD: pending).

#### *2.1. Eligibility and Exclusion Criteria*

The research question 'Is there an effect of whole grain consumption on measures of inflammation?' was developed using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) format (Figure S1). Publications needed to meet the following inclusion criteria: (a) RCT, parallel, or cross-over design; (b) studies conducted on humans aged ≥18 years; (c) studies ≥ 4 weeks in duration; (d) studies with interventions including both whole grain and pseudo grain diets, where whole grains included: cereal grains; wheat; including spelt, emmer, einkorn, Khorasan or kamut, durum, and faro; oats, corn/maize, rice, teff, canary seeds, Job's Tears, barley, sorghum, rye, millet and triticale, and pseudo-cereal grains; amaranth, buckwheat, quinoa, and wild rice; (d) reporting ≥1 of the following serum inflammatory markers: interleukin-6, (IL-6), C-reactive protein, (CRP), tumor necrosis factor (TNF). Full search terms can be found in Table S2.

The following exclusion criteria were applied; (a) studies conducted on humans < 18 years; (b) study intervention arms not randomized; (c) studies < 4 weeks in duration. Although inflammatory markers were examined by both Jenkins et al. [19] and Kristensen et al. [20], the intervention diet included several foods, not just whole grain foods; therefore, these studies were excluded from the current review.

#### *2.2. Search Strategy*

The following online databases were searched: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Available online: https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ (accessed on 13 December 2021), and CINAHL. Available online: https://www.ebsco.com/ (accessed on 13 December 2021), from database inception until 31 August 2021. In addition, reference lists of eligible studies were scanned and PubMed. Available online: https: //pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (accessed on 13 December 2021).

Was searched manually for any additional studies. The search strategy was designed in Medline and translated for other databases (Table S2). Grey literature, abandoned trials, and any journals published in languages other than English were excluded from the search strategy.

#### *2.3. Study Selection, Data Extraction, and Quality Assessment*

Reviewer G.M extracted all citations into EndNote X9, with duplicates removed manually. Reviewer G.M independently double screened all titles and abstracts, with any uncertainty and assistance from S.G. Following title and abstract screening, a full-text screen was completed on the remaining articles by two independent reviewers (S.G. and G.M.). Reviewers met and resolved any discrepancies, with any remaining uncertainty resolved by a third reviewer (A.R.).

A data extraction form was created in a Microsoft® Excel® spreadsheet (Microsoft 365 MSO Version 2109.14430.20306 Redmond, WA, USA) to facilitate the retrieval and storage of relevant data. Extracted data included study design (parallel or cross-over), study duration, participant characteristics, number of participants, control and intervention diet, outcomes measured, and results obtained (baseline, endpoint data, and *p*-value).

The included studies were reviewed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (Rob2) for RCTs [21]. Reviewer G.M assessed studies to determine if each study had low, some concerns, or high risk of bias. Assessment criteria included risk of bias arising from recruitment of subjects, the randomization process, deviations from the interventions, missing data, measurement of outcome, or selection of the reported result. A second reviewer (S.G.) was consulted over any uncertainties.

#### *2.4. Data Analysis*

Tabulation of studies including reported mean ± SD of baseline and endpoint data and statistical significance (*p*-value) for within-group and between-group intervention changes for each study, and for studies with multiple intervention arms was performed. Within the included studies, outcomes were considered statistically significant when *p* < 0.05. The outcome measures were maintained as per the study units due to the differences in the various experimental methods used. Studies were then categorized into population groups based on the authors' description of participants: healthy individuals, overweight or obese individuals, individuals with pre-existing conditions, and others (prostate cancer).

#### **3. Results**

#### *3.1. Search Results and Study Selection*

The initial search, conducted on 31 August 2021, returned a total of 730 studies. An additional four studies were identified from the reference list of eligible studies and manual searches from PubMed. After the removal of duplicates, 397 were screened for the title and abstract, with a further 312 studies excluded. A full-text review was completed on the remaining 85 records, with 47 removed due to the type of study, study did not have an adult population, or length of the RCT < 4 weeks. The remaining 38 studies were further assessed, with six removed as the control or intervention diet was not whole or refined grains and one measured inflammation in fecal matter, not from blood serum. A remaining total of 31 RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review (Figure 1).

(Figure 1).

assessed, with six removed as the control or intervention diet was not whole or refined grains and one measured inflammation in fecal matter, not from blood serum. A remaining total of 31 RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review

#### *3.2. Study Characteristics*

.

*3.2. Study Characteristics*  Of the 31 studies included in analysis, 16 were parallel RCTs and 15 were crossover trials. Of these studies, three RCTs included two intervention arms, and thus were split into a further three studies [22,23]. Table 1 displays the study characteristics. Two studies comprised whole grain interventions in healthy populations, 16 studies overweight or obese, 12 pre-existing conditions, and one reviewing another disease state: prostate can-Of the 31 studies included in analysis, 16 were parallel RCTs and 15 were crossover trials. Of these studies, three RCTs included two intervention arms, and thus were split into a further three studies [22,23]. Table 1 displays the study characteristics. Two studies comprised whole grain interventions in healthy populations, 16 studies overweight or obese, 12 pre-existing conditions, and one reviewing another disease state: prostate cancer. The studies had a total of 2047 participants, with a mean age of 49.7 (range 20–80 years old) and the mean duration of the study was 12.5 weeks (range 4–24 weeks).

old) and the mean duration of the study was 12.5 weeks (range 4–24 weeks).

cer. The studies had a total of 2047 participants, with a mean age of 49.7 (range 20–80 years


11




#### *3.3. Risk of Bias 3.3. Risk of Bias*  A summary of the within-study risk of bias is shown in Figure 2. The included studies

A summary of the within-study risk of bias is shown in Figure 2. The included studies were assessed against the predetermined criteria of the Cochrane RoB2 tool for randomized control and crossover trials [21]. Within Domain 1: Randomization Process, there were five studies with some concerns of bias [24,28,30,31,43], with the remaining studies (*n* = 26) with a low risk of bias. In Domain 2: Deviations from intended intervention, there was one study with a high risk of bias [22], one with some concern [31], and the remainder with a low risk of bias (*n* = 29). Three studies had some risk of bias for Domain 3: Missing outcome data, [28,41,45], and the remainder had a low risk of bias (*n* = 28). Two studies had some risk of bias for both Domain 4: Measurement of the outcome [25,47] and Domain 5: Selection of the reported result [26,31], with the remainder having a low risk of bias (*n* = 29). were assessed against the predetermined criteria of the Cochrane RoB2 tool for randomized control and crossover trials [21]. Within Domain 1: Randomization Process, there were five studies with some concerns of bias [24,28,30,31,43], with the remaining studies (*n* = 26) with a low risk of bias. In Domain 2: Deviations from intended intervention, there was one study with a high risk of bias [22], one with some concern [31], and the remainder with a low risk of bias (*n* = 29). Three studies had some risk of bias for Domain 3: Missing outcome data, [28,41,45], and the remainder had a low risk of bias (*n* = 28). Two studies had some risk of bias for both Domain 4: Measurement of the outcome [25,47] and Domain 5: Selection of the reported result [26,31], with the remainder having a low risk of bias (*n* = 29).

*Nutrients* **2022**, *14*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17

**Figure 2.** Risk of bias assessment using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB 2). **Figure 2.** Risk of bias assessment using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB 2).

#### *3.4. Effect of the Intervention on the Outcome 3.4. Effect of the Intervention on the Outcome*

tween the intervention and control diet.

#### 3.4.1. Healthy Individuals 3.4.1. Healthy Individuals

Ampatzoglou et al. 2016 [24]

Two studies measured the effect of whole grain consumption on healthy individuals, who had a BMI < 25 and with no pre-existing conditions [23,40]. Within these studies, two measured CRP, while only one measured IL-6 and TNF. No marker for the studies looking at healthy individuals showed any level of statistical significance. The details are displayed in Table 2. Two studies measured the effect of whole grain consumption on healthy individuals, who had a BMI < 25 and with no pre-existing conditions [23,40]. Within these studies, two measured CRP, while only one measured IL-6 and TNF. No marker for the studies looking at healthy individuals showed any level of statistical significance. The details are displayed in Table 2.

**Table 2.** Effect of whole grain consumption on inflammatory markers in healthy individuals be-

I (*n* = 33) 2.2 (0.5) ng/L 1.6 (0.4) ng/L 0.099

Navarro et al. 2019 I (*n* = 40) 1.5 ± 2.7 mg/L n.d 0.19

**Study N (I/C) CRP Baseline CRP Endpoint** *p***-Value** 

C (*n* = 33) 1.7 (0.3) ng/L 1.8 (0.3) ng/L


**Table 2.** Effect of whole grain consumption on inflammatory markers in healthy individuals between the intervention and control diet.

**Abbreviations:** Number of participants (N); Intervention (I); Control (C); C-Reactive Protein (CRP); Interlukin-6 (IL-6); Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF); *p*-value between groups unless stated; *p*-value < 0.05; baseline and endpoint data presented as mean ± S.D, mean (range) or mean (SE) as per raw data, where S.D is standard deviation and SE = standard error.

#### 3.4.2. Overweight or Obese Individuals

Among the 16 studies in the overweight and obese populations (BMI 25–35), two had two intervention arms [22,47], resulting in 18 studies within this category (Table 3). All 18 studies measured CRP levels, with six of these (33%) observing a statistically significant reduction in CRP levels following whole grain consumption [29,30,32,33,38,40]. Nine of the studies measured IL-6 levels, with one observing a statistically significant change in IL-6 levels after consumption of whole grain foods [40]. A further two of the five total studies measuring TNF also observed a statistically significant change in inflammatory marker levels [32,49].


**Table 3.** Effect of whole grain consumption on inflammatory markers in overweight and obese individuals.

**Table 3.** *Cont.*


Abbreviations: Number of participants (N); Intervention (I); Control (C); C-Reactive Protein (CRP); Interlukin-6 (IL-6); Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF); *p*-value between group unless stated; *p*-value < 0.05 (\*\*); baseline and endpoint data presented as mean ± SD, mean (range) or mean (SE) as per raw data, where SD is standard deviation and SE = standard error; ˆ *p*-value Group vs. Time.

#### 3.4.3. Individuals with Pre-Existing Conditions

In the 12 studies that reviewed individuals with pre-existing conditions, which included type 2 diabetes [23,35,43,45,50], metabolic syndrome [27,28,31,48], type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome [23], acute coronary syndrome [50], and hypercholesterolaemia [42], one study had two intervention arms included in this SLR [23] (Table 4). Of the 11 studies measuring CRP, four observed a statistically significant change [23,31,42,43]. Seven studies measured IL-6 levels, with only one showing a significant change [42]. These seven studies also reviewed TNF levels, with three observing an increase in the level of change between the intervention and the control group, which was statistically significant [28,42,51].

**Table 4.** Effect of whole grain consumption on inflammatory markers in individuals with preexisting conditions.



**Table 4.** *Cont.*

Abbreviations: Number of participants (N); Intervention (I); Control (C); C-Reactive Protein (CRP); Interlukin-6 (IL-6); Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF); *p*-value between group unless stated; *p*-value < 0.05 (\*\*); baseline and endpoint data presented as mean ± SD, mean (range) or mean (SE) as per raw data, where SD is standard deviation and SE = standard error.

#### 3.4.4. Individuals with Other Conditions

One study had a population that fit outside of the other population groups: males with prostate cancer [52] (Table 5). This study measured CRP and IL-6 levels and whilst the data was not prepared in accordance with other measures, the study observed no statistical level of significance for either.



Abbreviations: Number of participants (N); Intervention (I); Control (C); C-Reactive Protein (CRP); Interlukin-6 (IL-6); *p*-value between group unless stated; *p*-value <0.05; baseline and endpoint data presented as mean ± SD, mean (range) or mean (SE) as per raw data, where SD is standard deviation and SE = standard error.

#### **4. Discussion**

Consumption of whole grains in preference to refined grains is known to have improved health benefits, with the broad range of benefits often attributed solely to the presence of dietary fiber [10,53]; however, other components, phytochemicals, fatty acids, amino acids, vitamins, and minerals are all likely to play a role. This review of 31 RCTs found that consumption of whole grain foods had a moderate effect on reducing inflammatory markers, with five of the possible 15 crossover studies [33,38,40,42,50], and seven of 16 parallel studies demonstrating statistically significant changes [23,29–32,43,49]. Within the population groups studied, the reduction in markers was most often observed in obese and overweight populations, and among those with pre-existing conditions, compared with studies of healthy populations, although there were only two studies in this category.

Previous systematic reviews and meta analyses, performed by Rahmani et al. [17] and Hajihashemi et al. [18] utilising publications up until 2019, found little evidence of a relationship between whole grain consumption and inflammatory markers. The current review included a total of 13 papers not included in the aforementioned reviews [17,18], six of which were published outside the timeframe utilized by the previous authors [30,31, 41,43,44,52], and a further seven were included in the current review due to a variation in the search strategy [23,29,37,39,42,45,51].

While the findings of the current study provide some indication that whole grain consumption leads to a downregulation of inflammation, the wide variety of foods classed as whole grain included in the intervention diets varied between studies, from commercially available whole grain products to a specific dose allocated via food items provided by the research group. Of the 31 studies reviewed, 27 provided the intervention foods; however, the remaining four studies [25,32,36,43] only provided guidelines or instructions of which foods to purchase, adding a significant burden for study participants in sourcing and selecting the correct food types, which is a known issue for consumers [54]. Blind compliance checks are problematic and alkylresorcinol levels were only utilized by Harris Jackson et al. [28]; however, this test is only relevant for whole grain wheat and rye [55,56]. Despite this limitation, such biomarkers have been suggested in research to help support dietary assessment of consumption [56].

Only three of the 31 studies noted that subjects were instructed to maintain weight for the duration of the study [27,29,42], and only one study controlled for weight in their analysis [50], with all others showing a slight decrease in weight or no data mentioned. In addition, only eight studies recorded or mentioned physical activity or exercise, with six asked to maintain [23,25,27,30,33,41], one asked to record any exercise [32], and one asked to refrain completely [29]. A change in weight either through diet or exercise could be a possible confounder, as it becomes difficult to isolate the changes in inflammatory status as a result of the consumption of whole grain or as a result of the weight (fat) loss [57]. Despite the focus of papers based on the overweight and obese population, only 16 of 30 RCTs measured body fat mass [22,24,25,27,30,31,34,35,37,38,40,41,45,46,48,49], with no consistency in the method or type of body fat measured between studies, making comparisons between studies difficult. Furthermore, the more favorable results within studies of overweight populations are likely due to higher inflammatory marker levels at baseline in comparison to healthy populations. This finding is of particular importance as dietary interventions that result in a reduction in inflammation are important due to the link with reduced risk of chronic diseases [58].

As inflammation is known to increase with age [59] and the average age of the participants was 50 years (20–80 years), future studies could look at potential differences in age groups, or alternatively study a larger population sample segmenting by age, health status, or gender. This would enable the identification of population groups where the diet prescription may be most efficacious.

Chronic disease remains one of the largest cost contributors to the global burden of disease, with overweight contributing 8.7% of the annual cost of the total burden of disease in Australia in 2019 [12]. On a population level, swapping from refined grains to whole grains has the possibility of reducing the risk of chronic disease, in turn lowering the costs related to the burden of disease. A recent nutrition economics analysis found that a swap to whole grain from refined grain foods could provide significant healthcare cost savings for cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer, particularly colorectal cancer, for the Australian population [60,61].

Further studies investigating the relationship between consumption of whole grain foods over comparable refined grain products and the influence on inflammatory markers are needed to confirm the presence and strength of the relationship. Studies with standardized diets where the single focus of the dietary intervention was whole grain foods compared with refined grain foods would help to narrow the possibility that the intervention diet was responsible for the change in the inflammatory response. Previous research has emphasized the need to accurately assess and record the whole grain content of foods in participant diets, with a minimum DTI of 48 g of whole grain, rather than using the weight of the whole grain food to allow for a more accurate dose assessment [56]. Products in the Australian market can claim a whole grain content from as little as 8 g per manufacturer

serve or 25% whole grain and these may be consumed alongside products that are 100% whole grain, such as oats or brown rice. The recently proposed global definition for whole grains as an ingredient and as a whole grain food provides further guidance for research to assist with comparison between studies [2]. Studies also need to consider that the health outcomes from various whole grain food products may not be homogeneous, with potential differences between types of whole grains, for example, wheat versus rye versus oats versus brown rice; differing proportions of dietary fiber, and within that, soluble to insoluble fiber content; and also consideration of other components, such as beta-glucan. This has been discussed in a previous systematic review regarding cardiovascular risk factors, where whole grain oats were found to be more effective than other grains in reducing cholesterol, and brown rice was more effective in reducing triglycerides.

A strength of this analysis was the study design, clarifying the discrepancies in previously published systematic reviews. For example, the careful inclusion of only adult RCTs, and the removal of quasi-experimental studies including only those utilizing blood measures of cytokines (not faecal measures) and those with test diets that included whole grain rather than the fiber component from whole grain sources. The collection of data from the differing population groups enabled categorization and comparison between study population types, highlighting differences between healthy and unhealthy population groups, a potential consideration for future research.

#### **5. Conclusions**

With obesity rates continuing to grow in Australia and globally, coupled with the link to a higher risk of chronic disease, dietary interventions that investigate simple food changes, such as exchanging refined grain for whole grain, are of particular interest. This study further contributes to increasing current knowledge, pointing to future research considerations, particularly the need to conduct research with individual whole grain food types, discern potential differences, accurately account for the dose of whole grain, and measure compliance.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/ 10.3390/nu14020374/s1, Table S1: PICO Framework, Table S2: Search Terms, Figures S1 and S2: Results of Risk of Bias Assessment.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, G.M., S.G. and A.R.; methodology, G.M. and S.G.; formal analysis; writing—original draft preparation, G.M.; writing—review and editing, G.M., S.G. and A.R.; supervision, S.G. and A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding however was supported by the Grains & Legumes Nutrition Council, a not-for-profit charity.

**Conflicts of Interest:** S.G. was employed by the Grains & Legumes Nutrition Council, a not-for-profit charity at the time of data collection. G.M. and A.R. declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**

