Potential health benefits of oat grain and oat-based products Anthony Fardet To cite this version: Anthony Fardet. Potential health benefits of oat grain and oat-based products. XXXVII Brazilian Meeting of Oat Research, Mar 2017, Passo Fundo, Brazil. hal-01594988 HAL Id: hal-01594988 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01594988 Submitted on 5 Jun 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Potential health benefits of oat grain and oat-based products XXXVII Brazilian Meeting of Oat Research (21-23 March, 2017, Passo Fundo, Brazil) Anthony FARDET Senior Researcher in Preventive Nutrition INRA - Unit of Human Nutrition Clermont-Ferrand, France Part 1: Oat among cereals Oat world production (tons) Oats is only sixth in world cereal production (after wheat, maize, rice, barley, and sorghum) 2011 2013 Russian federation 4 027 274 19 % 4 931 822 21 % Canada 2 811 900 13 % 3 888 000 16 % Poland 1 467 900 7 % 1 190 039 5 % Australia 1 262 032 6 % 1 121 135 5 % Finland 1 073 100 5 % 1 196 800 5 % USA 987 415 5 % 1 016 024 4 % Spain 683 500 3 % 964 700 4 % UK 627 000 3 % 964 000 4 % Sweden 731 200 3 % 851 500 4 % Germany 756 500 4 % 627 700 3 % China 600 000 3 % 614 000 3 % Chile 450 798 2 % 680 382 3 % Ukraine 629 700 3 % 467 270 2% Brazil 431 024 2 % 520 397 2 % Argentina 495 940 2 % 444 820 2 % Other countries 4 278 770 20 % 4 402 408 18 % World 21 314 053 100 % 23 880 997 100 % Brazilian oat production (tons) Source: FAO-ONU, February, 2017 2014 1) Maize: 79 877 714 tons 2) Wheat: 6 261 895 tons 3) Oat: 432 136 tons 4) Barley: 251 539 tons 5) Rice: < 12 000 tons Agronomic advantages • Relatively strong fasciculated root system that allows it to grow on moderately compacted soil and improve its structure when used in catch crop (nitrate traps). • Produce a consistent biomass and provide excellent soil cover. This cover decomposes slowly (high C/N ratio) and consequently holds on the ground for a long time. • Thus benefit the crops that succeed it, in particular for the legumes, since it allows a good control of the weeds. • Excellent cleaning plant. • Very marked allelopathic faculties, whether in vegetation or in its decomposition. As a result, crops grown on oat residues can generally be conducted without the use of herbicides. • Oats are often used as nematicides. It is considered a bio pesticide, especially in direct seeding. • Has allelopathic and biocidal effects, either during its growth or during the decomposition of its straws. • Secrete fungicidal substances that are toxic to Fusarium, Gaeumannomyces and Rhizoctonia. Oat grain among cereals (USDA database) g/100 g Water Carbohydrates Proteins Lipids Fiber Ash Oat 8.2 66.3 16.9 6.9 10.6 1.7 Wheat 12.8 68.0 15.4 1.9 12.2 1.9 Maize 10.4 74.3 9.4 4.7 7.3 1.2 Barley 9.4 73.5 12.5 2.3 17.3 2.3 Rice 10.4 77.2 7.9 2.9 3.5 1.5 (brown) Oat grain mineral and oligo-element composition (USDA database) Calcium Iron Magnesium Phosphorus (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g) 54 5 177 523 Wheat (40) (4) (138) (300) Potassium Sodium Zinc Copper (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g) 429 2 4 0.6 (450) (12) (5.5) (0.4) Manganese Selenium (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g) 5 10 (3) (71) Oat grain vitamin composition (USDA database) Pantothenic Thiamin (B1) Riboflavin (B2) Niacin (B3) Vitamin B6 acid (B5) (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g) 0.8 0.1 1.0 1.3 0.1 Wheat (0.4) (0.2) (6.4) (1.0) (0.3) Total folates Vitamin A Vitamin D Vitamin E Vitamin K (B9) (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g) 56 0 0 15 3.2 (44) (0) (0) (0.8) (1.9) Oat grain lipid composition (USDA database) Oat SFA/MUFA/PUFA ratio = 20/37/42% Wheat SFA/MUFA/PUFA ratio = 23/15/62% Fatty acids, total saturated Fatty acids, total Fatty acids, total (g/100 g) monounsaturated (g/100 g) polyunsaturated (g/100 g) 1.2 2.2 2.5 Wheat (0.3) (0.2) (0.8) Palmitic acid (mg/100 g) Stearic acid (mg/100 g) Palmitoleic acid (mg/100 g) 1.0 0.07 0.05 Wheat (0.3) (0.02) (0.01) Oleic acid (mg/100 g) Linoleic acid (mg/100 g) Alpha-linolenic acid (mg/100 g) 2.2 2.4 0.1 Wheat (0.2) (0.7) (0.04) Other compounds of oat grain Shewry PR, Piironen V, Lampi A-M, Nystrom L, Li L, Rakszegi M, et al. Phytochemical and fiber components in oat varieties in the HEALTHGRAIN diversity screen. J Agric Food Chem. 2008;56:9777-84. N = 5 cultivars Free sugars Lignin b-glucans Total sterols Total Total (g/100 g) (g/100 g) (g/100 g) (mg/100 g) phenolics avenanthra (mg/100 g) mides (mg/100 g) 1.5 4.4 5.2 653 531 62 a- Sitosterol Total bound Total free Total soluble Bound tocotrienol (mg/100 g) phenolics phenolics phenolics ferulic acid (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g) (mg/100 g) 16 408 273 82 176 118 Oat grain composition Summary Sources of: - Proteins - PUFA - Selenium - Pantothenic acid (B5) Rich in: Low in: - Fiber - Saturated fat - Phosphorus - Magnesium - Iron Very low in: - Zinc - Sodium - Copper - Sugars - Manganese - Thiamin (B1) - Folates (B9) Part 2: Important (new) nutritional concepts & paradigms What is food health potential? Food matrix (Depends on botanical/animal origin and/or processing) Macro-, micro- and phyto-nutrients effects I. Bioaccessibility (Depends on physical and physico- chemical properties of food matrix) In vitro digestion fraction health II. Absorption Animal & Humans (depends on absorption site and physiological parameters such as Bioavailable In vitro coupled transit time) matrix matrix to with cells (dialysability) food III. Metabolic effects (Depends on site of action and metabolization degree) Animal & Humans From IV. Health effects (Depends on initial health status of the subject) Animal & Humans Cereals & processing: functionalities Cereal products & technology Cereal products versus processing: who is first? One has gradually moved from a technology that was adapted to the food to the food that has adapted to technology Save time, price, and conservation time For example, bread has gradually adapted to the technological requirements: - Selection of wheat on protein content for baking process - Adding vital gluten and enzymes to improve the bread and the structural integrity of industrial products - Kneading conditions: long and intensive → airy bread with high GI - Yeast: short fermentation → loss of the benefit of the leavened enzymes - Adding salt to tasteless food A bread of poor nutritional quality and unnatural taste Cereals & processing: towards a more meaningful ranking A new food classification based on degree of processing: the international NOVA classification Group 1 Un- or minimally-processed foods Carlos Monteiro Sao Paulo University Group 2 Culinary ingredients Group 4 Ultra-processed foods Group 3 Processed foods A new classification of foods on the basis of their degree of processing: International NOVA classification 1) Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Moubarac JC, Martins AP, Martins CA, Garzillo J, Canella DS, Baraldi LG, Barciotte M, et al. Dietary guidelines to nourish humanity and the planet in the twenty-first century. A blueprint from Brazil. Public Health Nutr 2015;18:2311-22. 2) Fardet A, Rock E, Bassama J, Bohuon P, Prabhasankar P, Monteiro C, Moubarac J-C, Achir N. Current food classifications in epidemiological studies do not enable solid nutritional recommendations to prevent diet-related chronic diseases: the impact of food processing. Advances in Nutrition 2015;6:629-38. 3) Moubarac J-C, Parra DC, Cannon G, Monteiro CA. Food Classification Systems Based on Food Processing: Significance and Implications for Technological pyramids Policies and Actions: A Systematic Literature Review and Assessment. Current Obesity Reports 2014;3:256-72. Cereal processing: The Satiety Cascade Chambers, L., 2016. Food texture and the satiety cascade. Nutrition Bulletin 41, 277-282. Cereal processing: The Satiety Cascade Chambers, L., 2016. Food texture and the satiety cascade. Nutrition Bulletin 41, 277-282. Chambers (2016) wrote: “Foods with a hard or viscous texture tend to be consumed more slowly than liquid foods because they require processing in the mouth” “The need to masticate hard or viscous foods increases ‘oro-sensory exposure time’ (time spent in the oral cavity) and this sensory stimulation is thought to nform the body that nutrients have been consumed, which triggers satiety responses; when sensory stimulation is weak (e.g. when liquids are consumed), monitoring of ingested nutrients may be compromised and satiety responses minimal” « Longer oro-sensory exposure times, presumably leading to increased sensory signaling, have been consistently related to reduced intake within a meal (i.e. increased satiation)” “Experimentally increasing chewing activity increased concentrations of peptides associated with satiety” Cereal processing: The Satiety Cascade Chambers, L., 2016.