Mostly false Scientifically refuted Certainty of evidence: moderate provisional C-LEG-01

Fava beans and lentils (together with flour products) are toxins that cause inflammation and deteriorate health; the fava bean hull is indigestible and the bean contains toxins that ferment 'dirtily'.

In short: This claim is false for the general population: in randomised trials cooked legumes did not increase inflammation and improved metabolic markers; real risks are limited to specific groups and raw beans.
Conclusion: Cooked legumes are not toxins; the claim generalises narrow, real risks to everyone.

Original statement

الفول والعدس ومنتجات الدقيق سموم تسبب الالتهابات وتدهور الصحة، والبقوليات تسبب أمراض المناعة الذاتية.

not verbatim – paraphrase. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.

Translation

Fava beans and lentils (together with flour products) are toxins that cause inflammation and deteriorate health; the fava bean hull is indigestible and the bean contains toxins that ferment 'dirtily'.

Origin

Source status
Archive quote (no location given)
Attribution
Elawady (archive paraphrase; source video not given)
Origin
https://eltayebat.com/rule/legumes/
Attribution uncertainty
The archive attributes this text to Dr. Diaa in its 'د. ضياء يقول' box but gives no video reference. Transcript check (the project's research files, keyword search of 307 archive transcripts): found_close_paraphrase (partial). Fava beans described as harmful and causing immune problems (iL9u56Utnhw) and the fava bean hull as indigestible with 'toxins' that ferment 'dirtily' (hf_DXalTTDc) are found. Calling fava beans, lentils and flour 'toxins' (سموم) together in one sentence was not found by keyword search.
Claimed mechanism

Indigestible hull, 'toxins' inside the bean, putrid fermentation in the gut.

Claimed health effect

Inflammation and general deterioration of health.

Population concerned

Everyone

Geographic restriction by Elawady

none found

Diverging source versions

حبايه الفول القشره انداجست لن تهضم الحبايه من جوه فيها سموم فهتلاقي فيها حته انداجستب حته فيها سموم حته الفيرمنتيشن بتاعها قذر اما تتخمر بتطلع ريحه معفنه وتطلع توكسن

Source status
Video transcript (own words)
Attribution
Elawady (machine transcript)
Video
Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! مقاومة الأنسولين ٢ (Open source)
Published
1 July 2025
Timestamp
0:17:04 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
Attribution uncertainty
Archive transcript (YouTube captions or AI-generated); wording may contain transcription errors; no timestamps available.

ندرس الفول بيضر ولا مش هيضر لا هو بيضر ولو سبب لغيرك انيميا هيسبب لك انت مشاكل مناعيه ولو سبب لغيرك قولون عصبي هيسبب لك انت اعراض

...we study fava beans: do they harm or not? They do harm; if they caused anaemia in someone else, they will cause you immune problems; if they caused irritable bowel in someone else, they will cause you symptoms.

Source status
Video transcript (own words)
Attribution
Elawady (machine transcript)
Video
الفول مش غذاء العقول ، الفول غذاء الخيول (Open source)
Published
4 April 2024
Timestamp
0:00:46 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
Attribution uncertainty
Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); no timestamps; YouTube original not checked; wording may contain recognition errors. Close paraphrase (fava beans harmful).

Scientific assessment

Mostly false – Essential parts of the statement are not supported by the evidence or are strongly exaggerated.

Certainty of evidence: moderate – Further research may still affect the assessment.

1. What was claimed?

Fava beans and lentils are 'toxins' that cause inflammation and deteriorate health.

2. What is demonstrably correct?

Raw legumes contain antinutrients (lectins, protease inhibitors, phytate); raw or undercooked kidney beans can cause acute poisoning; fava beans trigger haemolysis in G6PD deficiency; legumes cause gas through fermentation of oligosaccharides.

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

Calling cooked legumes 'toxins' for everyone is not supported. In randomised trials, non-soy legumes did not increase CRP; the pooled effect pointed to a reduction (MD -0.21; 95% CI -0.44 to 0.02). Legume intake is associated with lower mortality and lowers LDL cholesterol.

4. What remains unclear?

Long-term trials on hard clinical endpoints are lacking; effects in populations with very high fava consumption (Egypt) have not been studied specifically for inflammation.

5. Which studies support it?

None for the general claim. Antinutrient and favism data apply to specific situations (raw beans, G6PD deficiency).

6. Which studies contradict it?

Salehi-Abargouei 2015 (CRP meta-analysis of RCTs), Ha 2014 (LDL -0.17 mmol/L with ~130 g/d pulses), Zargarzadeh 2023 (all-cause mortality HR 0.94), Afshin 2014 (IHD RR 0.86 per 4 weekly servings).

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

German and European dietary guidelines recommend regular pulse consumption; no regulatory body classifies cooked legumes as toxic.

8. What is known about Egypt?

Ful medames and lentils are staple protein sources in Egypt; fava avoidance is medically indicated only for people with G6PD deficiency (which is relatively frequent in Egypt, see C-LEG-03).

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

Cooked legumes are not toxins for the general population. Specific groups (G6PD deficiency, IBS, legume allergy) need individual restrictions.

Assessment details

Rationale for certainty of evidence

Randomised trials of legume intake show no rise (rather a trend to a fall) in C-reactive protein, and lower LDL cholesterol; large cohort meta-analyses associate higher legume intake with slightly lower all-cause mortality. Trials are short and cohorts observational, so certainty is moderate rather than high.

Source quality

Archive quote without video reference plus one machine transcript; no evidence offered for an inflammatory effect of cooked legumes in humans.

Regional transferability

Trials and cohorts come mainly from Europe, North America, Iran and Asia; there is no reason to expect a fundamentally different effect of cooked fava beans or lentils in Egypt, apart from favism in G6PD-deficient people (see C-LEG-03).

Individual exceptions

People with G6PD deficiency must avoid fava beans; people with IBS may react to legume oligosaccharides; rare legume allergies exist.

Regional scope of the claim
general (biological/medical)
Last reviewed
26 October 2026 provisional

Scientific evidence in detail

Scientifically refuted – High-quality evidence shows the opposite, or the claim contradicts well-established physiology.

Research question: In the general population, does eating cooked fava beans and lentils increase inflammation or deteriorate health compared with lower legume intake?

Research question in detail (PICO)
Population
General adult population
Intervention or exposure
Cooked legumes (fava beans, lentils, other pulses)
Comparison
Low or no legume intake/control diets
Geographic scope
universal biology; Egyptian diets with high fava intake not specifically studied
Outcomes
  • Inflammatory markers (CRP, IL-6, TNF-alpha)
  • Cardiometabolic risk factors
  • Mortality

Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.

What speaks for the claim?

  • Legumes and type 2 diabetes in 27 cohorts

    Pearce M et al.. J Nutr 2021 · PMID 33693815 · DOI 10.1093/jn/nxaa447 Meta-analysisfull text checked

    Closest to a harm signal: weak positive association of total legumes with T2D in some European cohorts.

    Actual result
    IRR 1.02 (1.01-1.04) per 20 g/d; Europe 1.05 (1.01-1.10); pulses not associated.
    Methodological quality
    high-quality IPD meta-analysis, but observational
    Relevance
    indirect (diabetes, not inflammation or toxicity)
    Limitations
    Likely dietary context; null in other regions.

    Original publication

What speaks against the claim?

What does the overall evidence say?

Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.

Which position is better supported?

Cooked legumes are not toxins and do not cause inflammation; trials show neutral-to-favourable effects on inflammatory and metabolic markers.

Why some studies weigh more

Randomised trials on inflammation and metabolism weigh more than mechanistic antinutrient arguments.

Is a causal relationship established? Not established No causal harm shown; benefits on surrogates are probable.

Remaining uncertainty

Very high fava intakes typical of Egypt not studied for inflammation.

Justified conclusion

The claim that fava beans and lentils are toxins causing inflammation is refuted for the general population; specific exceptions (G6PD deficiency, raw kidney beans, IBS, allergy) remain.

Why do studies seem to disagree?

The weak European T2D association (I-LEG-112) concerns a different outcome and is not seen for pulses; it does not contradict the trial evidence on inflammation.

Does this depend on the country?
General biological effects
Universal.
Eating habits
Ful medames and lentils are Egyptian staples.
Origin of the food
Not relevant.
Contaminants
Not reviewed.
National production conditions
Not applicable.
Legal rules
Not applicable.
Actual monitoring data
Not applicable.

A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.

Statistical re-check
  • Log-symmetry of HR 0.94 (0.91-0.98) – Acceptable (rounding). recalculated
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
Main outcome
Inflammatory markers with legume intake (RCTs)
Starting level
high (randomised trials)
Reasons for downgrading
  • imprecision
  • indirectness (surrogate markers)
Result
low

Simplified assessment by a single reviewer, following the GRADE approach; not a formal GRADE panel. GRADE rates the body of evidence for one outcome, not individual studies.

Clinical guidelines and official statements checked
  • WHO: Healthy diet (fact sheet) (2026) · Original publication
    Lists pulses (lentils, chickpeas, beans, dried peas) as part of a healthy diet; at least 400 g fruit and vegetables per day; free sugars include sugars naturally present in fruit juices and juice concentrates; no added sugar in complementary foods for infants.
  • ADA: 5. Facilitating Positive Health Behaviors and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2026 (registered as I-INTC-03) (2026) · Original publication
    Eating patterns should emphasise whole fruits, legumes and other minimally processed high-fibre carbohydrate sources; replace sugar-sweetened beverages (including juices) with water or low/no-calorie beverages; minimise added sugar; incorporate plant protein such as legumes.
  • WHO EMRO-affiliated review of national FBDGs: Food-Based Dietary Guidelines in Countries of the Eastern Mediterranean Region (I-LEG-136) (2025) · Original publication
    Several Arab national guidelines advise eating legumes daily (e.g. 'Eat legumes and dishes made with legumes once a day'); Egypt had no national FBDG in this review.
Search strategy

Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).

DatabaseDateSearchLooking forHitsIncluded
PubMed26 October 2026(legume*[ti] OR pulse*[ti] OR bean*[ti] OR lentil*[ti] OR chickpea*[ti]) AND (inflammat*[ti] OR C-reactive[ti] OR CRP[ti]) AND (randomized[tiab] OR meta-analysis[tiab])both directions35
PubMed26 October 2026(faba bean*[tiab] OR fava bean*[tiab] OR Vicia faba[tiab]) AND (human*[tiab] OR participants[tiab]) AND (randomized[tiab] OR cohort[tiab] OR trial[tiab]) AND (cholesterol[tiab] OR glucose[tiab] OR health[tiab])contradicting evidence7
PubMed26 October 2026(antinutrient*[ti] OR anti-nutrient*[ti] OR antinutritional[ti]) AND (human health[tiab] OR humans[tiab]) AND review[pt] AND (legume*[tiab] OR lectin*[tiab])both directions10
PubMed26 October 2026(legume intake[tiab] OR pulse consumption[tiab] OR legume consumption[tiab]) AND (increased risk[tiab] OR positive association[tiab] OR adverse[tiab]) AND (cohort[tiab] OR meta-analysis[tiab])supporting evidence6
Europe PMC26 October 2026(TITLE:legume OR TITLE:legumes OR TITLE:pulses OR TITLE:beans) AND (TITLE:risk OR TITLE:mortality OR TITLE:harm OR TITLE:adverse) AND ("meta-analysis" OR cohort) AND ("increased risk" OR "positive association")supporting evidence16
PubMed26 October 2026(food groups[ti]) AND (risk[ti]) AND (meta-analysis[ti]) AND (diabetes[ti] OR mortality[ti] OR hypertension[ti] OR heart[ti])supporting evidence5
PubMed26 October 2026(legume*[ti] OR pulse*[ti] OR bean*[ti]) AND (mortality[ti] OR cardiovascular[ti] OR coronary[ti]) AND (meta-analysis[pt] OR meta-analysis[ti] OR umbrella[ti])contradicting evidence26
Europe PMC26 October 2026(TITLE:legume OR TITLE:legumes OR TITLE:pulses) AND (TITLE:mortality OR TITLE:cardiovascular OR TITLE:diabetes) AND (TITLE:"meta-analysis" OR TITLE:"umbrella review")contradicting evidence8
PubMed26 October 2026(legume*[ti] OR pulse*[ti]) AND (diabetes[ti] OR glycemic[ti] OR glycaemic[ti]) AND (meta-analysis[pt] OR meta-analysis[ti])contradicting evidence9

Open questions

Inflammation trials with traditional Egyptian fava dishes.

How deeply was this checked?

8 linked studies: 2 checked in full text (1 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 6 on the basis of the abstract, 0 bibliographically only. No formal assessment with two independent reviewers and no independent human expert review has taken place yet.

Last scientific review: 26 October 2026

History of the verdict
  1. 25 October 2026 · Phase 1 · Initial assessment: Mostly false (moderate)
  2. 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Re-examined with extended evidence; verdict unchanged: Mostly false (moderate)
    The 2024 RCT meta-analysis (I-LEG-114) and glycaemic RCTs (I-LEG-113) confirm the existing rating; GRADE for the inflammation outcome alone is low, but the convergent body (RCTs on lipids, glucose, inflammation; cohorts on mortality) supports moderate claim-level certainty.
    New sources: I-LEG-113 I-LEG-114

In plain language

The claim that fava beans and lentils are poisons that inflame the body is not supported by studies. Trials in which people ate more beans, lentils or chickpeas did not show more inflammation; blood markers of inflammation tended to fall and LDL cholesterol fell. People who eat more legumes tend to live slightly longer, although such studies cannot prove cause and effect. Real exceptions exist: raw kidney beans are toxic, people with G6PD deficiency must avoid fava beans, and some people with irritable bowel get symptoms from beans.

Studies on this claim

Studies supporting the claim (1)

  • Legumes and type 2 diabetes in 27 cohorts

    Pearce M et al.. J Nutr 2021 · PMID 33693815 · DOI 10.1093/jn/nxaa447
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key study

    Overall, legume intake showed a very weak positive link with diabetes, seen only in some European cohorts; pulses were not linked.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Pool individual data on legumes and diabetes.

    How was the study done?

    Federated meta-analysis.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    807,785 adults, 27 cohorts.

    What was actually found?

    IRR 1.02 per 20 g/d; Europe 1.05.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Small.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Legumes do not clearly protect against diabetes, but the evidence does not show meaningful harm either.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Dietary measurement error; confounding.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Tempers claims of benefit; does not support a ban.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Relevant to Europe.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    It cannot show cause and effect.

    Scientific details →

Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (6)

  • Legumes and inflammation marker CRP

    Salehi-Abargouei A et al.. Nutrition 2015 · PMID 25837205 · DOI 10.1016/j.nut.2014.10.018
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    Trials found no increase in CRP from eating legumes; levels tended to fall.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Legumes and CRP

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analysis of RCTs

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    464

    What was actually found?

    No increase; trend to decrease

    How large was the observed effect?

    MD -0.21

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Legumes are not shown to inflame.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Small

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts claim

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Moderate

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot exclude effects on other markers.

    Scientific details →

  • Beans and lentils lower LDL cholesterol

    Ha V et al.. CMAJ 2014 · PMID 24710915 · DOI 10.1503/cmaj.131727
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    About one serving of pulses daily lowered LDL cholesterol in randomised trials.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Pulses and lipids

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analysis of RCTs

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    1,037

    What was actually found?

    Lower LDL

    How large was the observed effect?

    -0.17 mmol/L

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Beans support heart health markers.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Short trials

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts harm claims

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot show long-term outcomes.

    Scientific details →

  • Legumes and death rates

    Zargarzadeh N et al.. Adv Nutr 2023 · PMID 36811595 · DOI 10.1016/j.advnut.2022.10.009
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key study

    People eating more legumes had about 6% lower risk of death from any cause.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Legumes and mortality

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analysis

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    1.14 million

    What was actually found?

    Lower all-cause mortality

    How large was the observed effect?

    HR 0.94

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Legumes compatible with longevity.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Observational

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts harm claims

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Moderate

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot prove causation.

    Scientific details →

  • Legumes and heart disease

    Afshin A et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2014 · PMID 24898241 · DOI 10.3945/ajcn.113.076901
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    Eating legumes regularly was linked to 14% lower heart-disease risk.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Legumes and IHD

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analysis

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    ~500,000

    What was actually found?

    Lower IHD

    How large was the observed effect?

    RR 0.86

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Legumes compatible with heart health.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Observational; overlap

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts harm

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Moderate

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot prove causation.

    Scientific details →

  • Pulses and blood sugar: 65 trials

    Hafiz MS et al.. Eur J Nutr 2022 · PMID 34585281 · DOI 10.1007/s00394-021-02685-y
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    Eating beans, lentils or chickpeas lowered blood sugar after meals and improved long-term glucose markers.

    Pulses improve glucose control in RCTs.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Pool RCTs on pulses and glucose.

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analysis.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    65 RCTs, 2,102 adults.

    What was actually found?

    Lower glucose and HbA1c.

    How large was the observed effect?

    HbA1c -0.17 in T2D.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Legumes help blood sugar control.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Heterogeneous, short trials.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts 'legumes are toxins'.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Applicable.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    It does not show fewer diabetes complications.

    Scientific details →

  • Legumes and inflammation markers

    Mansouri F et al.. J Nutr Biochem 2024 · PMID 39103105 · DOI 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2024.109718
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    In trials, eating non-soy legumes did not raise inflammation markers; some markers improved.

    No rise in inflammatory markers; IL-1beta lower.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Pool RCTs on legumes and inflammation.

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analysis.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    RCTs up to 2024.

    What was actually found?

    IL-1beta down, adiponectin up; CRP unchanged.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Not given in abstract.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Legumes do not inflame the body.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Surrogate markers.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts C-LEG-01.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Applicable.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    It cannot show effects on disease.

    Scientific details →

Studies with mixed or unclear results (1)

  • Review on plant lectin toxicity

    Vasconcelos IM, Oliveira JT. Toxicon 2004 · PMID 15302522 · DOI 10.1016/j.toxicon.2004.05.005
    Narrative reviewcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract checked★ key study

    Active plant lectins harm animals at high intakes; human cooked-food relevance not shown.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Unclear · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Review lectin toxicity

    How was the study done?

    Narrative review

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    Animal/insect studies

    What was actually found?

    Harmful gut/systemic effects at high intakes

    How large was the observed effect?

    Not applicable

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Raw legumes are problematic; cooked legumes not addressed.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Animal data; no human outcomes

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Does not show harm from cooked legumes

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Low

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot show harm in human diets with cooked legumes.

    Scientific details →

Regional context

Germany / EU

German and European dietary guidelines recommend regular pulse consumption; no regulatory body classifies cooked legumes as toxic.

Egypt

Ful medames and lentils are staple protein sources in Egypt; fava avoidance is medically indicated only for people with G6PD deficiency (which is relatively frequent in Egypt, see C-LEG-03).

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

Mostly false Cooked legumes are not toxins; the claim generalises narrow, real risks to everyone.

The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:

  • Pesticides and pesticide residues
  • Contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, PCBs, dioxins, nitrate)
  • Mycotoxins (mould toxins)

Legumes and nuts

Choose a country to see the checked information for it.

Limits: legal rules describe what is allowed, not what every single food contains. Measurement data come from samples and are meaningful only together with their method details.

Country of residence or purchase Compare with another country

References

  1. Associations of Total Legume, Pulse, and Soy Consumption with Incident Type 2 Diabetes: Federated Meta-Analysis of 27 Studies from Diverse World Regions.. Pearce M et al.. J Nutr 2021 · PMID 33693815 · DOI 10.1093/jn/nxaa447
  2. Effects of non-soy legume consumption on C-reactive protein: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. Salehi-Abargouei A et al.. Nutrition 2015 · PMID 25837205 · DOI 10.1016/j.nut.2014.10.018
  3. Effect of dietary pulse intake on established therapeutic lipid targets for cardiovascular risk reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.. Ha V et al.. CMAJ 2014 · PMID 24710915 · DOI 10.1503/cmaj.131727
  4. Legume Consumption and Risk of All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies.. Zargarzadeh N et al.. Adv Nutr 2023 · PMID 36811595 · DOI 10.1016/j.advnut.2022.10.009
  5. Consumption of nuts and legumes and risk of incident ischemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. Afshin A et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2014 · PMID 24898241 · DOI 10.3945/ajcn.113.076901
  6. Pulse consumption improves indices of glycemic control in adults with and without type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of acute and long-term randomized controlled trials.. Hafiz MS et al.. Eur J Nutr 2022 · PMID 34585281 · DOI 10.1007/s00394-021-02685-y
  7. The effects of nonsoy legumes consumption on serum levels of inflammatory biomarkers and Adiponectin in overweight/obese adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.. Mansouri F et al.. J Nutr Biochem 2024 · PMID 39103105 · DOI 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2024.109718
  8. Antinutritional properties of plant lectins.. Vasconcelos IM, Oliveira JT. Toxicon 2004 · PMID 15302522 · DOI 10.1016/j.toxicon.2004.05.005

← Back to overview