Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-WHT-13 standard review
Whole grain and bran and diabetes
Whole grain, bran, and germ intake and risk of type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study and systematic review.
Overview
de Munter JS et al.. PLoS Med 2007 · PMID 17760498 · DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040261
Highest whole grain intake: about 25-37% lower diabetes risk.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Whole grain and diabetes
- How was the study done?
Cohort + meta-analysis
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
286,125
- What was actually found?
Inverse association
- How large was the observed effect?
21% per 2 servings
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Whole grain helpful
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports whole grains
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cause
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- de Munter JS, Hu FB, Spiegelman D, Franz M, van Dam RM
- Journal
- PLoS Med
- Year
- 2007
- Identifier
- PMID 17760498 DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040261 · PMC1952203
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
COI statement empty in record; NIH grants.
2. Research question
Whole grain, bran, germ and T2D
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Cohort study – Cohort (NHS I/II) plus systematic review/meta-analysis
- Population
161,737 US women
- Country
USA
- Period
12-18 y
- Sample size
161,737; 6486 cases; pooled 286,125
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Whole grain, bran, germ
- Comparator
Lowest quintile
- Endpoints
T2D
- Statistical methods
Multivariable; pooled
5. Actual results
- Results
Highest vs lowest whole grain: RR 0.63 (0.57-0.69) NHS I, 0.68 (0.57-0.81) NHS II; after BMI 0.75 and 0.86. Bran similar; germ not significant after bran adjustment. Pooled 6 cohorts: +2 servings/day RR reduction 21% (13-28%).
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Whole grain inversely associated with T2D, stronger for bran.
6. Strengths
- Large
7. Weaknesses
- Observational
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- ROBINS-E
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Attenuated by BMI.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Supports C-WHT-04/05.
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Moderate.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Good evidence for whole grain.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | high |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | high |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
15. Linked fact checks
- Diets rich in rapidly absorbed carbohydrates (high glycaemic index/load) and poor in cereal fibre raise type 2 diabetes risk by about 50%, and each 10 g/day of cereal fibre lowers risk by 25%; refined flour therefore promotes diabetes. – Studies supporting the claim
- Replacing refined grains with whole grains lowers all-cause mortality by 17% and coronary heart disease by 19%, while refined grains offer no protective benefit (archive interpretation of Aune 2016). – Studies supporting the claim
Use by the Tayebat archive
Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.
- What the archive says about the study
Listed in bibliography only.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Implicitly: bran removed in milling.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Supports whole grain/bran benefit, not white-flour harm per se.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not applicable