Next Article in Journal
Early Energy Intake and Amino Acid Profile in Preterm Newborns: A Quasi-Experimental Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Mediterranean Diet for Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality: An Updated Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Therapeutic Potential of Bioactive Compounds from Brugmansia suaveolens Bercht. & J. Presl
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 15
Issue 13
10.3390/nu15132916
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Is Extra Virgin Olive Oil the Critical Ingredient Driving the Health Benefits of a Mediterranean Diet? A Narrative Review

by
Mary M. Flynn
1,*,
Audrey Tierney
2 and
Catherine Itsiopoulos
3
1
Department of Medicine, The Miriam Hospital, Brown University, 164 Summit Ave., Providence, RI 02912, USA
2
Health Implementation Science and Technology Research Group, Human Nutrition and Dietetics School of Allied Health, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Castletroy, V94 T9PX Limerick, Ireland
3
School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, STEM College, RMIT University, Melbourne 3083, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2023, 15(13), 2916; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15132916
Submission received: 24 May 2023 / Revised: 20 June 2023 / Accepted: 22 June 2023 / Published: 27 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mediterranean Diet – Health Benefits and Advances)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Most chronic diseases are preventable with a healthy diet, although there is debate about the optimal dietary approach. Increasingly more countries are focusing on food-based guidelines rather than the traditional nutrient-based approach. Although there is good agreement on plant foods, controversy remains about the types and amounts of fats and oils. This narrative review aims to systematically summarize and evaluate the latest evidence on the protective effects of extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) on disease risk factors. A systematic search of the relevant literature using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases was conducted for the years 2000 through December 2022. A narrative synthesis was then undertaken. Of 281 retrieved articles, 34 articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were included. Compared with other dietary fats and low-fat diets, EVOO is superior in the management of clinical biomarkers including lowering blood pressure and LDL-c, increasing protective HDL-c, improving glycemic control, and weight management. The protective effects of EVOO are likely due to its polyphenol content rather than the monounsaturated fat content. It is therefore important to promote the regular use of EVOO in the context of healthy dietary patterns such as the Mediterranean diet for maximal health benefit.

1. Introduction

Chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are responsible for the deaths of 41 million people each year, equivalent to 74% of all deaths globally [1]. Over 80% of all premature NCD deaths are due to cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), which account for the large majority (~40%), followed by cancers, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes. An estimated 90% of deaths from CVD can be prevented with modifiable risk factors such as healthy dietary patterns rich in plant foods such as the Mediterranean diet. The traditional Mediterranean diet is a plant-based diet rich in seasonal fruits and vegetables, legumes, nuts, whole-grain cereals, moderate servings of oily fish, and fermented dairy such as feta cheese and yogurt and very low in red meat with a preference for white meats and eggs that are free range [2]. One of the most important ingredients of the Mediterranean diet that is consistent across all Mediterranean countries is extra virgin olive oil consumed liberally as the main added fat. There is now widespread agreement that the Mediterranean diet is important in the prevention of chronic diseases, and this is reflected in many dietary guidelines for chronic diseases worldwide [3,4,5,6]; however, there is very little focus on differentiating healthy fats such as EVOO from other fats and oils in dietary guidelines.
The current dietary guidelines of United States health agencies [3] and most dietary guidelines across the UK [7], Ireland [8], and Australia [9] do not distinguish between dietary oils for health benefit or potential harm. Seed oils (corn, flaxseed, safflower, soybean, and sunflower) can readily oxidize due to the high polyunsaturated fat content [10,11,12], which has the potential to initiate and promote disease processes. Oils that are mainly monounsaturated or saturated fat are less likely to oxidize [10], but harm–benefit associations with health would depend on the individual oils.
The habitual use of extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) is associated with decreasing the risk of a range of diverse chronic diseases including cardiovascular disease [13], cerebral vascular accidents [14], and type 2 diabetes [15,16]; both the prevention [17] and reversion [16] of the metabolic syndrome; the prevention of decline in cognitive function [18]; and reductions in the risk of breast [19,20,21,22] and colorectal [23,24] cancers. EVOO has also been shown to lower the risk of obesity [25] and weight gain over time [26] and to improve overall mortality [27]. This suggests that EVOO may be unique among the dietary fats in its ability to decrease the risk of multiple chronic diseases, and hence, its place in dietary guidelines should be emphasized.
While vegetable seed oils are produced by chemical extraction of the oil, EVOO is produced by crushing the olive fruit with no use of chemical solvents and only water at ambient temperature during malaxation, which would preserve the phenols naturally present in the oil. Thus, olive oil is essentially the juice of olive fruit. To be classified as “extra virgin”, the oil must meet chemical and sensory standards [28]. However, the phenol content of the olive oil provides the health benefits [29], as opposed to the fatty acid composition of the oil. The individual phenols and the amount of the phenols present in the olive oil are influenced by the olive variety and the growing, harvesting, and processing of the olive [30]. In addition to health benefits, the phenols and other minor flavor compounds in EVOO give the sensory characteristics of the oil [31]. The phenols in EVOO have been found to be bioavailable with absorption rates of more than 50% [32], and plasma levels increase in a dose-dependent manner based on the total phenol content of the EVOO [33]. There is evidence that the phenols in EVOO will bind to low- [34] and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [35], which would preserve the phenols in the blood. The attachment of the phenol to lipoproteins may prevent the oxidation of these lipoproteins and would also provide the phenol transport to cells where they can exert their function.
To understand how EVOO decreases the risk of chronic diseases, the effect of EVOO on risk factors for the diseases needs to be assessed. Herein, this review aims to compare the effect of diets that include EVOO with other defined diets that do not include extra virgin olive oil on clinically relevant cardiometabolic risk factors assessed for heart disease, metabolic syndrome, and type 2 DM. Specifically, it will examine the effects on blood pressure, low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, fasting blood glucose, and body weight. It will also assess from published studies the minimum daily amount of EVOO and the shortest time needed to realize improvements in the risk factors.

2. Methods

This review involved a systematic search with inclusion and exclusion criteria, quality assessment of the studies that were identified, and summary of the study findings [36]. A literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase was conducted for the years 2000 through December 2022 using the search tool EndNote X9®. The search included MeSH terms of “olive oil” with the variables of “blood pressure”; “hypertension”; “glucose”; “insulin”; “insulin resistance”; “cholesterol, LDL”; cholesterol, HDL”; “body weight”; and “weight loss”. The articles retrieved were assessed against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Aligned with the PICO method, the inclusion criteria were original research papers published in English, peer-reviewed journals, human studies (population), randomized controlled trials, testing a known amount of EVOO that was part of the prescribed diet, the extra virgin olive oil being consumed daily (intervention), the comparison being with another defined diet that did not contain EVOO (C), and the cardiometabolic effects of the trials containing EVOO as noted in the search terms above (outcome). Each article was inspected to verify the inclusion of the variable of interest. The exclusion criteria were animal or in vitro studies, lack of randomization, solely postprandial measurements, test of olive oil phenols only, olive oil as a supplement pill, olive oil that had components added, not stated as extra virgin olive oil, stated use of refined or pomace olive oil only, abstracts or presentations, or the article indicating a potential change in medication that could impact one of the variables to be studied. Studies that tested “virgin olive oil” were included if a phenol content was provided. The reference lists from the articles found using searches were manually examined for additional eligible articles to include.
One author (MF) extracted information from the included studies—the population studied, details on the intervention (amount of EVOO and duration of study/EVOO exposure), and effect on outcomes (cardiometabolic risk factor variables)—and evaluated it. The articles retrieved were assessed for quality using the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Quality Criteria Checklist (ANDQCC) for primary research [37]. The ANDQCC contains four questions regarding the relevance of the research and ten questions relating to the validity of the research. This checklist evaluates the internal and external bias within the study to determine the quality of the studies’ inclusion/exclusion criteria, data collection and analysis, and the generalizability of the results to grade the quality of the study. A meta-analysis was not performed due to the heterogeneity in the included studies and the difference in the reporting of the outcome variables of interest.

3. Results

Figure 1 summarizes the major elements of this search that met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-four studies are included in this review, and the ANDQCC is presented in Table 1, which shows that all of the studies received a “positive” rating. The results for each risk factor are presented as a comparison of EVOO with another dietary fat, a low-fat (LF) diet, refined olive oil, or EVOO differing in phenol content. The results are presented as they were provided in the journal article. Several of the references were from the Prevencion con Dieta Med (PREDIMED) study, including subgroup studies. The PREDIMED study took place in Spain and enrolled participants from 2003 to 2009. It included 7447 total participants who had either type 2 diabetes or at least three risk factors for cardiovascular disease [38]. Participants were randomly assigned to a low-fat diet (control), a diet with four tablespoons a day of EVOO, or a diet with 30 g a day of nuts. Reports were published at several time points over the course of the trial. This review included papers reporting on the longest time point for a variable and only included an earlier time point if the publication had additional data that were not found in a more recent report.

3.1. Blood Pressure

Sixteen RCTs examined the effect of EVOO on blood pressure [39,41,43,44,46,47,48,51,55,60,62,63,65,66,67,70]. Of these, six included the total phenol content of the EVOO studied [39,41,48,62,63,68]. Five stated that participants had hypertension (HTN) [44,47,55,63,65], one had baseline blood pressure that would be classified as hypertensive [48], and three were PREDIMED results that would have included some participants with hypertension [43,46,70]. Table 2provides the information on the RCTs for blood pressure.
For the studies that included participants with HTN, EVOO lowered the systolic blood pressure (SBP) compared with sunflower oil [47,65] but not compared with coconut oil [55]. For the PREDIMED studies comparing the EVOO group with the LF group, DBP was lower in the EVOO group at three months [46], at one year [43], and after four years [70], and SBP was lowered only at three months [46] and one year [43]. An additional study that was not from the PREDIMED trials comparing an LF diet with extra virgin olive oil found no difference in the systolic or diastolic blood pressure between the diets [44]. For the two studies that included both the total phenol content of the olive oil and hypertensive participants, an EVOO with a total phenol of 161 mg/kg [48] and one with 564 mg/kg [63] both lowered SBP, while DBP was lowered only with the 564 mg/kg total phenol olive oil and was borderline significant for the 161 mg/kg total phenols.
For the seven studies that included normotensive participants, three studies reported the olive oil used as “extra virgin olive oil” [51,60,66]. Two reported EVOO lowering only DBP compared with corn [60] or soybean oil [51], and one reported only lowering SBP compared with an intervention that was corn oil, soybean oil, and butter [66]. Three reported a total phenol content of 366 mg/kg, and DBP was lowered compared with refined olive oil [39,41,62]. Of the three studies comparing refined olive oil with 366 mg/kg olive oil [39,41,62], only one of the studies reported a decrease in SBP [39], which was also seen in the Sarapis et al. study that used 360 mg/kg [67], suggesting there may have been different phenols in the oils despite the same total phenol content.

3.2. Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-c)

Twenty RTCs examined the effect of EVOO on LDL-c [33,40,45,46,47,48,50,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68]. Of these, nine included the total phenol content of the EVOO studied [33,41,42,50,53,54,61,62,68]. Eight included participants with a mean baseline greater than 120 mg/dL [41,52,55,59,61,62,69,71]. Table 3 displays the RTCs for LDL-c.
For the studies of participants having a baseline LDL-c greater than 120 mg/dL, those listing the oil as “extra virgin olive oil” found EVOO oil decreased LDL-c compared with sunflower oil [59] but not compared with corn oil [71] or coconut oil [55]. Two PREDIMED reports reported baseline LDL-c, one at three months [69] and the other at one year [52]. Comparing those in the EVOO group with those in the low-fat diet group, LDL-c was not different at three months but was lower in the LF group at one year. Despite no difference in LDL-c, the EVOO group had lower apoprotein B-100 at three months [69], while there was no difference at one year [52]. In addition, the LF diet group at one year had more atherogenic smaller LDL-c particles [52]. Two studies that compared refined olive oil with one with a total phenol content of 366 mg/kg reported the higher phenol content olive oil lowering LDL-c [41,62]. While use of an EVOO with a total phenol content of 150 mg/kg did not lower the total LDL-c, it did decrease LDL oxidation [61].
For studies with a baseline LDL-c less than 120 mg/dL, one compared EVOO with flaxseed oil and found lower LDL-c after flaxseed oil [56]. Five studies compared refined olive oil with known total phenol content [33,42,53,54,68], with four reporting no difference in the total LDL-c between the comparative groups [33,42,53,68]. Two of these measured LDL oxidation and found a total phenol content of 366 mg/kg reduced LDL oxidation [42,53]. One study with baseline LDL-c less than 100 mg/dL comparing refined olive with EVOO with 500–700 mg/kg total phenols found the EVOO decreased LDL-c after six weeks [54]. The study by Hernaez et al. [53] also reported a decrease in total LDL particles and apo B100 with a total phenol content of 366 mg/kg compared with a refined olive oil.

3.3. High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (HDL-c)

Twenty-one RTCs examined the effect of EVOO on HDL-c [33,35,40,41,42,49,50,51,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,64,65,68,69]. Of these, eight reported the total phenol content of the EVOO [3,35,41,42,50,54,61,62,68]. Sixteen studies reported a baseline HDL-c, and of these, twelve included men with a mean HDL-c of 45 mg/dL or greater [35,41,42,50,55,56,57,60,61,62,68,69]. One study from Brazil reported baseline HDL-c of less than 25.0 mg/dL, which was the only published study retrieved with the search that included participants with an HDL-c below a healthy range, and HDL-c was not changed after nine weeks compared with soybean oil [51]. Table 4 outlines the RTCs for HDL-c.
Studies that compared the effect on HDL-c of other dietary fats with EVOO report inconsistent results. Flaxseed oil [56], sunflower oil [59], soybean oil [51], and corn oil [60] may all produce similar HDL-c compared with EVOO, while compared with sunflower oil [65], HDL-c levels may decrease. In a study comparing the effect on HDL-c of coconut, butter, and extra virgin olive oil, coconut oil produced the highest HDL-c levels [55], although the mean baseline HDL-c was exceptionally high for all participants (70–77 mg/dL).
Compared with lower-fat diets, three of the five studies showed an increase in HDL-c for EVOO [49,64,69]. Studies testing refined olive oil to known total phenol content suggest specific phenols may be important to assessing change. For example, while two studies comparing refined olive oil with olive oil with a total phenol content of 366 mg/kg found no difference in HDL-c after three weeks [41,62], another study testing a total phenol of 150 mg/kg found higher HDL-c levels compared with refined, also after three weeks of study [61]. Two studies compared HDL-c changes with a refined olive oil and two different levels of total phenols, one less than 200 mg/kg and one greater than 300 mg/kg. Both found that HDL-c increased linearly with the phenol content [33,42]. Interestingly, five studies that compared refined olive oil with olive oil with a total phenol content greater than 300 mg/kg found no difference in the total HDL-c level [35,41,54,62,68], but for two of these studies [35,68] the male participants had a mean baseline HDL-c greater than 50 mg/dL. Despite no change in total HDL-c, a 366 mg/kg total phenol olive oil increased both the level of HDL-2 and the efflux capacity of the HDL-c, suggesting that even if total HDL-c does not increase with EVOO, the inclusion of EVOO may improve HDL function [35].

3.4. Fasting Blood Glucose

Fifteen RCTs examined the effect of EVOO on fasting blood glucose (FBG) [41,43,44,46,48,49,50,51,55,56,57,58,59,62,64], and eight included results for insulin [44,46,49,50,51,58,59,64]. Five studies included the phenol content of the EVOO tested [41,44,48,50,62]. Only one RCT testing the effect of EVOO on FBG stated that the participants were type 2 DM [59]. As the PREDIMED trial included people with type 2 diabetes, at least some of the participants in the two RCTs of PREDIMED with results at both three months [46] and one year [43] would have had type 2 diabetes. Table 5 presents the RTCs for FBG.
The only study where all participants had type 2 diabetes reported the oil used as “extra virgin” [59]. Compared with sunflower oil, the EVOO decreased both FBG and insulin in two weeks of study. A study comparing EVOO with soybean oil for participants with normal baseline FBG found no difference in FBG after nine weeks, but insulin was lower in the EVOO group, and HOMA-IR (Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance) was borderline lower [51]. In the PREDIMED trial, FBG, insulin, and HOMA-IR were all lower in the EVOO group compared with the LF diet group at three months [46]. An assessment at one year only reported FBG and showed a larger decrease in FBG for the EVOO group compared with the LF group [43].
Three of the studies that included total phenol content compared with refined olive oil found no difference in FBG for participants with normal baseline FBG for a total phenol content of 161 mg/kg [48] or 366 mg/kg total phenols [41,62]. Two studies compared a known phenol content olive oil with an LF diet, and the one with 172 mg/kg found no difference for FBG or insulin [44], while the other using 625 mg/kg resulted in a decrease in both FBG and insulin [50].

3.5. Body Weight

Six RCTs examined the effect of EVOO on weight loss [41,45,49,50,51,62]. Of these, three reported the total phenol content of the EVOO tested [41,50,62]. Four included participants with a mean baseline BMI greater than 25.0 kg/m2 [45,49,50,51]. Table 6 presents the RTCs for body weight.
Only one study compared EVOO with another fat source, which was soybean oil for weight loss [51]. While the weight loss was the same between the interventions for nine weeks of weight loss, the participants assigned to EVOO lost more body fat as measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).
Three studies compared an LF diet to a diet with EVOO [46,49,50]. Two were crossover studies that compared a diet rich in EVOO (three tablespoons a day) with LF diets for eight weeks of weight loss and then six months of follow-up where the participants self-selected one of the diets. In a study of breast cancer survivors [49], of the 15 who started with the EVOO diet, 12 achieved the weight loss goal of at least 5% from baseline, versus four of the 13 who started with the low-fat diet. Despite the greater weight loss, the women reported consuming more total energy while on the EVOO diet (EVOO: 1466 ± 201 kcals vs. LF: 1142 ± 208; p < 0.001). Nineteen of the 22 women who continued after the initial weight loss phase selected the olive oil diet for follow-up. The six months of follow-up resulted in an increase in both HDL-c level and blood levels of measured carotenoids compared with the end of the active weight loss of eight weeks. In a study of 18 men with recurrent prostate cancer on hormone therapy, the weight loss was comparable for the LF diet compared with the olive oil diet, but again participants reported consuming more total energy while on the olive oil diet (EVOO: 1916 ± 482 kcal vs. 1442 ± 477; p < 0.00) [50]. Thirteen of the 18 participants selected the olive oil diet for follow-up where weight loss was maintained, and there was no further improvement in laboratory measures.
The PREDIMED study assessed weight loss between the diets and found after 4.8 years of study, those assigned to the EVOO diet lost more weight than those assigned to the low-fat diet and had a greater reduction in waist size [45]. In addition, the EVOO participants reported consuming 141 (CI 95% 97–185) more total calories per day compared with the low-fat group (p < 0.001).
Two short-term (each three weeks) studies compared weight loss on refined olive oil with an EVOO with 366 mg/kg; both were healthy men with baseline body mass index (BMI) < 25.0 kg/m2 [41,62]. One study found slightly more weight loss for the EVOO with a phenol concentration of 366 mg/kg [41]. The other one found no difference in weight change between the oils [62].

3.6. Quality Assessment

All articles were given an overall positive rating according to the ANDQCC. The only quality assessment that was not predominately positive was blinded treatment with 16 of the 34 studies not being blinded. This is not an uncommon finding in dietary trials due to the difficulty in blinding food-related interventions. The remaining assessment questions were overwhelmingly positive for all studies.

4. Discussion

Compared with other dietary fats or low-fat diets, there is evidence to support EVOO improving SBP in hypertensive patients [43,46,47,65] and also in patients with clinically normal SBP [66]. Studies reporting the total phenol content of the olive oil suggest that specific phenols may be important as compared with a refined olive oil; one with a total phenol of 161 mg/kg improved SBP in patients with HTN [48], while two studies with total phenols greater than 300 mg/kg did not improve SBP in patients with mild HTN [41,67]. Compared with other dietary fats or low-fat diets, EVOO can decrease LDL-c for baseline values greater than 120 mg/dL [59] and increase HDL-c [49,55,64,65] with a linear increase with higher total phenol content [33,42], and diets including daily EVOO are effective for weight loss [41,45,49] and long-term weight management [49,50,72]. In addition, an EVOO with a total phenol content of at least 150 mg/kg has been shown to decrease LDL oxidation [42,53,61]. The effect of EVOO on FBG compared with other diets is not clear, as few studies have included participants with elevated baseline FBG or type 2 diabetes. However, compared with a lower-fat diet, daily EVOO can improve insulin sensitivity as measured by HOMA-IR [46,50,64]. The shortest time to benefit and the minimum daily amount of EVOO required to improve both SBP and DBP [39], LDL-c [41], and HDL-c [42,61] as reported in the literature are three weeks and 25 mL (approximately two tablespoons) a day, with both diastolic blood pressure and LDL-c possibly needing a total phenol content greater than 300 mg/kg to see a benefit. It is possible that FBG could be improved in as few as two weeks with 25 mL of EVOO [59]; however, more studies on type 2 diabetes would be needed to confirm this.
The relationship of EVOO to decreasing the risk of CHD is potentially through the ability of EVOO to improve the clinical biomarkers for CHD of blood pressure, LDL-c, and HDL-c. While a diet that includes vegetable seed oil may decrease LDL more than EVOO [56,60], a diet that includes daily EVOO will produce healthier LDL as the particles will be larger [52] and are less likely to be oxidized [42,61]. In addition, EVOO has been shown to decrease apo protein B-100 [69], indicating fewer LDL particles. Daily use of EVOO increases HDL-c [49,61,64] and will also improve HDL function [35]. In addition to the clinical biomarkers of blood pressure and lipoproteins, EVOO improves other biomarkers that have been recently related to CHD risk. For example, EVOO decreases inflammation as measured by C-reactive protein compared with refined olive oil [63], a low-fat diet, or a diet that includes tree nuts [73]. Compared with a low-fat diet [17,74] or refined olive oil [63], EVOO improves endothelial function and decreases platelet aggregation by improving several factors related to blood clotting [29].
The ability of EVOO to decrease the risk of the metabolic syndrome and type 2 DM is related to its effects on FBG, insulin, and HOMA-IR, which can all be improved by EVOO compared with either a diet that includes an oil rich in polyunsaturated fat (sunflower oil) [59] or a low- fat diet [43,46,50]. One study that compared an EVOO-rich diet with a sunflower oil diet indicated that EVOO improves insulin-stimulated glucose transport in adipocytes [75]; thus, EVOO may improve insulin sensitivity. While more RCTs are needed of participants who have type 2 diabetes or with elevated FBG and to report the total phenol content of the EVOO used to ensure it is EVOO, these results are promising. Based on the benefits of EVOO seen in current studies, studies that compare EVOO with other oils for treatment of type 2 DM would be also useful.
A diet that includes daily EVOO may be an effective alternative for weight loss and weight management, decreasing the risk and progression of chronic diseases. Compared with a lower-fat diet that does not include EVOO, a diet with three [49] or four [45] tablespoons per day of EVOO may produce greater weight loss than a lower-fat diet. In addition, an EVOO-rich diet may be more acceptable for long-term use [49,50]. Even if the weight loss from a diet that includes daily EVOO is equivalent to one that includes vegetable seed oil, EVOO may produce more fat loss [51]. In vitro and animal studies suggest that the potential mechanisms for the additional fat loss are the results of the phenols in EVOO reducing adipocyte proliferation [76] and enhanced thermogenesis from the activation of brown fat tissue [77]. Animal studies suggest beneficial effects of oleanoic acid and other triterpenoids [78], but human studies are lacking. In addition, compared with a lower-fat diet, a diet with daily EVOO may allow for a greater total energy intake for equivalent weight loss [45,49,50].
The current standards for extra virgin olive oil do not require measurement of phenols or tests that would indirectly assess the phenol content. The US FDA currently attributes the health benefits of EVOO to the monounsaturated fat content of the oil [79]. Yet studies with oils labeled “olive oil”, “refined olive oil”, or “pomace”, which are all rich in monounsaturated fat but lacking phenols, show these olive oil classifications do not provide health benefits compared with oils that would qualify as “extra virgin” or have the phenol content listed [80]. This provides strong evidence that the monounsaturated fat is not the source of the health benefits found with EVOO. Of the 35 RTCs currently available that examine the health benefits of EVOO, only 15 include the phenol content of the oil. The interpretation of studies that simply list the olive oil as “extra virgin” may require caution as the phenol content is not known. The phenol content of extra virgin olive oil is highest in olive oil made close to the harvesting of the olive and will decrease with age and storage [81]. Thus, for maximum health benefits the EVOO should be produced and consumed as close to harvesting the fruit as possible. As the phenol content of the olive oil will decrease over time, and producers who have their olive oil tested for phenol content would do so when the olive oil is first made, it is not likely bottles of EVOO will have the phenol content listed on them. However, if the olive oil analysis includes the measurement of pyropheophytins (PPP) and 1,2-diacyl-glycerols (DAG), which are currently included in the standards for both California [82] and Australia [83] for olive oil, these would provide information on the freshness of the olive oil, which would relate to the phenol content [84].

4.1. Clinical Implications

In prescribing diets to decrease the risk or treatment of a chronic disease, EVOO would be a far superior choice compared with other dietary fats, low-fat diets, or refined olive oil. The daily use of EVOO starting at approximately two tablespoons a day will improve a plethora of risk factors in as few as three weeks. In addition, recommending the use of EVOO to cook vegetables will increase the absorption of carotenoids [85], which are fat-soluble, and could increase vegetable consumption by increasing their palatability [49,86]. Vegetables in Mediterranean countries are traditionally cooked in extra virgin olive oil, which has been shown to transfer the olive oil phenols to the vegetables, which increases the antioxidant capacity of the meal [87].

4.2. Strengths

This review only used RCTs, and all of the 34 articles included have a positive score for quality assessment. The included studies compare extra virgin olive oil with other dietary fats and low-fat diets and by olive oil phenol content, thus proving a broad practical comparison. There are no published reviews that focus specifically on the ability of a specific daily amount of extra virgin olive oil to improve risk factors for chronic diseases. The published work to date typically includes all types of olive oil when assessing health benefits [80,88], and the current study indicates this would not be appropriate, as it is only extra virgin olive oil that would provide health benefits.

4.3. Limitations

There are several limitations in our paper relating to the currently available RCTs comparing EVOO with other diets that were included in this review. A major limitation is that most of the studies do not include the phenol content of the olive oil, so studies simply listing “extra virgin olive oil” should be interpreted with caution. Most of the currently available studies were of short duration, and participants had healthy levels of the risk factor being studied. In addition, most of the studies took place in EU populations and in countries where extra virgin olive oil has been part of diet for centuries. Future research should focus on using an EVOO with a known phenol content, participants with unhealthy values for the risk factor(s) being tested, a larger sample size, and populations outside of the EU. As most of the benefits were realized in three weeks or less, longer time periods might not be critical; however, it is not currently known if additional benefits could be realized with a longer time of exposure to EVOO.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: M.M.F.; methodology: M.M.F., A.T. and C.I.; formal analysis: M.M.F.; investigation: M.M.F.; data curation: M.M.F., A.T. and C.I.; writing- original draft preparation: MF; writing-reviewn and editing: M.M.F., A.T. and C.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. WHO. Noncommunicable Diseases. 2022. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases#:~:text=People%20at%20Risk (accessed on 30 March 2023).
  2. Itsiopoulos, C.; Mayr, H.L.; Thomas, C.J. The anti-inflammatory effects of a Mediterranean diet: A review. Curr. Opin. Clin. Nutr. Metab. Care 2022, 25, 415–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources. Dietary Guidelines for Americans; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
  4. Heart Foundation. Dietary Position Statement: Heart Healthy Eating Pattern; Heart Foundation: Subiaco, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  5. Costentino, F.; Grant, P.J.; Aboyans, V.; Cliford, F.B.; Ceriello, A.; Delgado, V.; Federici, M.; Filippatos, G.; Grobbee, D.E.; Hansen, T.B.; et al. ESC Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD: The Task Force for diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Eur. Heart J. 2019, 41, 255–323. [Google Scholar]
  6. Lichtenstein, A.H.; Appel, L.J.; Vadiveloo, M.; Hu, F.B.; Kris-Etherton, P.M.; Rebholz, C.M.; Sacks, F.M.; Thorndike, A.N.; Van Horn, L.; Wylie-Rosett, J.; et al. 2021 Dietary Guidance to Improve Cardiovascular Health: A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2021, 144, e472–e487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Public Health England. The Eatwell Guide. 2018. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-eatwell-guide (accessed on 6 April 2023).
  8. Ireland FSAo. Scientific Recommendations for Healthy Eating Guidelines in Ireland. 2011. Available online: https://www.fsai.ie/science_and_health/healthy_eating.html (accessed on 6 April 2023).
  9. The Australian Dietary Guidelines. 2013. Available online: https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/ (accessed on 6 April 2023).
  10. Choe, E.; Min, D.B. Mechanisms and factors for edible oil oxidation. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2006, 5, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hammad, S.; Pu, S.; Jones, P.J. Current Evidence Supporting the Link Between Dietary Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease. Lipids 2016, 51, 507–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Parry, S.A.; Rosqvist, F.; Cornfield, T.; Barrett, A.; Hodson, L. Oxidation of dietary linoleate occurs to a greater extent than dietary palmitate in vivo in humans. Clin. Nutr. 2021, 40, 1108–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Estruch, R.; Ros, E.; Salas-Salvado, J.; Covas, M.I.; Corella, D.; Aros, F.; Gomez-Gracia, E.; Ruiz-Gutierrez, V.; Fiol, M.; Lapetra, J.; et al. Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet Supplemented with Extra-Virgin Olive Oil or Nuts. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 378, e34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Martinez-Gonzalez, M.A.; Dominguez, L.J.; Delgado-Rodriguez, M. Olive oil consumption and risk of CHD and/or stroke: A meta-analysis of case-control, cohort and intervention studies. Br. J. Nutr. 2014, 112, 248–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Salas-Salvado, J.; Bullo, M.; Estruch, R.; Ros, E.; Covas, M.-I.; Ibarrola-Jurado, N.; Corella, D.; Aros, F.; Gomez-Gracia, F.; Ruiz-Gutierrez, V.; et al. Prevention of diabetes with Mediterranean diets: A subgroup analysis of a randomized trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 2014, 160, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Schwingshackl, L.; Lampousi, A.M.; Portillo, M.P.; Romaguera, D.; Hoffmann, G.; Boeing, H. Olive oil in the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies and intervention trials. Nutr. Diabetes 2017, 7, e262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Esposito, K.; Marfella, R.; Ciotola, M. Effect of a mediterranean-style diet on endothelial dysfunction and markers of vascular inflammation in the metabolic syndrome: A randomized trial. JAMA 2004, 292, 1440–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Martinez-Lapiscina, E.H.; Clavero, P.; Toledo, E.; Julian, B.S.; Sanchez-Tainta, A.; Corella, D.; Lamuela-Raventos, R.M.; Martinez, J.A.; Martinez-Gonzalez, M. Virgin olive oil supplementation and long-term cognition: The PREDIMED-NAVARRA randomized, trial. J. Nutr. Health Aging 2013, 17, 544–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Martin-Moreno, J.M.; Willett, W.C.; Gorgojo, L.; Banegas, J.R.; Rodriguez-Artalejo, F.; Fernandez-Rodriguez, J.C.; Maisonneuve, P.; Boyle, P. Dietary fat, olive oil intake and breast cancer risk. Int. J. Cancer 1994, 58, 774–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Mourouti, N.; Panagiotakos, D.B. The beneficial effect of a Mediterranean diet supplemented with extra virgin olive oil in the primary prevention of breast cancer among women at high cardiovascular risk in the PREDIMED Trial. Evid. Based Nurs. 2016, 19, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Sealy, N.; Hankinson, S.E.; Houghton, S.C. Olive oil and risk of breast cancer: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of observational studies. Br. J. Nutr. 2021, 125, 1148–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Trichopoulou, A. Olive oil and breast cancer. Cancer Causes Control 1995, 6, 475–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hashim, Y.Z.; Eng, M.; Gill, C.I.; McGlynn, H.; Rowland, I.R. Components of olive oil and chemoprevention of colorectal cancer. Nutr. Rev. 2005, 63, 374–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Stoneham, M.; Goldacre, M.; Seagroatt, V.; Gill, L. Olive oil, diet and colorectal cancer: An ecological study and a hypothesis. J Epidemiol. Community Health 2000, 54, 756–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Soriguer, F.; Rojo-Martinez, G.; Goday, A.; Bosch-Comas, A.; Bordiú, E.; Caballero-Díaz, F.; Calle-Pascual, A.; Carmena, R.; Casamitjana, R.; Castaño, L.; et al. Olive oil has a beneficial effect on impaired glucose regulation and other cardiometabolic risk factors. [email protected] study. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2013, 67, 911–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Razquin, C.; Martinez, J.A.; Martinez-Gonzalez, M.A.; Mitjavila, M.T.; Estruch, R.; Marti, A. A 3 years follow-up of a Mediterranean diet rich in virgin olive oil is associated with high plasma antioxidant capacity and reduced body weight gain. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2009, 63, 1387–1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Buckland, G.; Mayen, A.L.; Agudo, A.; Travier, N.; Navarro, C.; Huerta, J.M.; Chirlaque, M.D.; Barricarte, A.; Ardanaz, E.; Moreno-Iribas, C.; et al. Olive oil intake and mortality within the Spanish population (EPIC-Spain). Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2012, 96, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; World Health Organization. Standard for Olive Oils and Olive Pomace Oils, Codex Stan 33-1981. 2015. Available online: https://static.oliveoiltimes.com/library/codexalimentarius-olive-oil-standard.pdf (accessed on 6 April 2023).
  29. Yubero-Serrano, E.M.; Lopez-Moreno, J.; Gomez-Delgado, F.; Lopez-Miranda, J. Extra virgin olive oil: More than a healthy fat. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2019, 72, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Baiano, A.T.C.; Viggiani, I. Nobile MAD Effects of cultivars and location on quality, phenolic content and antioxidant activity of extra-virgin olive oils. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2013, 90, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bendini, A.; Cerretani, L.; Carrasco-Pancorbo, A.; Gómez-Caravaca, A.M.; Segura-Carretero, A.; Fernández-Gutiérrez, A.; Lercker, G.; Simal-Gandara, J. Phenolic molecules in virgin olive oils: A survey of their sensory properties, health effects, antioxidant activity and analytical methods. An overview of the last decade. Molecules 2007, 12, 1679–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Parkinson, L.; Cicerale, S. The Health Benefiting Mechanisms of Virgin Olive Oil Phenolic Compounds. Molecules 2016, 21, 1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Weinbrenner, T.; Fito, M.; de la Torre, R.; Saez, G.T.; Rijken, P.; Tormos, C.; Coolen, S.; Albaladejo, M.F.; Abanades, S.; Schroder, H.; et al. Olive oils high in phenolic compounds modulate oxidative/antioxidative status in men. J. Nutr. 2004, 134, 2314–2321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Tung, W.C.; Rizzo, B.; Dabbagh, Y.; Saraswat, S.; Romanczyk, M.; Codorniu-Hernández, E.; Rebollido-Rios, R.; Needs, P.W.; Kroon, P.A.; Rakotomanomana, N.; et al. Polyphenols bind to low density lipoprotein at biologically relevant concentrations that are protective for heart disease. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2020, 694, 108589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hernaez, A.; Fernandez-Castillejo, S.; Farras, M.; Catalan, U.; Subirana, I.; Montes, R.; Sola, R.; Montes, R.; Munoz-Aguayos, D.; Gelabert-Gorgues, A.; et al. Olive oil polyphenols enhance high-density lipoprotein function in humans: A randomized controlled trial. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 2014, 34, 2115–2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Ferrari, R. Writing narrative style literature reviews. Med. Writ. 2015, 24, 230–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dietetics AoNa. Evidence Analysis Manual: Steps in the Academy Evidence Analysis Process. 2016. Available online: https://www.andeal.org/evidence-analysis-manual (accessed on 8 January 2021).
  38. Kargin, D.; Tomaino, L.; Serra-Majem, L. Experimental Outcomes of the Mediterranean Diet: Lessons Learned from the Predimed Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Bondia-Pons, I.; Schroder, H.; Covas, M.I.; Castellote, A.I.; Kaikkonen, J.; Poulsen, H.E.; Gaddi, A.V.; Machowetz, A.; Kiesewetter, H.; López-Sabater, M.C. Moderate consumption of olive oil by healthy European men reduces systolic blood pressure in non-Mediterranean participants. J. Nutr. 2007, 137, 84–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Campos, V.P.; Portal, V.L.; Markoski, M.M.; Quadros, A.S.; Bersch-Ferreira, C.; Garavaglia, J.; Marcadenti, A. Effects of a healthy diet enriched or not with pecan nuts or extra-virgin olive oil on the lipid profile of patients with stable coronary artery disease: A randomised clinical trial. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet 2020, 33, 439–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Castaner, O.; Covas, M.I.; Khymenets, O.; Nyyssonen, K.; Konstantinidou, V.; Zunft, H.-F.; de la Torre, R.; Muñoz-Aguayo, D.; Vila, J.; Fitó, M. Protection of LDL from oxidation by olive oil polyphenols is associated with a downregulation of CD40-ligand expression and its downstream products in vivo in humans. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2012, 95, 1238–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Covas, M.I.; Nyyssonen, K.; Poulsen, H.E.; Kaikkonen, J.; Zunft, K.-J.F.; Kiesewetter, H.; Gaddi, A.; de la Torre, R.; Mursu, J.; Baumler, H.; et al. The effect of polyphenols in olive oil on heart disease risk factors: A randomized trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 2006, 145, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Domenech, M.; Roman, P.; Lapetra, J.; de la Corte, F.J.G.; Sala-Vila, A.; de la Torre, R.; Corella, D.; Salas-Salvadó, J.; Ruiz-Gutiérrez, V.; Lamuela-Raventós, R.-M.; et al. Mediterranean diet reduces 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure, blood glucose, and lipids: One-year randomized, clinical trial. Hypertension 2014, 64, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Dos Santos, J.L.; Portal, V.L.; Markoski, M.M.; de Quadros, A.S.; Bersch-Ferreira, A.; Marcadenti, A. Effect of pecan nuts and extra-virgin olive oil on glycemic profile and nontraditional anthropometric indexes in patients with coronary artery disease: A randomized clinical trial. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2022, 76, 827–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Estruch, R.; Martinez-Gonzalez, M.A.; Corella, D.; Salas-Salvadó, J.; Fitó, M.; Chiva-Blanch, G.; Fiol, M.; Gómez-Gracia, E.; Arós, F.; Lapetra, J.; et al. Effect of a high-fat Mediterranean diet on bodyweight and waist circumference: A prespecified secondary outcomes analysis of the PREDIMED randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019, 7, e6–e17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Estruch, R.; Martinez-Gonzalez, M.A.; Corella, D.; Salas-Salvado, J.; Ruiz-Gutierrez, V.; Covas, M.I.; Fiol, M.; Gomez-Gracia, E.; Lopez-Sabater, M.C.; Vinyoles, E.; et al. Effects of a Mediterranean-style diet on cardiovascular risk factors: A randomized trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 2006, 145, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ferrara, L.A.; Raimondi, A.S.; d’Episcopo, L.; Guida, L.; Russo, A.D.; Marotta, T. Olive oil and reduced need for antihypertensive medications. Arch. Intern. Med. 2000, 160, 837–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Fito, M.; Cladellas, M.; de la Torre, R.; Marti, J.; Alcantara, M.; Pujadas-Bastardes, M.; Marrugat, J.; Bruguera, J.; Lopez-Sabater, M.C.; Vila, J.; et al. Antioxidant effect of virgin olive oil in patients with stable coronary heart disease: A randomized, crossover, controlled, clinical trial. Atherosclerosis 2005, 181, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Flynn, M.M.; Reinert, S.E. Comparing an olive oil-enriched diet to a standard lower-fat diet for weight loss in breast cancer survivors: A pilot study. J. Womens Health 2010, 19, 1155–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Flynn, M.M.; Cunningham, J.; Renzulli, J.; Mega, A. Including extra virgin olive oil may more improve glycemic control despite similar weight loss compared to the diet recommended by the Prostate Cancer Foundation: A randomized, pilot study. J. Cancer Ther. 2017, 8, 880–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Galvao Candido, F.; Xavier Valente, F.; da Silva, L.E.; Coelho, O.G.L.; Peluzio, M.D.C.G.; Alfenas, R.D.C.G. Consumption of extra virgin olive oil improves body composition and blood pressure in women with excess body fat: A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Eur. J. Nutr. 2018, 57, 2445–2455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hernaez, A.; Castaner, O.; Goday, A.; Ros, E.; Pintó, X.; Estruch, R.; Salas-Salvadó, J.; Corella, D.; Arós, F.; Serra-Majem, L.; et al. The Mediterranean Diet decreases LDL atherogenicity in high cardiovascular risk individuals: A randomized controlled trial. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2017, 61, 1601015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hernaez, A.; Remaley, A.T.; Farras, M.; Fernández-Castillejo, S.; Subirana, I.; Schröder, H.; Fernández-Mampel, M.; Muñoz-Aguayo, D.; Sampson, M.; Solà, R.; et al. Olive Oil Polyphenols Decrease LDL Concentrations and LDL Atherogenicity in Men in a Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Nutr. 2015, 145, 1692–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Khandouzi, N.; Zahedmehr, A.; Nasrollahzadeh, J. Effect of polyphenol-rich extra-virgin olive oil on lipid profile and inflammatory biomarkers in patients undergoing coronary angiography: A randomised, controlled, clinical trial. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 72, 548–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Khaw, K.T.; Sharp, S.J.; Finikarides, L.; Afzal, I.; Lentjes, M.; Luben, R.; Forouhi, N.G. Randomised trial of coconut oil, olive oil or butter on blood lipids and other cardiovascular risk factors in healthy men and women. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e020167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Kontogianni, M.D.; Vlassopoulos, A.; Gatzieva, A.; Farmaki, A.-E.; Katsiougiannis, S.; Panagiotakos, D.B.; Kalogeropoulos, N.; Skopouli, F.N. Flaxseed oil does not affect inflammatory markers and lipid profile compared to olive oil, in young, healthy, normal weight adults. Metabolism 2013, 62, 686–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kozic Dokmanovic, S.; Kolovrat, K.; Laskaj, R.; Jukić, V.; Vrkić, N. Effect of Extra Virgin Olive Oil on Biomarkers of Inflammation in HIV-Infected Patients: A Randomized, Crossover, Controlled Clinical Trial. Med. Sci. Monit. 2015, 21, 2406–2413. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kruse, M.; von Loeffelholz, C.; Hoffmann, D.; Pohlmann, A.; Seltmann, A.-C.; Osterhoff, M.; Hornemann, S.; Pivovarova, O.; Rohn, S.; Jahreis, G.; et al. Dietary rapeseed/canola-oil supplementation reduces serum lipids and liver enzymes and alters postprandial inflammatory responses in adipose tissue compared to olive-oil supplementation in obese men. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2015, 59, 507–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Madigan, C.; Ryan, M.; Owens, D.; Collins, P.; Tomkin, G.H. Dietary unsaturated fatty acids in type 2 diabetes: Higher levels of postprandial lipoprotein on a linoleic acid-rich sunflower oil diet compared with an oleic acid-rich olive oil diet. Diabetes Care 2000, 23, 1472–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Maki, K.C.; Lawless, A.L.; Kelley, K.M.; Kaden, V.N.; Geiger, C.J.; Dicklin, M.R. Corn oil improves the plasma lipoprotein lipid profile compared with extra-virgin olive oil consumption in men and women with elevated cholesterol: Results from a randomized controlled feeding trial. J. Clin. Lipidol. 2015, 9, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Marrugat, J.; Covas, M.I.; Fito, M.; Schröder, H.; Miró-Casas, E.; Gimeno, E.; López-Sabater, M.C.; de la Torre, R.; Farré, M. Effects of differing phenolic content in dietary olive oils on lipids and LDL oxidation—A randomized controlled trial. Eur. J. Nutr. 2004, 43, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Martin-Pelaez, S.; Castaner, O.; Konstantinidou, V.; Subirana, I.; Muñoz-Aguayo, D.; Blanchart, G.; Gaixas, S.; De La Torre, R.; Farré, M.; Sáez, G.T.; et al. Effect of olive oil phenolic compounds on the expression of blood pressure-related genes in healthy individuals. Eur. J. Nutr. 2017, 56, 663–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Moreno-Luna, R.; Munoz-Hernandez, R.; Miranda, M.L.; Costa, A.F.; Jimenez-Jimenez, L.; Vallejo-Vaz, A.J.; Muriana, F.J.G.; Villar, J.; Stiefel, P. Olive oil polyphenols decrease blood pressure and improve endothelial function in young women with mild hypertension. Am. J. Hypertens. 2012, 25, 1299–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Paniagua, J.A.; de la Sacristana, A.G.; Sanchez, E.; Romero, I.; Vidal-Puig, A.; Berral, F.J.; Escribano, A.; Moyano, M.J.; Peréz-Martinez, P.; López-Miranda, J.; et al. A MUFA-rich diet improves posprandial glucose, lipid and GLP-1 responses in insulin-resistant subjects. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 2007, 26, 434–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Perona, J.S.; Canizares, J.; Montero, E.; Sánchez-Domínguez, J.M.; Catala, A.; Ruiz-Gutierrez, V. Virgin olive oil reduces blood pressure in hypertensive elderly subjects. Clin. Nutr. 2004, 23, 1113–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Rozati, M.; Barnett, J.; Wu, D.; Handelman, G.; Saltzman, E.; Wilson, T.; Li, L.; Wang, J.; Marcos, A.; Ordovás, J.M.; et al. Cardio-metabolic and immunological impacts of extra virgin olive oil consumption in overweight and obese older adults: A randomized controlled trial. Nutr. Metab. 2015, 12, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Sarapis, K.; Thomas, C.J.; Hoskin, J.; George, E.S.; Marx, W.; Mayr, H.L.; Kennedy, G.; Pipingas, A.; Willcox, J.C.; Prendergast, L.A.; et al. The Effect of High Polyphenol Extra Virgin Olive Oil on Blood Pressure and Arterial Stiffness in Healthy Australian Adults: A Randomized, Controlled, Cross-Over Study. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sarapis, K.; George, E.S.; Marx, W.; Mayr, H.L.; Willcox, J.; Powell, K.L.; Folasire, O.S.; Lohning, A.E.; Prendergast, L.A.; Itsiopoulos, C.; et al. Extra-virgin olive oil improves HDL lipid fraction but not HDL-mediated cholesterol efflux capacity: A double-blind, randomized, controlled, cross-over study (OLIVAUS). Br. J. Nutr. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Sola, R.; Fito, M.; Estruch, R.; Salas-Salvadó, J.; Corella, D.; De La Torre, R.; Muñoz, M.A.; López-Sabater, M.D.C.; Martínez-González, M.-A.; Arós, F.; et al. Effect of a traditional Mediterranean diet on apolipoproteins B, A-I, and their ratio: A randomized, controlled trial. Atherosclerosis 2011, 218, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Toledo, E.; Hu, F.B.; Estruch, R.; Buil-Cosiales, P.; Corella, D.; Salas-Salvadó, J.; Covas, M.I.; Arós, F.; Gómez-Gracia, E.; Fiol, M.; et al. Effect of the Mediterranean diet on blood pressure in the PREDIMED trial: Results from a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med. 2013, 11, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  71. Maki, K.C.; Lawless, A.L.; Kelley, K.M.; Kaden, V.N.; Geiger, C.J.; Palacios, O.M.; Dicklin, M.R. Corn oil intake favorably impacts lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein and lipoprotein particle levels compared with extra-virgin olive oil. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2017, 71, 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Estruch, R.; Martinez-Gonzalez, M.A.; Corella, D.; Salas-Salvadó, J.; Fitó, M.; Chiva-Blanch, G.; Fiol, M.; Gómez-Gracia, E.; Arós, F.; Lapetra, J.; et al. Retracted: Effect of a high-fat Mediterranean diet on bodyweight and waist circumference: A prespecified secondary outcomes analysis of the PREDIMED randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016, 4, 666–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Barcelo, F.; Perona, J.S.; Prades, J.; Funari, S.S.; Gomez-Gracia, E.; Conde, M.; Estruch, R.; Ruiz-Gutierrez, V. Mediterranean-style diet effect on the structural properties of the erythrocyte cell membrane of hypertensive patients: The Prevencion con Dieta Mediterranea Study. Hypertension 2009, 54, 1143–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Storniolo, C.E.; Casillas, R.; Bullo, M.; Castañer, O.; Ros, E.; Sáez, G.T.; Toledo, E.; Estruch, R.; Ruiz-Gutiérrez, V.; Fitó, M.; et al. A Mediterranean diet supplemented with extra virgin olive oil or nuts improves endothelial markers involved in blood pressure control in hypertensive women. Eur. J. Nutr. 2017, 56, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Ryan, M.; McInerney, D.; Owens, D.; Collins, P.; Johnson, A.; Tomkin, G. Diabetes and the Mediterranean diet: A beneficial effect of oleic acid on insulin sensitivity, adipocyte glucose transport and endothelium-dependent vasoreactivity. QJM 2000, 93, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Rigacci, S.; Stefani, M. Nutraceutical Properties of Olive Oil Polyphenols. An Itinerary from Cultured Cells through Animal Models to Humans. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, 843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Melguizo Rodriguez, L.; Illescas-Montes, R.; Costela-Ruiz, V.J.; García-Martínez, O. Stimulation of brown adipose tissue by polyphenols in extra virgin olive oil. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 61, 3481–3488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Claro-Cala, C.M.; Jimenez-Altayo, F.; Zagmutt, S.; Rodriguez-Rodriguez, R. Molecular Mechanisms Underlying the Effects of Olive Oil Triterpenic Acids in Obesity and Related Diseases. Nutrients 2022, 14, 1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. FDA. FDA Response to Petition for a Qualified Health Claim for Oleic Acid in Edible Oils and Reduced Risk of Coronary Heart Disease. 2017. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/media/118199/download (accessed on 26 February 2021).
  80. Tome-Carneiro, J.; Crespo, M.C.; Lopez de Las Hazas, M.C.; Visioli, F.; Davalos, A. Olive oil consumption and its repercussions on lipid metabolism. Nutr. Rev. 2020, 78, 952–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Agbiolab. Polyphenols and Antioxidants in Olive Oil; Agbiolab: Durham, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  82. California Department of Food & Agriculture. 2020–2021 Grade and Labeling Standards for Olive Oil, Refined-Olive Oil and Olive-Pomace Oil; California Department of Food & Agriculture: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2020.
  83. Miller, P.; Ravetti, L. Australian Standards Olive Oil and Olive-Pomace Oils; Australian Olive Association: Melbourne, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  84. Guillaume, C.; Gertz, C.; Ravetti, L. Pyropheophytin a and 1, 2-diacyl-glycerols over time under different storage conditions in natural olive oils. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2014, 91, 697–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Brown, M.J.; Ferruzzi, M.G.; Nguyen, M.L.; Cooper, D.; Eldridge, A.L.; Schwartz, S.J.; White, W.S. Carotenoid bioavailability is higher from salads ingested with full-fat than with fat-reduced salad dressings as measured with electrochemical detection. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2004, 80, 396–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Flynn, M.; Reinert, S.; Schiff, A.R. A Six-week Cooking Program of Plant-based Recipes Improves Food Security, Body Weight, and Food Purchases for Food Pantry Clients. J. Hunger. Environ. Nutr. 2013, 1, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ramirez-Anaya Jdel, P.; Samaniego-Sanchez, C.; Castaneda-Saucedo, M.C.; Villalón-Mir, M.; De La Serrana, H.L.-G. Phenols and the antioxidant capacity of Mediterranean vegetables prepared with extra virgin olive oil using different domestic cooking techniques. Food Chem. 2015, 188, 430–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Jabbarzadeh-Ganjeh, B.; Jayedi, A.; Shab-Bidar, S. The effects of olive oil consumption on blood lipids: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br. J. Nutr. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nutrients 15 02916 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the literature review processes evaluating studies comparing extra virgin olive oil with diets with other fats, low-fat diets, or olive oils with differing total phenol contents.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the literature review processes evaluating studies comparing extra virgin olive oil with diets with other fats, low-fat diets, or olive oils with differing total phenol contents.
Nutrients 15 02916 g001
Table
Table 1. Quality Assessment of Studies Using the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Quality Criteria Checklist (ANDQCC) [37].
Table 1. Quality Assessment of Studies Using the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Quality Criteria Checklist (ANDQCC) [37].
Author12345678910Quality Rating
Bondia-Pons et al. [39]++++−+++++Positive
Campos et al. [40]++++++++++Positive
Castaner et al. [41]++++−+++++Positive
Covas et al. [42]++++++++++Positive
Domenech et al. [43]++++−+++++Positive
Dos Santos et al. [44]++++++++++Positive
Estruch et al. (2019) [45]++++++++++Positive
Estruch et al. (2006) [46]++++++++++Positive
Ferrara et al. [47]++++++++−+Positive
Fito et al. [48]++++++++++Positive
Flynn et al. (2010) [49]++++−+++++Positive
Flynn et al. (2017) [50]++++−+++++Positive
Galvao Candido et al. [51]++++++++++Positive
Hernaez et al. (2017) [52]++++−+++++Positive
Hernaez et al. (2014) [35]++++−+++++Positive
Hernaez et al. (2015) [53]++++−+++++Positive
Khandouzi et al. [54]++++−+++++Positive
Khaw et al. [55]++++−+++++Positive
Kontogianni et al. [56]++++++++++Positive
Kozic et al. [57]++++++++++Positive
Kruse et al. [58]++++−+++++Positive
Madigan et al. [59]++++−+++−+Positive
Maki et al. [60]+++++++++−Positive
Marrugat et al. [61]++++++++++Positive
Martin-Pelaez et al. [62]++++++++++Positive
Moreno-Luna et al. [63]++++++++++Positive
Paniagua et al. [64]++++−+++++Positive
Perona et al. [65]++++−+++−+Positive
Rozati et al. [66]++++++++++Positive
Sarapis et al. (2020) [67] ++++++++++Positive
Sarapis et al. (2022) [68]++++++++++Positive
Sola et al. [69]++++−+++++Positive
Toledo et al. [70]++++−+++++Positive
Weinbrenner et al. [33]++++++++++Positive
+ Answer to validity question was yes. − Answer to a validity question was no.
Table
Table 2. The effect of extra virgin olive oil on blood pressure compared with diets with other fats, low-fat diets, and olive oil varying by phenol content.
Table 2. The effect of extra virgin olive oil on blood pressure compared with diets with other fats, low-fat diets, and olive oil varying by phenol content.
First Author, Journal,
Year, Country		PopulationIntervention/DesignOutcomes
Other Dietary Fats
Ferrara, L.A.
Arch Inter Med
2000 [47]
Italy		n = 23; m/f a
hypertensive
25–70 yrs.
BMI b 26.2 ± 2 kg/m2
BP c < 165/104 mmHg		EVOO d vs. sunflower oil (SO)
40 g/day m; 30 g/day
Crossover
24 wks.		SBP e/DBP f post-intervention:
SBP: EVOO127 + 14 mmHg vs. SO 135 + 13 mmHg; p = 0.05
DBP: EVOO 84 + 8 mmHg vs. SO 90 + 8 mmHg; p = 0.01
8 on EVOO ceased BP medications
Perona, J.S.
Clin Nutr
2004 [65]
Spain		N = 62; m/f
31 nl BP; 31 HTN g
84 ± 7.4 yrs.
BMI 28.8 ± 5.2 kg/m2		VOO h (232 mg/kg) vs. sunflower (SO)
60 g/day
Crossover
4 wks.		SBP/DBP post-intervention:
SBP:
HTN: EVOO: 136 ± 10 mmHg vs. SO 150 ± 8 mmHG; p < 0.01
nl BP SBP: NS difference (values NA)
DBP: NS difference HTN or nl (values NA)
Rozati, M.
Nutr Metab
2015 [66]
USA		N= 41; m/f
healthy
72 ± 1 yrs.
BMI 29.1 ± 1
BP:
control:
SBP 126 ± 2 mmHg; DBP 76 ± 2 mmHg
EVOO:
SBP 128 ± 3 mmHg
DBP 76 ± 2 mmHg		EVOO or
combo corn oil (CO), soybean oils (SB), butter (control)
40 g/day
Single blind
12 wks.		SBP/DBP—comparing change from baseline values:
SBP: EVOO base 128 + 3.7 mmHg to FU 122 + 2 mmHg
vs.
control base 126.2 ± 2 mmHg to FU 126.2 ± 2 mmHg;
p = 0.04
DBP: EVOO base 76 ± 2 mmHg to FU 73 ± 1 mmHg
vs.
Control base 76 + 2 mmHg to FU 73 ± 2 mmHg; p = 0.99
Maki, K.C.
J Clin Lipidol
2015 [60]
USA		N = 54 m/f
Healthy
53.8 + 1.3 yrs.
BMI: 28.2 + 0.5 kg/m2
SBP: 119.5 + 1.6 mmHg
DBP: 75.3 + 2.0 mmHg		EVOO or corn oil (CO)
4 tbs/day
(35% total fat)
Crossover
Double blind
21 days		SBP/DBP post-intervention:
SBP: EVOO −1.9 + 1 mmHg vs. CO −1.2 + 1 mmHg; p = 0.44
DBP: EVOO −1.5 + 0.8 mmHg vs. CO +0.1 + 0.8 mmHg; p = 0.04
Galvao Candidio, F.G.
Eur J Nutr
2018 [51]
Brazil		N = 41; f
normotensive
EVOO: 26.8 ± 5.0 yrs
BMI 30.5 ± 0.60 kg/m2
SBP: 115 ± 2.4 mmHg
DBP: 74.5 ± 1.9 mmHg
Control: 27.2 ± 6.1 yrs
BMI 29.7 ± 0.6 kg/m2
SBP: 109 ± 2.1 mmHg
DBP: 67.5 ± 1.5 mmHg		EVOO vs.
soybean (control)
25 mL/day
Double blind
9 wks.		SBP/DBP post-intervention:
SBP:
EVOO −3.9 ± 1.9 mmHg vs. control −3.6 ± 1.5 mmHg; p = 0.918
DBP:
EVOO −5.1 + 1.6 mmHg vs. control 0.3 + 1.2 mmHg; p = 0.01
Khaw, K.T.
BMJ Open
2018 [55]
UK		N = 91 m/f
Healthy
EVOO (n = 32):
59.1 ± 6.4 yrs.
BMI: 25.0 ± 4.5 kg/m2
SBP: 133.1 ± 16.5 mmHg
DBP: 78.1 ± 6.7 mmHg
Coconut oil (EVco) (n = 29):
59.1 ± 6.1 yrs.
BMI: 25.5 ± 4.5 kg/m2
SBP: 131.4 ± 18.8 mmHg
DBP 79.8 ± 9.3 mmHg
Butter (n = 33)
61.5 ± 5.8 yrs.
BMI 24.8 ± 3.5 kg/m2
SBP: 136.5 ± 18.8 mmHg
DBP: 81.0 ± 12.0 mmHg		EVOO vs. coconut oil vs. butter
50 g/day
4 wks.		Mean change from baseline by group:
SBP: EVOO −3.7 ± 8.2 mmHg vs. scoconut oil 0.18 ± 11.5 mmHg vs. butter −3.8 ± 11.1 mmHg; p = 0.29
DBP: EVOO −0.45 ± 8.5 mmHg vs. coconut oil −2.0 ± 5.7 mmHg vs. butter −1.3 ± 6.2; p = 0.81
Low-fat diet
Estruch, R.
Ann Intern Med
2006 [46]
Spain		PREDIMED
N = 722; m/f
Type 2 DM or ≥3 CHD risk factors
EVOO (n = 257)
68.6 ± 6.9 yrs
BMI: 29.7 ± 4.1 kg/m2
BP: NA
LF i (n = 257)
69.5 ± 6.1 yrs
BMI: 30.2 ± 4.3 kg/m2
BP: NA		EVOO vs. nuts vs. (control) LF
EVOO = 50 mL/day
3 months		Change in EVOO vs. change LF:
SBP: −5.9 mmHg; p < 0.001.
DBP −1.6 mmHg; p = 0.048
Changes greater for those with HTN
Toledo, E.
BMC Med
2013 [70]
Spain		PREDIMED
N = 7447 m/f
Type 2 DM or >3 CHD risk factors
EVOO (n = 2441)
66.9 + 6.2 yrs.
BMI 29.9 + 3.7 kg/m2
SBP 148 + 19 mmHg
DBP 83 + 10 mmHg
LF (n = 2350)
67.3 + 6.3 yrs
BMI 30.2 + 4.0 kg/m2
SBP 149 + 19 mmHg
DBP 82 + 10 mmHg		EVOO vs. nuts vs. (control) LF
EVOO = 4 tbs/day
4 yrs.		EVOO vs. LF:
SBP: +0.42 mmHg; p = 0.35
DBP: −1.41 mmHg; p < 0.001
Domenech, M.
Hypertension
2014 [43]
Spain		PREDIMED
N = 235 m/f
Type 2 DM or ≥3 CHD risk factors
EVOO (n = 78)
66.2 ± 5.8 yrs; BMI:
29.5 ± 3.9 kg/m2
SBP 146.2 ± 21.1 mmHg
DBP 80.4 ± 10.7 mmHg
LF (n = 75)
66.2 ± 6.2 yrs
BMI 30.4 ± 3.5 kg/m2
SBP 143.8 ± 18.8 mmHg
DBP 83.0 ± 9.5 mmHg		EVOO vs. nuts vs. LF
1 year 		EVOO vs. LF:
SBP: EVOO = −2.3 mmHg; nuts = −2.6 mmHg; LF = +1.7 mmHg; p < 0.001
DBP: EVOO = −1.2 mmHg; nuts = −1.2 mmHg; LF = +0.7 mmHg; p = 0.017
Dos Santos, J.L.
Eur J Clin Nutr
2022 [44]
Brazil		N = 204
40–80 yrs.
Control = 67
Nuts = 68
Olive oil = 69
Stable CAD
Mild HTN; NS between groups, baseline		Control diet = 25% fat
Nuts, pecans = 30 g/day
Olive oil, total phenol = 172 mg/kg, 30 mL/day
12 weeks of study		Comparison between the groups:
NS difference
Total phenol
Fito, M.
Atherosclerosis
2005 [48]
Spain		n = 40; m
Stable CHD
Refined → EVOO
69.8 ± 8.4 yrs
BMI 28.0 ± 3.0 kg/m2
SBP 136 ± 10.9 mmHg
DBP 78 ± 8.2 mmHg
EVOO → refined
66.0 ± 8.9 yrs
BMI 27.0 ± 3/1 kg/m2
SBP 136 ± 12.6 mmHg
DBP 78.5 ± 12.0 mmHg		14.7 (refined) vs. 161 mg/kg
50 mL/day
Crossover
3 wks.		Comparison by phenol content:
SBP:
Refined: 135.2 ± 6.6 mmHg vs. EVOO 132.6 ± 5.6 mmHg; p = 0.001
DBP:
Refined: 78.4 ± 6.0 mmHg vs. EVOO 79.6 ± 5.2 mmHg; p = 0.06
Bondia-Pons, I.
J Nutr
2007 [39]
Spain		N = 160; m
5 EU j cities; North, Central, South (Mediterranean)
healthy
33.3 + 1.1 yrs.
BMI 23.8 + 2.5 kg/m2
SBP
North 126.7 ± 2.6 mmHg
Central 124.2 ± 2.4 mmHg
South 122.0 ± 2.4 mmHg
DBP
North 80.6 ± 3.3 mmHg
Central 78.6 ± 3.2 mmHg
South 74.0 ± 3.1 mmHg		2.7 vs. 164 vs. 366 mg/kg phenols.
25 mL/d
Crossover
Single blind
3 wks. 		Baseline to post-intervention by location:
SBP:
North: base 126.7 ± 2.6 mmHg vs. FU 122.5 ± 2.4 mmHg; p < 0.05
Central: base 124.2 ± 2.4 mmHg vs. FU 119.8 ± 2.5 mmHg; p < 0.05
South: base 122.0 ± 2.4 mmHg vs. FU 119.6 ± 2.3 mmHg; NS
DBP
North: base 80.6 ± 3.3 mmHg vs. FU 78.4 ± 3.1 mmHg; p < 0.05
Central: base 78.6 ± 3.2 mmHg vs. 75.7 ± 3 mmHg; p < 0.05
South: base 74.0 ± 3.1 mmHg vs. FU 72.6 ± 2.9 mmHg; NS
Castaner, O.
Am J Clin Nutr
2012 [41]
Spain		n = 18; m
Healthy
38.2 + 11.5 yrs.
BMI 24.7 + 2.9 kg/m2
SBP 129 ± 14 mmHg
DBP 47 ± 0 mmHg		2.7 vs. 366 mg/kg
25 mL/day
Crossover
3 wks.		SBP/DBP change by phenol content:
SBP: 2.7 mg/kg 0.88 ± 1.9 mmHg vs. 366 mg/kg −1.6 ± 2.3 mmHg; p = 0.361
DBP: 2.7 mg/kg; +2.78 ± 1.7 mmHg vs. 366 mg/kg −1.22 ± 1.04 mmHg; p = 0.043
Moreno-Luna, R.
Am J Hypertens
2012 [63]
Spain		n = 24; f
high nl BP or stage 1 HTN
26 yrs (24 to 27 yo)
BMI 25.4 kg/m2 (23.5 to 27.0 kg/m2)
SBP 134.4 ± 9.3 mmHg
DBP84.6 ± 8.5 mmHg		Refined vs. 564 mg/kg.
60 mL/day
Crossover
8 wks.		SBP/DBP change by phenol content:
SBP:
refined −1.6 ± 8.2 mmHg vs. 564 mg/kg −7.9 ± 9.5 mmHg; p < 0.001
DBP
refined −2.2 ± 7.2 mmHg vs. 564 mg/kg −6.6 ± 6.6 mmHg; p < 0.001
Martin-Pelaez, S.
Eur J Nutr
2017 [62]
Spain		N = 18; m
Healthy
36 ± 11.1 yrs
BMI 24.3 ± 3.2 kg/m2
SBP 127 ± 14 mmHg
DBP 78 ± 9 mmHg		2.7 vs. 366 mg/kg
25 mL/day
65% oleuropein
Crossover
Double blind
3 wks.		SBP/DBP change by phenol content:
SBP
2.7 mg/kg 0.44 ± 1.81 mmHg vs. 366 mg/kg −4.22 ± 1.81 mmHg; p = 0.06
DBP
2.7 mg/kg 2.94 ± 1.34 mmHg vs. 366 mg/kg −2.1 ± 1.3; p = 0.007
Sarapis, K.
Nutrients
2020 [67]
Australia		N = 50; m = 17
Healthy
38.5 ± 13.9 yrs
BMI 24.7 ± 3.5 kg/m2
SBP 120.0 ± 13.4 mmHg
DBP 69.9 ± 8.4 mmHg		86 mg/kg vs. 360 mg/kg
60 mL/day
Crossover
Double blind
3 wks.		Changes from baseline by phenol content:
SBP:
360 mg/kg: −2.5 mmHg vs. baseline; p < 0.05
86 mg/kg: NS (values NA)
DBP: NS difference either phenol amt. (values NA)
a m/f = male/female. b BMI = body mass index. c BP = blood pressure. d EVOO = extra virgin olive oil. e SBP = systolic blood pressure. f DBP = diastolic blood pressure. g HTN = hypertension. h VOO = virgin olive oil. i LF = low-fat diet. j EU = Europe.
Table
Table 3. The effect of extra virgin olive oil on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) compared with diets with other fats, low-fat diets, and olive oil varying by phenol content.
Table 3. The effect of extra virgin olive oil on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) compared with diets with other fats, low-fat diets, and olive oil varying by phenol content.
First Author, Journal,
Year, Country		PopulationIntervention/DesignOutcomes
Other dietary fats
Madigan, C.
Diabetes Care
2000 [59]
Ireland		 n = 11; m a
Type 2 DM
56.0 + 2.5 yrs
A1c: 5.7 + 0.86%
BMI b 27.7 + 2.6 kg/m2
LDL-c: 123.6 ± 19 mg/dL		EVOO c vs. sunflower oil (SO)
30 mL/d
Crossover
2 wks.		LDL-c comparison by intervention:
EVOO: 116.0 + 19.3 mg/dL vs. SO: 123.7 + 19.3 mg/dL; p < 0.001
Perona, J.S.
Clin Nutr
2004 [65]
Spain		 N = 62; m/f d
31 nl BP e; 31 HTN f; 84 ± 7.4 y
BMI g 28.8 ± 5.2 kg/m2
LDL-c: NA		VOO h (232 mg/kg) vs. sunflower (SO)
60 g/day
Crossover
4 wks.		LDL-c comparison by intervention:
nl BP: VOO 99.2 ± 32.4 mg/dL vs. SO 113.0 ± 35.5 mg/dL; p < 0.01
HTN: VOO 105.7 ± 29.3 vs. SO 112.0 ± 27.9; p > 0.01
Kontogianni, M.D.
Metab Clin Exp
2013 [56]
Greece		N = 37 (m = 8)
Healthy
25.6 ± 5.9 years
BMI 21.9 ± 2.5 kg/m2
LDL-c:
EVOO: 100 ± 23.2 mg/dL
Flaxseed: 103.9 ± 27.0 mg/dL		EVOO vs.
flaxseed oil
15 mL
Crossover
Single blind
6 wks.		LDL-c comparison by intervention:
EVOO: baseline 100.0 + 23.2 mg/dL vs. FU i 100.0 + 23.2 mg/dL
Flaxseed: 103.9 + 27.0 mg/dL vs. FU 96.9 + 23.2 * mg/dL
p = 0.89 for comparisons between diet
* p = < 0.01 for comparison of baseline LDL-c with FU
Maki, J.C.
J Clin Lipidol
2015 [60]
USA		N = 54 m/f
healthy
53.8 ± 1.3 yrs.
BMI: 28.2 ± 0.5 kg/m2
LDL-c: 153.3 ± 3.5 mg/dL		EVOO or corn oil (CO)
4 tbs/day
Crossover
Double blind
21 days		LDL-c comparison by intervention:
EVOO −3.5 ± 1.5 mg/dL vs. CO −10.9 ± 1.5 mg/dL; p < 0.001
Kruse, M.
Mol Nutr Food Res
2015 [58]
Germany		N = 19; m
Healthy
EVOO
58.0 ± 2.6 yrs
BMI 29.2 ± 0.7 kg/m2
LDL-c: 128.0 ± 11.6 mg/dL
Rapeseed/canola
52.0 ± 2.3 yrs
BMI: 29.7 ± 0.87 kg/m2
LDL-c 130.7 ± 8.9 mg/dL		EVOO or rapeseed (canola) oil (CO)
50 g/day
4 wks. 		LDL-c change from baseline:
EVOO −5.0 ± 6.6 vs. CO −17.4 ± 4.2; p = 0.132
Khaw, K.T.
BMJ Open
2018 [55]
UK		N = 91; m/f
Healthy
Coconut oil (n = 28)
59.1 ± 6.1 yrs
BMI: 25.5 ± 4.5 kg/m2
LDL-c: 135.1 ± 34.7 mg/dL
Butter (n = 33)
61.5 ± 5.8 yrs
BMI: 24.8 ± 3.5 yrs
LDL-c: 135.1 ± 34.7 mg/dL
EVOO (n = 30)
59.1 ± 6.4 yrs
BMI 25.0 ± 4.5 yrs.
LDL-c: 142.8 ± 38.6 mg/dL		Coconut oil vs. butter vs. EVOO
50 g/day
4 wks.		LDL change from baseline:
Coconut oil −3.5 ± 18.9 mg/dL vs. EVOO −2.3 ± 15 mg/dL; p = 0.74
Galvao Candido, F.
Eur J Nutr
2018 [51]
Brazil		N = 41; f
Control:
27.2 + 6.1 yrs
BMI: 29.7 + 0.6 kg/m2
LDL-c: 43.6 ± 2.7 mg/dL
EVOO:
26.8 ± 5.0 yrs
BMI: 30.5 ± 0.6 kg/m2
LDL-c: 45.4 ± 3.6 mg/dL		EVOO vs. soybean oil (control)
25 mL/day
Double-blind
9 wks.		Change in LDL (mean, SE):
EVOO: −0.72 ± 1.44 mg/dL vs. control:
−1.0 ± 1.0 mg/dL; p = 0.83
Low-fat diet
Flynn, M.M.
J Women’s Health
2010 [49]
USA		n = 28; f
Breast cancer survivors
59.2 ± 6.1 yrs
BMI 27.9 ± 2.8
LDL-c: NA		EVOO 3 tbs./day
vs. <30% fat (NCI j diet)
Crossover
8 wks.		LDL-c comparison by intervention:
EVOO 103 ± 22 mg/dL vs. NCI j 108 ± 18 mg/dL; p = 0.82
Sola, R.
Atherosclerosis
2011 [69]
Spain		PREDIMED
N = 551; m/f
Type 2 DM or >3 CHD l risk factors
EVOO (n = 181)
69.3 ± 6.2 yrs.
BMI 29.8 ± 4.3 kg/m2
LDL-c: 146.2 ± 35.6 mg/dL
LF (n = 177)
69.7 ± 6.3 yrs.
BMI 30.1 ± 4.3 kg/m2
LDL-c: 142.6 ± 33.9 mg/dL		EVOO 50 ml/day
Nuts 30 gr/day
LF k
3 months		LDL-c change in EVOO intervention to LF:
EVOO vs. LF: −3.2 mg/dL (95% CI m l −8.4 to 2.0); p = 0.23
Apo B: −2.9 (−5.6 to −0.08); p = 0.44
Flynn, M.M.
J Cancer Therapy
2017 [50]
USA		N = 18; m
Prostate cancer on surveillance
66.6 ± 5.9 yrs
BMI 30.9 ± 2.7 kg/m2
LDL-c: NA		EVOO (625 mg/kg) 3 tbs./day vs. Prostate Cancer Foundation diet
(PCF)
Crossover
8 wks		LDL-c comparison between intervention:
EVOO 96.5 ± 24.7 mg/dL vs. PCF 93.8 ± 30.1 mg/dL; p = 0.29
Hernaez, A.
Mol Nutr Food Res
2017 [52]
Spain		PREDIMED
N = 210; m/f
Type 2 DM or ≥3 CHD risk factors
EVOO (n = 71)
66.5 ± 6.34 yrs
BMI 30.2 ± 3.96 kg/m2
LDL-c: 129 ± 30 mg/dL
LF (n = 68)
64.7 ± 6.58 yrs
BMI 29.7 ± 3.98 kg/m2
LDL-c: 135.0 ± 33.0 mg/dL		EVOO 50 mL/day
Nuts 30 gr/day
LF
1 year		LDL-c change in LF intervention vs. EVOO:
LF −10.5 mg/dL vs. EVOO; p = 0.003
LF: no change in apo B; smaller LDL
EVOO: increase in size of LDL vs. LF (p = 0.021)
Campos, V.P.
J Hum Nutr Diet
2020 [40]
Brazil		N = 204
Control = 67 (49% m)
Nuts = 68 (55% m)
Olive oil = 69 (51% m)
Stable CAD n
LDL < 100 mg/dL
NS between groups at baseline		Control diet = 25% fat
Nuts, pecan = 30 g/day
Olive oil, total phenol = 172 mg/kg, 30 mL/day
12 wks.		Comparison between groups:
NS difference for change in LDL-c
Total phenol
Marrugat, J.
Eur J Nutr
2004 [61]
Spain		n = 30; m
Healthy
54.8 ± 21.4 to 61.0 ± 19.2 yrs
BMI: <25.0 kg/m2
LDL-c (by diet order)
VCR: 135.1 ± 34.7 mg/dL
CRV: 142.8 ± 38.6 mg/dL
RVC: 150.6 ± 38.6 mg/dL		Refined (R) vs. 68 mg/kg (C = common) vs. 150 mg/kg (V = virgin)
25 mL/day
Crossover
Double blind
3 wks. 		LDL-c change from baseline by phenol content:
Refined baseline 131.4 ± 30.9 vs.
FU 138.9 ± 34.7 mg/dL; NS
68 mg/kg baseline 138.9 ± 30.9
vs. FU 131.3 ± 30.9 mg/dL; NS
150 mg/kg baseline 135.1 ± 34.7
vs. FU 131.3 ± 2.7 mg/dL; NS
150 mg/kg decreased LDL ox
Weinbrenner, T.
J Nutr
2004 [33]
Spain		n = 12; m
Healthy
21.1 yrs; (20–22 yrs)
BMI 22.9 ± 1.7 kg/m2
LDL baseline each oil:
10 mg/kg: 77.9 ± 7.7 mg/dL
133 mg/kg: 76.4 ± 7.7 mg/dL
486 mg/kg: 80.1 ± 9.3 mg/dL		10 vs. 133 vs.
486 mg/kg
25 mL/day
Crossover
Double-blind
4 days		LDL change from baseline by phenol content:
10 mg/kg: 77.9 ± 7.7 → 77.6 ± 7.7 mg/dL
133 mg/kg: 76.4 ± 7.7 → 74.9 ± 7.3 mg/dL
486 mg/kg: 80.3 ± 9.3 → 78.4 ± 7.3 mg/dL
p> 0.05 for all comparisons
Covas, M.I.
Ann Inter Med
2006 [42]
Spain		n=200; m
Healthy
BMI < 25.0 kg/m2
23.7–24.0 mg/m2
LDL-c (by diet sequence)
1: 118 ± 35 mg/dL
2: 120 ± 36 mg/dL
3: 113 ± 38 mg/dL		2.7 vs. 164 vs. 336 mg/kg
25 mL/day
Crossover
3 wks.		LDL-c change (mean, 95% CI) from baseline by phenol content:
2.7 mg/kg: 0.61 mg/dL (−2.3 to 3.4 mg/dL)
164 mg/kg −0.75 mg/dL (−3.8 to 1.9 mg/dL)
336 mg/kg (−3.1 to 2.3 mg/dL)
p = 0.74
336 mg/kg: decrease in LDL-ox
Castaner, O.
Am J Clin Nutr
2012 [41]
Spain		 n = 18; m
Healthy
38.2 ± 11.5 yrs
BMI 24.7 ± 2.9 kg/m2
LDL 129 ± 44 mg/dL		2.7 vs. 366 mg/kg
25 mL/day
Crossover
3 wks.		LDL-c change by phenol content:
2.7 mg/kg: 6.4 ± 2.8 mg/dL
vs. 366 mg/kg: −6.3 ± 4.8 mg/dL; p = 0.028
Hernaez, A.
J Nutr
2015 [53]
Spain		N = 25; m
Healthy
32.3 ± 11.2 yrs
BMI-NA
Weight = 78.2 ± 10.9 kg
LDL-c 100.4 ± 38.6 mg/d		2.7 vs. 366 mg/kg
25 mL
Crossover
3 wks.		LDL-c and composition change by phenol content:
LDL-c: NS difference
Total LDL particles:
2.7 mg/kg: 4.7 ± 22.0%
vs. 366 mg/kg: −11.9 ± 12.0%; p = 0.013
Apo B
2.7 mg/kg +6.4 ± 16.6% vs. 366 mg/kg −5.9 ± 16.6%; p = 0.004
Martin-Pelaez, S.
Eur J Nutr
2017 [62]
Spain		N = 18; m
Healthy
36 ± 11.1 yrs
BMI 24.3 ± 3.2 kg/m2
LDL-c 125 ± 45 mg/dL		2.7 vs. 366 mg/kg
25 mL/day
65% oleuropein
Crossover
Double blind
3 wks.		LDL-c change by phenol content:
2.7 mg/kg 4.87 ± 4.13 mg/dL
vs. 366 mg/kg −6.61 ± 4.12 mg/dL; p = 0.04
Khandozi, N.
Int J Food Sci Nutr
2021 [54]
Iran		N = 40 (m = 38)
>1 CVD risk factor
EVOO: 53.6 ± 7.6 yrs.
Refined: 56.0 + 6.3 yrs.
LDL-c:
EVOO: 83.3 (69.4–97.2)
Refined: 61.4 (55.8–73.2)		2–10 (refined) vs. 500–700 (EVOO) mg/kg
25 mL/day
6 wks.		LDL-c change:
Refined: 4.3 (−1.2 to 9.9)
vs. EVOO: −5.1 (−0.55 to −10.7); p = 0.011
Sarapis, K.
Br J Nutr
2022 [68]
Australia		N= 50; m = 34%
Healthy
38.5 ± 13.9 yrs.
BMI 24.7 ± 3.5 kg/m2
LDL-c: 115.8 ± 34.7 mg/dL		86 vs. 320 mg/kg
60 mL/day
Crossover
Double blind
3 wks		No between-group differences
a m = male. b BMI = body mass index. c EVOO = extra virgin olive oil. d f = female. e BP = blood pressure. f HTN = hypertension. g BMI = body mass index. h VOO = virgin olive oil. i FU = follow-up. j NCI = National Cancer Institute. k LF = low-fat diet. l CHD = coronary heart disease. m CI = confidence interval. n CAD = coronary artery disease.
Table
Table 4. The effect of extra virgin olive oil on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) compared with diets with other fats, low-fat diets, and olive oil varying by phenol content.
Table 4. The effect of extra virgin olive oil on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) compared with diets with other fats, low-fat diets, and olive oil varying by phenol content.
First Author, Journal, Year, CountryPopulationIntervention/DesignOutcomes
Other fats
Madigan, C.
Diabetes Care
2000 [59]
Ireland		 N = 11; m a
Type 2 DM
56.0 ± 2.5 yrs
A1c: 5.7 ± 0.86%
BMI b 27.7 ± 2.6 kg/m2
HDL-c = 42.3 ± 11.6 mg/dL		EVOO c vs. sunflower oil (SO)
30 mL/d
Crossover
2 wks.		HDL-c comparison by intervention:
SO 42.5 ± 22.5 vs. EVOO 42.5 ± 11.6; NS
Perona, J.S.
Clin Nutr
2004 [65]
Spain		 N = 62; m/f d
31 nl BP e; 31 HTN
84 ± 7.4 yr
BMI 28.8 ± 5.2 kg/m2
HDL-c: NA		VOO f (232 mg/kg) vs. sunflower (SO)
60 g/day
Crossover
4 wks.		HDL-c comparison by intervention and by nl BP and HTN
nl BP: VOO 48.1 ± 14.9 mg/dL vs. SO 57.6 ± 17.8 mg/dL; p < 0.01
HTN: VOO 51.2 ± 17.2 mg/dL vs. SO 54.0 ± 18.7; p > 0.01
Kontogianni, M.D.
Metabolism
2013 [56]
Greece		N = 37 (m = 8)
Healthy
25.6 ± 5.9 years
BMI 21.9 ± 2.5 kg/m2
HDL-c:
EVOO: 60.2 ± 15.4 mg/dL
Flaxseed: 61.8 ± 11.6 mg/dL		EVOO vs.
Flaxseed oil
15 mL
Crossover
Single blind
6 wks. 		HDL-c change from baseline:
EVOO: 60.2 ± 15.4 mg/dL vs. FU 59.8 ± 397.7 * mg/dL
Flaxseed 61.8 ± 11.6 mg/dL vs. FU 60.6 ± 11.6 mg/dL
p = 0.69
* Value provided in Table 2 of article; possibly an error
Maki, K.C.
J Clin Lipidol
2015 [60]
USA		N = 54 m/f
Healthy
53.8 ± 1.3 yrs.
BMI: 28.2 ± 0.5 kg/m2
HDL 47.4 ± 1.7 mg/dL		EVOO or corn oil (CO)
4 tbs/day
Crossover
Double blind
21 days		Compared with baseline HDL:
EVOO −1.7%
CO −3.4%
p = 0.192
Kruse, M.
Mol Nutr Food Res
2015 [58]
Germany		N = 19; m
Healthy
EVOO
58.0 ± 2.6 yrs
BMI 29.2 ± 0.7 kg/m2
HDL-c: 43.7 ± 3.1 mg/dL
Rapeseed/canola
52.0 ± 2.3 yrs
BMI: 29.7 ± 0.87 kg/m2
HDL-c 44.9 ± 2.3 mg/dL		EVOO or rapeseed (canola) oil (CO)
50 g/day
4 wks.		HDL-c change from baseline:
EVOO 2.3 ± 1.9 vs. −2.7 ± 1.5 mg/dL; p = 0.61
Khaw, K.T.
BMJ Open
2018 [55]
UK		N = 91; m/f d
Healthy
Coconut oil (n = 28)
59.1 ± 6.1 yrs
BMI: 25.5 ± 4.5 kg/m2
HDL-c: 77.2 ± 19.3 mg/dL
Butter (n = 33)
61.5 ± 5.8 yrs
BMI: 24.8 ± 3.5 yrs
HDL-c: 73.4 ± 19.3 mg/dL
EVOO (n = 30)
59.1 ± 6.4 yrs
BMI: 25.0 ± 4.5 yrs.
HDL-c: 69.5 ± 19.3 mg/dL		Coconut oil vs. butter vs. EVOO
50 g/day
4 wks.		HDL-c change from baseline:
Coconut oil: + 10.8 mg/dL
vs. butter +3.5 + 10.4 mg/dL
vs. EVOO 3.9 + 5.8 mg/dL; p = 0.009
Compared with EVOO:
Coconut oil +6.2 mg/dL (CI g 95%1.2 to 10.8); p < 0.05
Galvao Candido, F.
Eur J Nutr
2018 [51]
Brazil		N = 41; f
Control:
27.2 ± 6.1 yrs
BMI: 29.7 ± 0.6 kg/m2
HDL-c: 21.4 ± 1.0 mg/dL
EVOO:
26.8 ± 5.0 yrs
BMI: 30.5 ± 0.6 kg/m2
HDL-c: 23.6 ± 1.3 mg/dL		EVOO vs. soybean oil (control)
25 mL/day
Double-blind
9 wks.		Change in HDL-c (mean, SE):
EVOO: −0.54 ± 0.54 mg/dL vs. control: −1.3 ± 0.54 mg/dL; p = 0.38
Low-fat diet
Paniagua, J.A.
J Am Coll Nutr
2007 [64]
Spain		N = 11; f = 7
Offspring ob/type 2 DM
A1c 6.0 ± 0.5
62 ± 9 yrs
BMI 32.6 ± 7.8 kg/m2
HDL-c: NA		SAT: 38% fat, 23% SFA, 47% CHO
MFA: 38% fat, 73 g/d EVOO 47% CHO
LF h: 65% CHO, 20% fat
Food provided
Crossover
4 wks.		HDL comparison of EVOO with LF:
EVOO 47 ± 5.4 mg/dL
vs. LF 42 ± 4.2 mg/dL; p < 0.05
Flynn, M.M.
J Women’s Health
2010 [49]
USA		N = 28; f
Breast cancer survivors
59.2 ± 6.1 yrs
BMI 27.9 ± 2.8
HDL-c- NA		EVOO 3 tbs./day
vs. <30% fat (NCI diet)
Crossover
8 wks.		HDL-c comparison by intervention:
EVOO 68 ± 12 mg/dL
vs. LF: 64 ± 13; p = 0.001
Sola, R.M.
Atherosclerosis
2011 [69]
Spain		PREDIMED
N = 551; m/f
Type 2 DM or ≥3 CHD risk factors
EVOO (n = 181)
69.3 ± 6.2 yrs.
BMI 29.8 ± 4.3 kg/m2
HDL-c 51.9 ± 12 mg/dL
LF (n = 177)
69.7 ± 6.3 yrs.
BMI 30.1 ± 4.3 kg/m2
HDL-c 54.4 ± 11.3 mg/dL		EVOO 4 tbs./day
Nuts 30 gr/day
LF
3 months		HDL comparison of EVOO with LF:
EVOO vs. LF: +2.1 (95% CI 0.9 to 3.2) mg/dL; p = 0.001
Flynn, M.M.
J Cancer Therapy
2017 [50]
USA		N = 18; m
Prostate cancer on surveillance
66.6 ± 5.9 yrs
BMI 30.9 ± 2.7 kg/m2
HDL-c: 46.3 ± 10.9 mg/dL		EVOO (625 mg/kg total phenols) 3 tbs./day vs. Prostate Cancer Foundation diet
(LF diet)
Crossover
8 wks.		HDL-c comparison by intervention:
EVOO: 45.6 ± 13.5 mg/dL
vs. PCF 44.4 ± 13.9 mg/dL; p = 0.12
Campos, V.P.
J Hum Nutr Diet
2020 [40]
Brazil		N= 204; m/f
Control = 67 (49% m)
Nuts = 68 (55% m)
Olive oil = 69 (51% m)
Stable CAD
Normal HDL
NS between groups at Baseline		Control diet = 25% fat
Nuts, pecans = 30 g/day
Olive oil, total phenol = 172 mg/kg, 30 mL/day
12 weeks of study		Comparison between the groups:
NS difference for change in HDL-c
Refined olive oil
Kozic, D.S.
Med Sci Monit
2015 [57]
Croatia		N= 35; HIV+ men
18–75 ys. old
BMI: 23.0–27.9 kg/m2
HDL-c (by diet order): 46.3 to 50.2 mg/dL		Refined or EVOO
50 mL/day
Crossover
20 days		HDL:
Refined 50.2 ± 0.0
EVOO 50.2 ± 0.0
p = 0.884
Total phenol
Marrugat, J.
Eur J Nutr
2004 [61]
Spain		N = 30; m
Healthy
54.8 ± 21.4 to 61.0 ± 19.2 yrs
BMI: <25.0 kg/m2
HDL-c: 54.1 ± 11.6 to 57.9 ± 11.6 mg/dL		Refined vs. 68 vs. 150 mg/kg
25 mL/day
Crossover
Double blind
3 wks.		HDL by phenol content:
Refined: 61.0 ± 13.1
vs. 62.5 ± 13.1 mg/dL; NS
68 mg/kg: 60.6 ± 13.1
vs. 60.2 ± 11.9 mg/dL; NS
150 mg/kg: 60.6 ± 11.2
vs. 63.7 ± 12.4 mg/dL; p = 0.029
Weinbrenner, T.
J Nutr
2004 [33]
Spain		N = 12; m
Healthy
21.1 yrs; (20–22 yrs)
BMI 22.9 ± 1.7 kg/m2
HDL-c: (by diet order) 44.8 ± 3.5 to 46.3 ± 3.1		10 vs. 133 vs.
486 mg/dL
25 mL/day
Crossover
Double blind
4 days		HDL comparison by phenol content:
10 mg/kg: 46.3 + 3.1 → 48.3 + 3.5 mg/dL
113 mg/kg: 44.7 + 3.5 → 47.9 + 3.9 mg/dL *
486 mg/kg: 46.3 + 3.1 → 49.4 + 3.1 mg/dL *
* p < 0.05
Linear trend: p < 0.05
Covas, M.I.
Ann Intern Med
2006 [42]
Spain		N = 200; m
Healthy
BMI < 25.0 kg/m2
23.7–24.0 mg/m2
HDL-c: (by diet order) 47.0 ± 11.0 to 47.9 ± 11.3 mg/dL
2.7 vs. 164 vs. 336 mg/kg
25 mL/day
Crossover
3 wks. 		HDL-c compared with baseline:
2.7 mg/kg = +0.9 mg/dL
164 mg/kg = +1.2 mg/dL
336 mg/kg = +1.7 mg/dL
p = 0.018
Castaner, O.
Am J Clin Nutr
2012 [41]
Spain		N = 18; m
Healthy
38.2 ± 11.5 yrs
BMI 24.7 ± 2.9 kg/m2
HDL 47 ± 10 mg/dL		366 vs. 2.7 mg/kg
25 mL/day
Crossover
3 wks.		HDL: NS difference
Martin-Pelaez, S.
Eur J Nutr
2017 [62]
Spain		N = 18; m
Healthy
36 ± 11.1 yrs
BMI 24.3 ± 3.2 kg/m2
HDL 46 ± 10 mg/dL		2.7 vs. 366 mg/kg
25 mL/day
65% oleuropein
Crossover
Double blind
3 wks.		HDL
2.7 mg/kg 2.59 ± 1.40
vs. 366 mg/dL 0.49 ± 1.40; p = 0.26
Khandozi, N.
Int J Food Sci Nutr
2021 [54]
Iran		N= 40; m = 38
>1 CVD risk factor
EVOO: 53.6 + 7.6 yrs
Refined: 56.0 + 6/3 yrs
HDL-c:
EVOO: 43.9 mg/dL (39.1 to 53.9)
Refined: 37.2 mg/dL (33.6 to 40.7)		2–10 (refined) vs. 500–700 (EVOO)
mg/kg
25 mL/day
6 wks. 		HDL-c change:
Refined: 1.60 mg/dL (−0.24 to 2.45)
vs. EVOO: −1.47 mg/dL (−9.96 to 1.96); p = 0.11
Sarapis, K.
Br J Nutr
2022 [68]
Australia		N = 50; 34% m
39 ± 14 yrs
HDL 57.9 ± 11.6 mg/dL		86 vs. 320 mg/kg
60 mL/day
Crossover
Double blind
3 wks.		No between-group differences.
HDL2; HDL function
Hernaez, A.
Arterio Thromb Vasc Biol
2014 [35]
Spain		N = 47; m
Healthy
33.5 ± 10.9 yrs
HDL-c: 52 ± 11 mg/dL		2.7 vs. 366 mg/kg
25 mL/day
Crossover
3 wks.		HDL comparisons by phenol content:
HDL: NS difference total (values NA)
Percent change from baseline:
HDL-c efflux capacity:
2.7 mg/kg: −2.34
vs. 366 mg/kg +3.05; p = 0.042
HDL2: 366 mg/kg: +15%
vs. baseline; p = 0.01
vs. 2.7 mg/kg; p = 0.05
a m = male. b BMI = body mass index. c EVOO = extra virgin olive oil. d f = female. e BP = blood pressure. f VOO = virgin olive oil. g CI = confidence interval. h LF = low-fat diet.
Table
Table 5. The effect of extra virgin olive oil on fasting blood glucose (FBG), insulin, and HOMA-IR compared with diets with other fats, low-fat diets, and olive oil varying by phenol content.
Table 5. The effect of extra virgin olive oil on fasting blood glucose (FBG), insulin, and HOMA-IR compared with diets with other fats, low-fat diets, and olive oil varying by phenol content.
First Author, Journal,
Year, Country		PopulationIntervention/DesignOutcomes
Other fats
Madigan, C.
Diabetes Care
2000 [59]
Ireland		N = 11; m a
type 2 DM
56.0 ± 2.5 yrs
BMI b 27.7 ± 2.6 kgm2
FBG c NA
A1c 5.7 ± 0.8%		EVOO d vs. sunflower oil (SO)
30 mL/d
Crossover
2 wks.		FBG comparison by intervention:
SO: 153.0 ± 14.4 mg/dL vs. EVOO: 136.8 ± 12.6 mg/dL; p < 0.01
Insulin (mU/L):
SO: 2.23 ± 0.48 mU/L
vs. EVOO: 1.97 ± 0.38 mU/L; p < 0.001
Kontogianni, M.D.
Metabolism
2013 [56]
Greece		N = 37 (m = 8)
Healthy
25.6 ± 5.9 years
BMI 21.9 ± 2.5 kg/m2
FBG < 90 mg/dL: approximately 60 mg/dL		EVOO vs.
Flaxseed oil
15 mL
Crossover
Single blind
6 wks.		FBG: comparison by intervention:
EVOO: baseline 86.2 + 7.2 mg/dL vs. FU f 85.3 + 5.4 mg/dL
Flaxseed: baseline 87.1 + 7.2 mg/dL vs. FU 86.6 + 7.2 mg/dL
p = 0.50
Kruse, M.
Mol Nutr Food Res
2015 [58]
Germany		N = 19 m
Healthy
EVOO d
58.0 + 2.6 yrs
BMI 29.2 ± 0.7 kg/m2
FBG 107.5 ± 6.4 mg/dL
Rapeseed/canola oil
52.0 ± 2.3 yrs
BMI 29.7 ± 0.9 kg/m2
FBG 103.5 ± 3.4 mg/dL		EVOO or rapeseed (canola) oil (CO)
50 g/day
4 wks. 		Change from baseline by intervention:
FBG:
EVOO −15.8 ± 6.8 mg/dL vs. CO −4.8 ± 2.4 mg/dL; p = 0.153
Insulin:
EVOO 0.3 ± 0.8 mU/L vs. CO −2.2 ± 0.8 mU/L; p = 0.058
HOMA-IR e:
EVOO 0.3 ± 0.5 vs. CO −0.5 ± 0.2; p = 0.154
Galvao Candido, F.
Eur J Nutr
2018 [51]
Brazil		N = 41; f g
Normotensive
EVOO: 26.8 ± 5.0 yrs
BMI: 30.5 ± 0.60 kg/m2
Control: 27.2 ± 6.1 yrs.
BMI:29.7 ± 0.6 kg/m2		EVOO vs.
soybean (control)
25 mL/day
Double-blind
9 wks. 		Change by intervention (mean, SE)
Glucose:
EVOO: −0.11 + 0.39 vs. control: −0.13 ± 0.05; p = 0.81
Insulin:
EVOO: −4.31 ± 5.9 vs. control: 3.82 ± 35.6; p = 0.06
HOMA-IR
EVOO: −0.19 ± 0.22 vs. control: 0.08 ± 1.15: p0.054
Khaw, K.T.
BMJ Open
2018 [55]
UK		N= 91 m/f
Healthy
EVOO (n = 32)
59.1 ± 6.4 yr
BMI: 25.0 ± 4.5 kg/m2
FBG:
EVOO: 5.4 ± 0.5 mmol/L
Coconut oil: 5.3 + 0.4 mmol/L
Butter: 5.4 ± 0.5 mmol/L		EVOO vs. coconut oil vs. butter
50 g/day
4 wks. 		Mean change from baseline by group:
FBG:
EVOO: −0.06 ± 0.49 vs. coconut oil: −0.05 ± 0.49 vs. butter: 0.02 ± 0.48; p = 0.68
Low-fat diet
Estruch, R.
Ann Intern Med
2006 [46]
Spain		PREDIMED
N = 722; m/f
Type 2 DM or >3 CHD risk factors
EVOO (n = 257)
68.6 ± 6.9 yrs
BMI: 29.7 ± 4.1 kg/m2
FBG, insulin: NA
LF (n = 257)
69.5 + 6.1 yrs
BMI: 30.2 + 4.3 kg/m2
FBG, insulin: NA		EVOO vs. nuts vs. (control) LF
EVOO =
4 tbs/day
3 months		Change in EVOO intervention vs. LF:
FBG: −7.02 mg/dL (CI i −13.0 to −1.3); p = 0.017
Insulin: −2.4 mU/L (CI −3.9 to −0.06); p < 0.001
HOMA: −0.91 (CI −1.40 to −0.46); p < 0.001
Paniagua, J.A.
J Am Coll Nutr
2007 [64]
Spain		N = 11; f g = 7
Offspring ob/type 2 DM.
A1c 6.0 ± 0.5%
62 ± 9 yrs
BMI 32.6 ± 7.8 kg/m2
FBG: 98.5 ± 9.0 mg/dL
Insulin: 12.6 ± 3.8 mU/L		EVOO: 38% fat, EVOO 73 g
47% CHO
LF h: 65% CHO, 20% fat
SAT: 38% fat, 23% SFA, 47% CHO
Food provided
Crossover
4 wks. 		Comparison by intervention:
EVOO 90.4 ± 2.5 mg/dL* vs. LF 90.0 ± 2.3 mg/dL * vs. SAT 99.0 ± 18.0 mg/dL; p < 0.05
Insulin (mU/L):
EVOO 8.7 ± 1.8 mU/L vs. LF 10.8 ± 1.8 mU/L vs. SAT 9.2 ± 1.4 mU/L; p = 0.30
HOMA-IR:
EVOO 2.3 ± 0.3 * vs. LF 2.5 ± 0.4 vs. SAT 2.7 ± 0.4; p < 0.05
* EVOO vs. LF
Flynn, M.M.
J Women’s Health
2010 [49]
USA		N = 28; f
Breast cancer survivors
59.2 ± 6.1 yrs
BMI 27.9 ± 2.8 kg/m2
FBG: NA		EVOO vs. <30% fat (NCI j diet)
3 tbs./day EVOO
Crossover
8 wks.		Comparison by intervention:
FBG: EVOO 91.0 ± 7.7 mg/dL vs. NCI: 90.0 ± 7.0 mg/dL; p = 0.87
Insulin: EVOO 10.4 ± 3.8 vs. NCI 9.9 ± 3.4 uU/mL; p = 0.40
Domenech, M.
Hypertension
2014 [43]
Spain		PREDIMED
N = 235 m/f
Type 2 DM or ≥3 CHD risk factors
EVOO (n = 78)
66.2 ± 5.8 yrs
BMI: 29.5 ± 3.9 kg/m2
FBG: 123.1 mg/dL
(95% CI 114.6 to 131.6)
Nuts (n = 78)
67.2 ± 5.3 yrs
BMI: 29.5 ± 3.9 kg/m2
FBG: 119.6 mg/dL
(95% CI 111.8 to 127.4)
LF (n = 75)
66.2 ± 6.2 yrs
BMI 30.4 ± 3.5 kg/m2
FBG: 113.8 mg/dL
(95% CI 106.2 to 121.5)		EVOO vs. nuts vs. LF
EVOO = 50 mL/day
1 year 		Change in FBG by intervention:
EVOO: −6.13 mg/dL * (95% CI −11.62 to −0.64) vs.
Nuts: −4.61 mg/dL (95% CI −9.82 to 0.60) vs.
LF: 3.51 mg/dL (95% CI −0.51 to 7.54); p= 0.016
* Significantly different vs. LF
Flynn, M.M.
J Cancer Therapy
2017 [50]
USA		N = 18; m
Prostate cancer on surveillance
66.6 ± 5.9 yrs
BMI: 30.9 ± 2.7 kg/m2
FBG: NA		EVOO (625 mg/kg)
vs. Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) diet
3 tbs./day EVOO
Crossover
8 wks. 		Comparison by intervention:
FBG: EVOO 99.1 ± 9.6
vs. PCF 104.9 ± 9.9 mg/dL; p = 0.01
Insulin: EVOO 11.5 ± 4.4 mU/L
vs. PCF 13.7 ± 7.0 mU/L; p = 0.02
HOMA-IR: EVOO 2.9 ± 1.2 vs. 3.6 ± 2.1; p = 0.02
Dos Santos, J.L.
Eur J Clin Nutr
2022 [44]
Brazil 		N = 204
Control = 67
Nuts = 68
Olive oil = 69
40–60 yrs. 		Control diet = 25% fat
Nuts, pecans = 30 g/day
Olive oil:172 mg/kg
30 mL/day
12 weeks of study		Comparison between groups for FBG, A1c, and fasting insulin: NS difference
Refined olive oil
Kozic, D.S.
Med Sci Monit
2015 [57]
Croatia		N = 35; m
HIV +
18–75 ys
EVOO → refined
Mean (CI 25–75%)
BMI: 25.2 kg/m2 (23.3–27.9)
FBG: 95.4 (91.8–90)
Refined → EVOO
Mean (CI 25–75%)
BMI: 24.3 kg/m2 (23.0–26.0)
FBG: 102.6 mg/dL (93.6–116)		EVOO vs. refined
50 mL/day
Crossover
20 days		FBG comparison by intervention:
EVOO 99 ± 1.8 mg/dL vs. refined 99 ± 1.8 mg/dL; p = 0.894
Total phenol
Fito, M.
Atherosclerosis
2005 [48]
Spain		 N= 40; m
Stable CHD
Refined → EVOO
69.8+ 8.4 yrs
BMI: 28.0 + 3.0 kg/m2
FBG: 122.6 + 43.9 mg/dL
EVOO → refined
66.0 + 8.9 yrs
BMI: 27.0 + 3/1 kg/m2
FBG: 114.8 + 34.6 mg/dL		EVOO 161 mg/kg vs. 14.7 (refined)
50 mL/day
Crossover
3 wks.		Comparison by phenol content:
161 mg/kg 119.7 ± 40.1 mg/dL vs. refined 116.3 ± 36.9 mg/dL; p = 0.171
Castaner, O.
Am J Clin Nutr
2012 [41]
Spain		 N = 18; m
Healthy
38.2 ± 11.5 yrs
BMI 24.7 ± 2.9 kg/m2
FBG 87 ± 14 mg/dL		366 vs. 2.7 mg/kg
25 mL/day
Crossover
3 wks.		FBG comparison by phenol content:
366 mg/kg 88 ± 11 mg/dL
vs. 2.7 mg/kg 87 ± 11 mg/dL; p = 0.44
Martin-Pelaez, S.
Eur J Nutr
2017 [62]
Spain		N = 18; m
Healthy
36 ± 11.1 yrs
BMI 24.3 ± 3.2 kg/m2
FBG 88 ± 14 mg/dL		2.7 vs. 366 mg/kg
25 mL/day
65% oleuropein
Crossover
Double blind
3 wks.		FBG comparison by phenol content:
366 mg/kg: 1.00 ± 2.21 mg/dL
vs. 2.7 mg/kg: 0.72 ± 2.21 mg/dL; p = 0.56
a m = male. b BMI = body mass index. c FBG = fasting blood glucose. d EVOO = extra virgin olive oil. e HOMA-IR = Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance. f FU = follow-up. g f = female. h LF = low-fat diet. i CI = confidence interval. j NCI = National Cancer Institute.
Table
Table 6. The effect of extra virgin olive oil on body weight compared with diets with other fats, low-fat diets, and olive oil varying by phenol content.
Table 6. The effect of extra virgin olive oil on body weight compared with diets with other fats, low-fat diets, and olive oil varying by phenol content.
First Author, Journal, Year, CountryPopulationIntervention/DesignOutcomes
Other fats
Galvao, C.F.
Eur J Nutr
2018 [51]
Brazil		N = 41; f a
Normotensive
EVOO b: 26.8 ± 5.0 yrs
BMI c 30.5 ± 0.60 kg/m2
Control: 27.2 ± 6.1 yrs
BMI 29.7 ± 0.6 kg/m2		EVOO d vs.
soybean (control)
25 mL/day
Double blind
9 wks. 		Change by intervention:
Body weight:
EVOO −2.75 ± 0.38 kg vs. control −1.7 ± 0.47 kg; p = 0.09
Body fat (DXA e):
EVOO −2.4 ± 0.3 kg vs. control −1.3 ± 0.4 kg; p = 0.037
Low-fat diet
Flynn, M.M.
J Women’s Health
2010 [49]
USA		N = 28; f
Breast cancer survivors
59.2 ± 6.1 yrs
BMI 27.9 ± 2.8 kg/m2		EVOO vs. <30% fat (NCI f diet)
EVOO 3 tbs./day
Crossover
8 wk. wt. loss
6-month FU		Percent of baseline weight lost by order of diets:
EVOO first: −6.5 ± 1.6%
vs. NCI first 4.6 ± 1.5%; p < 0.01
Flynn, M.M.
J Cancer Therapy
2017 [50]
USA		N = 18; m g
Prostate cancer on surveillance
66.6 ± 5.9 yrs
BMI 30.9 ± 2.7 kg/m2		EVOO 625 mg/kg
vs. Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) diet
EVOO 3 tbs./day
Crossover
8 wk. wt. loss
6-month FU		Percent weight loss by diet:
EVOO: −2.8 ± 3.7% vs. PCF −2.5 ± 3.1%; p = 0.86
Estruch, R.
Ann Intern Med
2019 [45]
Spain		PREDIMED
N= 7447; m/f
EVOO (n = 2543)
67.0 ± 6.2 yrs
BMI 29.9 ± 3.7 kg/m2
LF (n = 2450)
67.3 ± 6.3 yrs
BMI 30.2 ± 4.0 kg/m2		EVOO vs. nuts vs. (control) LF h
EVOO = 50 mL/day
4.8 yrs.		EVOO compared with LF:
Body weight (kg): −0.43; p = 0.044
Waist (cm): −0.55 cm; p = 0.048
Total phenol
Castaner, O.
Am J Clin Nutr
2012 [41]
Spain		 N = 18; m
Healthy
38.2 ± 11.5 yrs
BMI 24.7 ± 2.9 kg/m2		366 vs. 2.7 mg/kg
25 mL/day
Crossover
3 wks.		BMI (kg/m2) comparison by phenol content:
2.7 mg/kg: 24.8 ± 2.8 kg/m2 (+0.13 ± 0.05)
vs. 366 mg/kg: 24.7 ± 2.9 kg/m2 (−0.09 ± 0.08); p = 0.033
Martin-Pelaez, S.
Eur J Nutr
2017 [62]
Spain		N = 18; m
Healthy
36 ± 11.1 yrs
BMI 24.3 ± 3.2 kg/m2		2.7 vs. 366 mg/kg
25 mL/day
65% oleuropein
Crossover
Double blind
3 wks.		BMI changes by phenol content:
2.7 mg/kg: 0.11 ± 0.07 kg
vs. 366 mg/kg: −0.06 ± 0.07 kg; p = 0.09
a f = female. b EVOO = extra virgin olive oil. c BMI = body mass index. d EVOO = extra virgin olive oil. e DXA = Dual-Energy X-ray absorptiometry. f NCI = National Cancer Institute. g m = male. h LF = low-fat diet.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Flynn, M.M.; Tierney, A.; Itsiopoulos, C. Is Extra Virgin Olive Oil the Critical Ingredient Driving the Health Benefits of a Mediterranean Diet? A Narrative Review. Nutrients 2023, 15, 2916. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15132916

AMA Style

Flynn MM, Tierney A, Itsiopoulos C. Is Extra Virgin Olive Oil the Critical Ingredient Driving the Health Benefits of a Mediterranean Diet? A Narrative Review. Nutrients. 2023; 15(13):2916. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15132916

Chicago/Turabian Style

Flynn, Mary M., Audrey Tierney, and Catherine Itsiopoulos. 2023. "Is Extra Virgin Olive Oil the Critical Ingredient Driving the Health Benefits of a Mediterranean Diet? A Narrative Review" Nutrients 15, no. 13: 2916. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15132916

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop