| Literature DB >> 22132322 |
Perceval S Bahado-Singh1, Cliff K Riley, Andrew O Wheatley, Henry I C Lowe.
Abstract
This study investigated the effect of different traditional cooking methods on glycemic index (GI) and glycemic response of ten Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) cultivars commonly eaten in Jamaica. Matured tubers were cooked by roasting, baking, frying, or boiling then immediately consumed by the ten nondiabetic test subjects (5 males and 5 females; mean age of 27 ± 2 years). The GI varied between 41 ± 5-93 ± 5 for the tubers studied. Samples prepared by boiling had the lowest GI (41 ± 5-50 ± 3), while those processed by baking (82 ± 3-94 ± 3) and roasting (79 ± 4-93 ± 2) had the highest GI values. The study indicates that the glycemic index of Jamaican sweet potatoes varies significantly with the method of preparation and to a lesser extent on intravarietal differences. Consumption of boiled sweet potatoes could minimize postprandial blood glucose spikes and therefore, may prove to be more efficacious in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22132322 PMCID: PMC3205609 DOI: 10.1155/2011/584832
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nutr Metab ISSN: 2090-0724
Proximate composition of 10 unprocessed Jamaican sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) cultivars (100 g).
| Sweet potato varieties | Moisture content (g) | Protein content [N × 6.25] (g) | Fat content (g) | Fiber Content (g/100 g) | Total sugars (g) | Ash content (g) | Available Carbohydrate content (by difference) (g/100 g) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | ||
| Dor | 65.91 | 1.39 | 0.97 | 0.04 | 0.25 | 0.01 | 3.08 | 0.06 | 3.75 | 0.14 | 0.96 | 0.03 | 28.83 |
| Quarter Million | 67.06 | 0.52 | 1.54 | 0.04 | 0.27 | 0.01 | 2.89 | 0.03 | 4.89 | 0.29 | 1.02 | 0.03 | 27.22 |
| Yellow Belly | 65.11 | 1.28 | 0.81 | 0.05 | 0.28 | 0.01 | 3.53 | 0.02 | 3.62 | 0.22 | 1.04 | 0.02 | 29.23 |
| Ganja | 63.27 | 0.65 | 1.62 | 0.18 | 0.31 | 0.02 | 2.97 | 0.03 | 3.92 | 0.13 | 1.05 | 0.03 | 30.78 |
| Watson | 64.96 | 1.19 | 1.55 | 0.06 | 0.32 | 0.02 | 3.46 | 0.05 | 4.21 | 0.25 | 0.91 | 0.02 | 28.80 |
| Clarendon | 62.54 | 1.26 | 1.53 | 0.05 | 0.29 | 0.02 | 3.74 | 0.04 | 4.17 | 0.34 | 1.18 | 0.05 | 30.72 |
| Minda | 62.35 | 0.78 | 1.29 | 0.08 | 0.23 | 0.01 | 2.99 | 0.05 | 4.86 | 0.25 | 1.40 | 0.02 | 31.74 |
| Ms Mac | 65.73 | 0.26 | 1.20 | 0.04 | 0.24 | 0.01 | 2.87 | 0.03 | 4.85 | 0.33 | 0.99 | 0.02 | 28.97 |
| Eustace | 67.21 | 2.24 | 0.58 | 0.03 | 0.33 | 0.02 | 3.52 | 0.04 | 5.01 | 0.54 | 1.01 | 0.03 | 27.35 |
| Fire on Land | 67.79 | 1.32 | 1.02 | 0.05 | 0.35 | 0.02 | 3.04 | 0.03 | 3.26 | 0.13 | 0.94 | 0.03 | 26.86 |
Values are means ± SEM. n = 4.
Available carbohydrate (CHO g) in 100 g unprocessed sweet potato cultivars* and serving sizes§ used for glycemic index determination.
| Sweet potato varieties | Food processing methods | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boiled | Roasted, baked, and fried | |||
| Available CHO (g/100 g) | Serving size (g) | Available CHO (g/100 g) | Serving size | |
| Dor | 21.22 | 235 | 28.83 | 173 |
| Quarter Million | 19.78 | 252 | 27.22 | 183 |
| Yellow Belly | 20.32 | 346 | 29.23 | 171 |
| Ganja | 21.52 | 232 | 30.78 | 162 |
| Watson | 18.98 | 263 | 28.80 | 173 |
| Clarendon | 22.28 | 218 | 30.72 | 162 |
| Minda | 21.43 | 233 | 31.74 | 157 |
| Ms Mac | 19.81 | 252 | 28.97 | 172 |
| Eustace | 18.32 | 272 | 27.35 | 182 |
| Fire on Land | 20.45 | 244 | 26.86 | 186 |
*Except for 100 grams of boiled sweet potatoes.
§Containing 50 g available carbohydrate.
Glycemic indices§ of selected Jamaican sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) varieties determined by different cooking methods.
| Sweet potato varieties | Glycemic index | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boiled | Fried | Baked | Roasted | |||||
| Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | |
| Dor | 47a | 3 | 76b | 4 | 83c | 6 | 86c | 4 |
| Quarter Million | 49a | 4 | 70b | 6 | 94c | 3 | 91c | 2 |
| Yellow Belly | 50a | 3 | 72b | 4 | 86c | 2 | 85c | 2 |
| Ganja | 41a | 5 | 69b | 3 | 82c | 3 | 79c | 4 |
| Watson | 43a | 4 | 67b | 4 | 85c | 2 | 87c | 2 |
| Clarendon | 46a | 5 | 73b | 3 | 83c | 3 | 81c | 4 |
| Minda | 49a | 4 | 68b | 3 | 91c | 3 | 89c | 3 |
| Ms Mac | 45a | 3 | 63b | 2 | 87c | 4 | 85c | 4 |
| Eustace | 49a | 5 | 77b | 4 | 93c | 5 | 93c | 2 |
| Fire on Land | 46a | 4 | 75b | 3 | 87c | 4 | 90c | 3 |
Superscripts in rows sharing different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05).
Values are means ± SEM for n = 10 subjects.
§Glycemic index for each sample was calculated by expressing the IAUC as a percentage of the mean response area of glucose as outlined by Wolever et al. [16].
Incremental areas under the glucose response curves for ten sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) cultivars processed by different cooking methods and glucose standard.
| Sweet potato varieties | Incremental area under glucose response curve | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boiled | Fried | Baked | Roasted | Glucose standard | |
| Dor | 51 ± 13a | 120 ± 21b | 156 ± 43c | 134± 32d | 179 ± 53e |
| Quarter Million | 47 ± 19a | 132 ± 25b | 188 ± 39c | 192 ± 52c | 183 ± 41c |
| Yellow Belly | 65 ± 15a | 144 ± 32b | 174 ± 25c | 166 ± 33c | 169 ± 32c |
| Ganja | 46 ± 17a | 129 ± 23b | 169 ± 15c | 132 ± 14b | 175 ± 53d |
| Watson | 44 ± 18a | 118 ± 19b | 173 ± 27c | 164 ± 31d | 159 ± 33e |
| Clarendon | 49 ± 23a | 142 ± 36b | 176 ± 20c | 142 ± 57b | 165 ± 42d |
| Minda | 54 ± 22a | 131 ± 25b | 184 ± 43c | 189 ± 45c | 174 ± 51d |
| Ms Mac | 55 ± 13a | 126 ± 19b | 171 ± 53c | 174 ± 43c | 184 ± 64d |
| Eustace | 64 ± 29a | 142 ± 36b | 187 ± 54c | 201 ± 66d | 178 ± 43c |
| Fire on Land | 43 ± 16a | 122 ± 16b | 185 ± 81c | 187 ± 53c | 164 ± 47d |
Superscripts in rows sharing different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05).
Values are means ± SEM for n = 10 subjects.
Figure 1Mean glycemic responses elicited by 50 g available carbohydrate portions of all ten sweet potato cultivars processed by boiling (solid diamond), baking (x), roasting (solid square), and frying (gray triangle).