| Literature DB >> 25311061 |
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although previous research has associated the glycaemic load (GL) of a meal with cognitive functioning, typically the macro-nutrient composition of the meals has differed, raising a question as to whether the response was to GL or to the energy, nutrients or particular foods consumed. Therefore, the present study contrasted two breakfasts that offered identical levels of energy and macro-nutrients, although they differed in GL.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25311061 PMCID: PMC4540784 DOI: 10.1007/s00394-014-0779-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Nutr ISSN: 1436-6207 Impact factor: 5.614
Macro-nutrient content of the experimental meals
| Higher GL | Lower GL | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kcal | CHO | Pro | Fat | GI | GL | Kcal | CHO | Pro | Fat | GI | GL | |
| Cornflakes 20 g | 71 | 17.6 | 1.6 | 0.15 | 81 | 14.26 | 71 | 17.6 | 1.6 | 0.15 | 81 | 14.26 |
| Milk semi-skimmed 100 ml | 46 | 5.0 | 3.3 | 1.5 | 21 | 1.05 | 46 | 5.0 | 3.3 | 1.5 | 21 | 1.05 |
| Glucose 5 g | 20 | 5.0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 5.00 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Palatinose 5 g | – | – | – | – | – | – | 20 | 5.0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 1.60 |
| Low-calorie yoghurt 100 g | 41 | 6.0 | 4.3 | 0.25 | 19 | 1.14 | 41 | 6.0 | 4.3 | 0.25 | 19 | 1.14 |
| Glucose-sweetened fruit 20 g | 95 | 23.7 | 0 | 0 | 94.5 | 22.40 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Palatinose in sweetened fruit 20 g | – | – | – | – | – | – | 95 | 23.7 | 0 | 0 | 35.7 | 8.46 |
| Orange drink 200 ml (glucose 16 g) | 64 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 16.00 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Orange drink 200 ml (isomaltulose 16 g) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 64 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 5.12 |
| Total | 337 | 73.3 | 9.2 | 1.9 | – | 59.85 | 337 | 73.3 | 9.2 | 1.9 | – | 31.63 |
GI glycaemic index, GL glycaemic load
Fig. 1Speed of information processing depending on whether the tests were taken on a first or second occasion. The data are the times taken in seconds ± standard error. On the first day of testing, those eating the two meals did not differ but when tested on a second occasion, those who had eaten the lower-GL meal were significantly quicker (p < 0.01)
Fig. 2Immediate memory 1 and 3 h after breakfast. The data are mean number of words recalled ± standard error. The two breakfasts did not differ after 1 h, but after 3 h, those eating the lower GL had significantly better memories (p < 0.01). The memory significantly declined in those eating the higher (p < 0.001) but not lower-GL meal
Fig. 3Spatial memory depending on whether the test was taken on the first or second occasion. The data are mean number of correct placements ± standard error. After eating, the lower-GL meal memory was significantly better on the second (p < 0.03) but not first day of testing
Fig. 4Mood 1 and 3 h after eating. The data are mean mood scores ± standard error where a higher score indicates better mood. There were no significant differences after 1 h although mood was significantly better 3 h after isomaltulose consumption