| Literature DB >> 26147654 |
Alison M Zenel1, Maria L Stewart1.
Abstract
The present study compared the effects of three rice cultivars on postprandial glycemic control and appetite. A single-blind, randomized, crossover clinical trial was performed with 18 healthy subjects, nine males and nine females. Three treatments were administered at three separate study visits: commercially available conventional white rice (short grain), specialty high amylose white rice 1 (Dixiebelle), and specialty high amylose white rice 2 (Rondo). Postprandial capillary blood glucose, venous blood glucose and insulin measurements, and appetite visual analog scale (VAS) surveys were done over the course of two hours. The capillary blood glucose concentrations were significantly lower for Rondo compared to short grain rice at 30 min, and for Dixiebelle and Rondo compared to short grain rice at 45, 60, and 120 min. Capillary blood glucose area under the curve (AUC) was significantly lower for Dixiebelle and Rondo compared to short grain rice. Subjects were significantly more hungry at 30 min after Dixiebelle intake than Rondo intake, but there were no other significant effects in appetite ratings. The present study determined that intake of high amylose rice with resistant starch (RS) can attenuate postprandial blood glucose and insulin response in comparison to short grain rice.Entities:
Keywords: appetite; dietary fiber; glucose; high amylose; insulin; short grain rice; visual analog scale
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26147654 PMCID: PMC4517002 DOI: 10.3390/nu7075225
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Flow diagram depicting the passage of subjects through the intervention.
Figure 2Timeline of the study visits. Abbreviations: FS, Finger stick blood draw for capillary glucose measurement; VBD, venous blood draw for glucose and insulin measurement; VAS, visual analog scale.
Study subject demographics.
| Demographic | Total ( | Men ( | Women ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| 26, 21–37 | 26, 25–30 | 27, 21–37 | |
| 1.69, 1.57–1.88 | 1.74, 1.65–1.88 | 1.63, 1.57–1.73 | |
| 66, 47–86 | 77, 68–86 | 57, 47–70 | |
| 23.2, 20.1–26.8 | 25.2, 23.9–26.8 | 21.2, 18.4–23.3 |
Previsit dietary intake.
| Short Grain Rice | Dixiebelle | Rondo | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.75 ± 0.82 | 8.57 ± 0.51 | 9.24 ± 1.13 | 0.3251 | |
| 74 ± 9 | 85 ± 8 | 94 ± 15 | 0.3581 | |
| 215 ± 24 | 240 ± 16 | 241 ± 25 | 0.4629 | |
| 81 ± 12 | 82 ± 8 | 97 ± 14 | 0.4579 | |
| 19 ± 2 | 20 ± 2 | 17 ± 2 | 0.5292 | |
| 196 ± 23 | 220 ± 15 | 222 ± 24 | 0.4339 | |
| 46 ± 2 | 47 ± 3 | 45 ± 2 | 0.7788 | |
| 34 ± 2 | 35 ± 2 | 36 ± 2 | 0.8196 | |
| 17 ± 1 | 16 ± 1 | 17 ± 1 | 0.7834 | |
| 2 ± 1 | 1 ± 1 | 2 ± 1 | 0.7590 |
Data are presented as mean ± SEM. p-Values calculated with Proc MIXED analysis of variance with LSMean comparison between treatments (n = 18).
Capillary blood glucose values (mg/dL, mean ± SEM) and AUC (mg*min/dL, mean ± SEM) before (0 min) and after treatment intake in healthy adults (n = 18).
| Short Grain Rice | Dixiebelle | Rondo | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 94 ± 3 | 98 ± 2 | 94 ± 3 | 0.2791 | |
| 99 ± 3 | 101 ± 4 | 98 ± 3 | 0.5769 | |
| 137 ± 5 * | 126 ± 5 | 122 ± 6 | 0.0555 | |
| 144 ± 5 A | 127 ± 5 B | 129 ± 7 B | 0.0470 | |
| 142 ± 7 A ** | 125 ± 6 B ** | 118 ± 5 B *** | 0.0010 | |
| 117 ± 4 | 112 ± 5 | 111 ± 3 | 0.4173 | |
| 112 ± 4 A ** | 104 ± 4 B ** | 104 ± 2 B *** | 0.0402 | |
|
| 3519 ± 390 A ** | 2170 ± 371 B ** | 2419 ± 433 B *** | 0.0063 |
* Within a row, cells with different superscript letters are significantly different (p < 0.05), Proc MIXED analysis of variance with LSMean comparison between treatments; ** Missing data for 1 subject; *** Missing data for 2 subjects.
Venous blood glucose (mg/dL, mean ± SEM) and insulin (μIU/mL, mean ± SEM) values before (0 min) and after treatment intake in healthy adults (n = 18).
| Short Grain Rice | Dixiebelle | Rondo | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 83 ± 2 | 83 ± 2 | 85 ± 1 | 0.3436 | |
| 114 ± 6 A * | 105 ± 6 | 103 ± 5 B | 0.0790 | |
| 91 ± 3 | 95 ± 4 | 95 ± 2 | 0.3650 | |
| 5.6 ± 0.7 | 6.1 ± 0.9 | 6.5 ± 0.7 | 0.4334 | |
| 38.3 ± 6.7 A ** | 24.3 ± 3.8 B | 29.2 ± 6.3 B ** | 0.0009 | |
| 21.0 ± 4.3 A | 15.2 ± 2.5 B | 18.4 ± 4.0 | 0.0467 |
* Within a row, cells with different superscript letters are significantly different (p < 0.05), Proc MIXED analysis of variance; ** Missing data for 1 subject.
Figure 3Appetite ratings. (a) Hunger “Not hungry at all” (0 mm) to “I have never been more hungry” (100 mm); (b) Satisfaction “I am completely empty” (0 mm) to “I cannot eat another bite” (100 mm); (c) Fullness “Not full at all” (0 mm) to “Totally full” (100 mm); (d) How much I can eat “Nothing at all” (0 mm) to “A lot” (100 mm). p-Values calculated with Proc MIXED analysis of variance with LSMean comparison between treatments.
Treatment palatability (mean ± SEM) from VAS assessment * in healthy adults (n = 18).
| Short Grain Rice | Dixiebelle | Rondo | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 73 ± 3 | 68 ± 4 | 65 ± 5 | 0.1260 | |
| 69 ± 3 | 64 ± 5 | 67 ± 5 | 0.5021 | |
| 69 ± 3 A ** | 55 ± 5 B | 59 ± 5 B | 0.0421 | |
| 75 ± 3 A | 52 ± 6 B | 56 ± 5 B | 0.0023 | |
| 73 ± 3 A | 65 ± 5 B | 63 ± 4 B | 0.0322 |
* Each characteristic was assessed as “bad” (0 mm) to “good” (100 mm); ** Within a row, cells with different superscript letters are significantly different (p < 0.05), Proc MIXED analysis of variance LSMean comparison between treatments.