| Literature DB >> 29486772 |
Jie Xu1, Tommy Jönsson2, Merichel Plaza3,4, Åsa Håkansson5, Martin Antonsson6, Irini Lazou Ahrén7, Charlotta Turner4, Peter Spégel4, Yvonne Granfeldt5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Consumption of polyphenol-rich fruits and vegetables may improve postprandial glucose and insulin levels and hence promote well-being. Previously it has been observed that consumption of bilberry decreases the postprandial insulin demand. The intention with the present study was to compare the impact of different supplements with various polyphenol profiles, on the postprandial glucose and insulin responses in healthy young adults.Entities:
Keywords: Beetroot; Bilberries; Blackcurrant; Mango; Postprandial insulin response; Rose hip
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29486772 PMCID: PMC5827978 DOI: 10.1186/s12937-018-0335-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr J ISSN: 1475-2891 Impact factor: 3.271
Fig. 1Incremental blood glucose response curve during the two-hour postprandial period. The change in blood glucose concentration was calculated by deducting the basal level from the blood glucose level measured after intake of the test drinks and was represented as delta blood glucose. Median values were plotted
Incremental area under two-hour blood glucose response curve
| Tested products | IAUC(0–15 min) | IAUC(0–30 min) | IAUC(0–45 min) | IAUC(0–60 min) | IAUC(0–90 min) | IAUC(0–120 min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose ( | 6.0 (3.4–7.9) | 26.3 (17.6–36.0) | 45.0 (37.6–67.5) | 63.0 (44.7–91.5) | 71.7 (48.9–112.1) | 71.7 (48.9–117) |
| Bilberry ( | 2.6 (0.8–4.5) | 19.1 (13.5–24.8) | 44.3 (33.8–52.5) | 50.6 (45.8–73.5) | 58.6 (47.5–82.5) | 61.5 (47.5–82.5) |
| Blackcurrant (n = 10) | 3.4 (1.5–6.8) | 23.3 (13.5–30.0) | 44.6 (31.5–63.8) | 55.5 (39.0–71.3) | 57.6 (40.5–101.3) | 57.6 (45.1–111.8) |
| Beetroot (n = 11) | 3.0 (0.8–3.0) | 20.3 (15.8–22.1) | 40.5 (33.0–64.9) | 53.3 (34.3–93.4) | 54.2 (34.3–118.6) | 54.2 (35.0–123.2) |
| Mango (n = 10) | 4.1 (0–6.0) | 24.4 (11.3–29.3) | 42.2 (28.5–53.3) | 46.7 (33.8–66.1) | 50.0 (34.0–66.1) | 54.0 (34.0–66.1) |
| Rose hip (n = 11) | 0.8 (0–2.3) | 12.0 (5.2–16.9) | 29.6 (16.8–42.0) | 46.8 (26.7–65.6) | 48.0 (29.9–88.2) | 51.3 (30.0–96.4) |
Data are presented as median (IQR)
Fig. 2Incremental serum insulin response curve during the two-hour postprandial period. The change in serum insulin concentration was calculated by deducting the basal level from the insulin level measured after intake of the test drinks and was represented as delta serum insulin. Median values were plotted. Median values with different letters denote significant differences between Beetroot and Bilberry, and between Beetroot and Rose hip (P < 0.05)
Incremental area under two-hour serum insulin response curve
| Tested products | IAUC(0–15 min) (nmol min/L) | IAUC(0–30 min) (nmol min/L) | IAUC(0–45 min) (nmol min/L) | IAUC(0–60 min) (nmol min/L) | IAUC(0–90 min) (nmol min/L) | IAUC(0–120 min) (nmol min/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose ( | 45.0 (30.0–82.5)a | 245.6 (191.3–333.8)ac | 502.5 (465.0–622.5)a | 735.0 (706.6–930.0)a | 907.5 (807.1–1140.1)a | 907.5 (807.2–1155.9)a |
| Bilberry ( | 22.5 (15.0–45.0)a | 157.1 (104.1–210.0)b | 340.4 (292.5–405.0)b | 465.0 (405.9–562.5)b | 505.0 (457.5–915.0)b | 598.1 (477.5–1020.0)a |
| Blackcurrant ( | 7.5 (0–45.0)a | 201.9 (79.5–322.5)abc | 368.0 (279.0–600.0)abc | 507.2 (450.8–600.0)abc | 645.4 (592.5–877.5)b | 697.5 (592.5–907.5)a |
| Beetroot ( | 40.5 (18.0–60.0)a | 234.0 (183.8–363.8)ac | 525.0 (446.3–652.5)ac | 684.4 (645.0–764.3)ac | 900 (705.2–952.5)ab | 998.5 (846.5–1083.8)a |
| Mango ( | 67.5 (0–90.0)a | 285 (112.9–427.5)c | 465.0 (320.2.0–810.0)abc | 583.9 (487.5–1095.0)abc | 684.1 (517.5–1202.6)b | 684.1 (532.5–1210.1)a |
| Rose hip ( | 7.5 (0–26.3)a | 180 (81.3–210.0)b | 375.0 (253.8–551.3)b | 682.5 (335.7–750.0)abc* | 801.1 (441.9–993.8)b | 765.0 (593.3–1068.8)a |
Superscripted data are presented as median (IQR). Groups that do not share the same letter are significantly different. *only different from Beetroot not Glucose
Glycemic and insulin indices
| Tested products | Glycemic index (0–90 min) (%) | Glycemic index (0–120 min) (%) | Insulin index (0–90 min) (%) | Insulin index (0–120 min) (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose ( | 100 | 100 | 100a | 100a |
| Bilberry ( | 88.9 (66.0–101.3) | 95.3 (70.6–102.1) | 65.7 (54.1–86.7)b | 63.8 (56.5–86.7)b |
| Blackcurrant ( | 75.1 (45.1–141.1) | 75.4 (45.1–141.1) | 73.8 (61.2–101.6)b# | 76.9 (59.2–105.0)ab |
| Beetroot ( | 85.9 (39.7–112.4) | 91.0 (39.1–113.7) | 86.9 (74.7–112.9)ab | 86.5 (73.2–114.6)ab |
| Mango ( | 68.4 (43.2–128.9) | 68.4 (43.2–129.1) | 67.6 (61.2–89.6)ab | 68.9 (59.3–89.6)ab |
| Rose hip ( | 63.5 (41.1–111.3) | 58.2 (41.1–112.6) | 72.3 (58.1–87.7)b | 70.8 (62.6–93.6)b |
Superscripted data are presented as median (IQR). Groups that do not share the same letter are significantly different. #Before P value adjustment P = 0.034, after adjustment P = 0.062
Quantification of polyphenol contents by HPLC
| Products | Total phenolic compounds (280 nm) (mAU*min) | Total flavonols (350 nm) (mAU*min) | Total anthocyanins (520 nm) (mAU*min) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bilberry | 74.34 (7.70) | 13.59 (9.73) | 89.56 (9.07) |
| Blackcurrant | 47.29 (7.66) | 8.69 (8.0) | 30.98 (9.15) |
| Beetroot | 43.40 (4.36) | 6.69 (7.52) | 74.6 (6.89) |
| Mango | 23.18 (7.17) | 0.8 (6.42) | ND# |
| Rose hip | 26.35 (6.32) | 3.56 (4.27) | ND# |
Values are presented as Mean (relative standard deviation %). #ND means not detected
Quantification of phenolic content and total antioxidant capacity
| Products | FC assay (mg gallic acid/ml drink) | TEAC assay (mmol trolox/l) | DPPH scavenging activity (%) (dilution factor) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bilberry | 0.41 ± 0.03 | 16.38 ± 0.68 | 74.2 ± 3.2 (4) |
| Blackcurrant | 0.61 ± 0.04 | 45.55 ± 2.0 | 41.2 ± 1.8 (100) |
| Beetroot | 0.4 ± 0.01 | 11.22 ± 0.94 | 54.2 ± 1.4 (4) |
| Mango | 0.18 ± 0.03 | 8.48 ± 0.39 | 52.7 ± 1.6 (4) |
| Rose hip | 1.37 ± 0.22 | 137.9 ± 13.84 | 76.9 ± 3.0 (100) |
Values are presented as Mean ± SD
Fig. 3Orthogonal projections to latent structures discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) score plots of postprandial responses data. a Model calculated to discriminate between Bilberry and Glucose (described response variation, R2Y = 0.63; predicted response variation, Q2Y = 0.48). b Model discriminating between Rose hip and Glucose (R2Y = 0.43, Q2Y = 0.32). The x-axis in (b) consists of the 22 analyzed samples. Grey dashed line shows 1.04376*(±2SD) and the black dashed line 1.04376*(±3SD)
Fig. 4Orthogonal projections to latent structures discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) model calculated on polyphenol profiles and discriminating between Bilberry and Rose hip (Bil_Rose class) and other tested beverages (described response variation, R2Y = 0.977; predicted response variation, Q2Y = 0.973). The difference between the two classes of berries was explained by 31.6% of the variation in polyphenol data. a Score scatter plot. b Loadings bar plot showing the driving forces for the observed cluster separation. The Bil_Rose class had higher levels of phenolics as compared to the other berries