| Literature DB >> 35057449 |
Joy V Nolte Fong1, Derek Miketinas1, Linda W Moore2, Duc T Nguyen3, Edward A Graviss2,3, Nadim Ajami4, Mindy A Patterson1,5.
Abstract
Individual glycemic responses following dietary intake result from complex physiological processes, and can be influenced by physical properties of foods, such as increased resistant starch (RS) from starch retrogradation. Predictive equations are needed to provide personalized dietary recommendations to reduce chronic disease development. Therefore, a precision nutrition model predicting the postprandial glucose response (PPGR) in overweight women following the consumption of potatoes was formulated. Thirty overweight women participated in this randomized crossover trial. Participants consumed 250 g of hot (9.2 g RS) or cold (13.7 g RS) potatoes on two separate occasions. Baseline characteristics included demographics, 10-day dietary records, body composition, and the relative abundance (RA) and α-diversity of gut microbiota. Elastic net regression using 5-fold cross-validation predicted PPGR after potato intake. Most participants (70%) had a favorable PPGR to the cold potato. The model explained 32.2% of the variance in PPGR with the equation: 547.65 × (0 [if cold, high-RS potato], ×1, if hot, low-RS potato]) + (BMI [kg/m2] × 40.66)-(insoluble fiber [g] × 49.35) + (Bacteroides [RA] × 8.69)-(Faecalibacterium [RA] × 73.49)-(Parabacteroides [RA] × 42.08) + (α-diversity × 110.87) + 292.52. This model improves the understanding of baseline characteristics that explain interpersonal variation in PPGR following potato intake and offers a tool to optimize dietary recommendations for a commonly consumed food.Entities:
Keywords: Faecalibacterium; microbiome; potatoes; precision nutrition; resistant starch
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35057449 PMCID: PMC8779142 DOI: 10.3390/nu14020268
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Postprandial glucose response of women with overweight (n = 30) following hot and cold potato consumption.
| Postprandial Glucose | Low-RS Potato | High-RS Potato | Delta | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| iAUC, mg·h/mL | 1180 (500, 1910) | 709 (316, 1038) | 471 | 0.021 |
| Concentration maximum, mg/dL | 153.2 (129.6, 174.7) | 140.93 (124.6, 160.8) | 12.3 | 0.047 |
| Concentration minimum, mg/dL | 95.93 (85.2, 120.9) | 100.70 (89, 109) | −4.8 | 0.417 |
| Time to peak concentration, minutes | 30 (15, 30) | 30 (15, 30) | 0 | 0.767 |
| Time to minimum concentration, minutes | 120 (22, 120) | 90 (30, 120) | 30 | 0.99 |
All values are presented as median (interquartile range) except for the delta. iAUC, incremental area under the curve; RS, resistant starch.
Mean 10-day nutrient composition.
| Dietary Variable | Mean (SD) |
|---|---|
| Energy, kcal | 1828 (643) |
| Total fat, g | 78.7 (36.1) |
| Kcals from fat, % | 36.0 (5.1) |
| MUFA, g | 27.9 (12.4) |
| PUFA, g | 18.8 (9.1) |
| Trans FA, g | 2.3 (1.17) |
| SFA, g | 25.4 (12.7) |
| Protein, g | 75.0 (28.0) |
| Kcals from protein, % | 16.6 (3.5) |
| Total CHO, g | 206.4 (69.2) |
| Kcals from CHO, % | 45.5 (8.1) |
| Total sugar, g | 75.4 (36.9) |
| Added sugar, g | 48.1 (27.8) |
| Available CHO, g | 191.1 (66.7) |
| Total Fiber, g | 15.2 (5.7) |
| Soluble fiber, g | 4.5 (1.5) |
| Insoluble fiber, g | 10.7 (4.4) |
| Glycemic Index | 60.3 (4.6) |
Dietary record information was inputted into the Nutrition Data System for Research (Nutrition Coordinating Center, University of Minnesota, 2016) to determine nutrient composition. Abbreviations: CHO, carbohydrate; kcal, kilocalories; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acids; SFA, saturated fatty acids.
Figure 1Relative abundance per participant of genera classified as key microbiota.
Figure 2Cumulative relative abundance of genera classified as key microbiota. The selected taxa represent 66.7% of the abundance in participants.
Significant * correlations between baseline characteristics and iAUCs of glucose, Spearman’s rho.
| Glucose–Low-RS Potato | Glucose–High-RS Potato | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rho | Rho | |||
| ANTHROPOMETRICS | ||||
| Height, cm | −0.38 | 0.04 | −0.23 | 0.23 |
| METABOLIC | ||||
| Fasting glucose at high-RS intervention, mg/dL | 0.38 | 0.04 | 0.21 | 0.26 |
| DIET | ||||
| Insoluble fiber, g | −0.20 | 0.28 | −0.37 | 0.04 |
| Kcals from fat, % | −0.13 | 0.49 | 0.39 | 0.03 |
| Kcals from protein, % | −0.20 | 0.30 | 0.50 | 0.005 |
| MICROBIOME † (relative abundance) | ||||
| Actinobacteria (phyla) | −0.16 | 0.67 | −0.40 | 0.04 |
|
| −0.44 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.87 |
Abbreviations: kcal, kilocalories. * Note: Variables are included in the table if statistically significance correlations were found with either the low- or high-RS iAUCs. No correlative variable showed significant relationships with both potato types. † All microbiome correlations became nonsignificant when the Bonferroni correction factor was applied.
Unadjusted and adjusted coefficients from linear regression that predict postprandial glucose response.
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β Coef. (95% CI) | β Coef. (95% CI) | |||
| Low-RS (vs. high-RS) potato | 547.65 (153.72, 941.58) | 0.01 | 547.65 (131.61, 963.68) | 0.01 |
|
| −69.37 (−124.15, −14.58) | 0.02 | −73.49 (−128.51, −18.47) | 0.01 |
|
| 11.26 (−11.78, 34.31) | 0.33 | 8.69 (−14.33, 31.72) | 0.45 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 49.05 (−77.58, 175.68) | 0.39 | 40.66 (−54.21, 135.54) | 0.39 |
| Alpha Diversity, Simpson | −5599.38 (−15,827.10, 4628.34) | 0.27 | 110.87 (−10,209.57, 10,431.30) | 0.98 |
| Insoluble fiber, g | −50.10 (−101.24, 1.05) | 0.06 | −49.35 (−116.56, 17.86) | 0.14 |
|
| −70.90 (−173.86, 32.06) | 0.17 | −42.08 (−136.35, 52.18) | 0.37 |
| Intercept | -- | -- | 292.52 (−9705.98, 10,291.01) | 0.95 |