Literature DB >> 35773354

Influence of oral processing behaviour and bolus properties of brown rice and chickpeas on in vitro starch digestion and postprandial glycaemic response.

Yao Chen1, Markus Stieger2, Edoardo Capuano3, Ciarán G Forde2, Sandra van der Haar4, Meeke Ummels4, Heleen van den Bosch4, Rene de Wijk4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Oral processing behaviour may contribute to individual differences in glycaemic response to foods, especially in plant tissue where chewing behaviour can modulate release of starch from the cellular matrix. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of chewing time of two starch based foods (brown rice and chickpeas) on bolus properties, in vitro starch digestion and postprandial glycaemic excursion in healthy subjects.
METHODS: In a cross-over trial participants (n = 26) consumed two carbohydrates-identical test meals (brown rice: 233 g; chickpeas: 323 g) with either long (brown rice: 41 s/bite; chickpeas: 37 s/bite) or short (brown rice: 23 s/bite; chickpeas: 20 s/bite) chewing time in duplicate while glycaemic responses were monitored using a continuous glucose monitoring device. Expectorated boli were collected, then bolus properties (number, mean area, saliva amylase activity) and in vitro starch digestion were determined.
RESULTS: Longer chewing resulted in significantly (p < 0.05) more and smaller bolus particles, higher bolus saliva uptake and higher in vitro degree of intestinal starch hydrolysis (DH_Schewing time%) than shorter chewing for both foods (brown rice: DH_S%23 s = 84 ± 4% and DH_%S41s = 90 ± 6%; chickpeas: DH_S%20 s = 27 ± 3% and DH_%S37s = 34 ± 5%, p < 0.001). No significant effect of chewing time on glycaemic response (iAUC) (p > 0.05) was found for both meals. Brown rice showed significantly and considerably higher in vitro degree of intestinal starch hydrolysis and glycaemic response (iAUC) than chickpeas regardless of chewing time. No significant correlations were observed between bolus properties and in vitro starch hydrolysis or glycaemic response (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Differences in the innate structure of starch based foods (brown rice compared to chickpeas) have a larger effect on postprandial glucose response than differences in mastication behaviour although oral processing behaviour showed consistent effects on bolus properties and in vitro starch digestion. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04648397 (First posted: December 1, 2020).
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Brown rice; Chewing time; Chickpeas; In vitro starch digestion; Postprandial glycaemic response

Year:  2022        PMID: 35773354     DOI: 10.1007/s00394-022-02935-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nutr        ISSN: 1436-6207            Impact factor:   5.614


  36 in total

Review 1.  Impact of postprandial glycaemia on health and prevention of disease.

Authors:  E E Blaak; J-M Antoine; D Benton; I Björck; L Bozzetto; F Brouns; M Diamant; L Dye; T Hulshof; J J Holst; D J Lamport; M Laville; C L Lawton; A Meheust; A Nilson; S Normand; A A Rivellese; S Theis; S S Torekov; S Vinoy
Journal:  Obes Rev       Date:  2012-07-11       Impact factor: 9.213

2.  Degree of habitual mastication seems to contribute to interindividual variations in the glycemic response to rice but not to spaghetti.

Authors:  Viren Ranawana; C Jeya K Henry; Megan Pratt
Journal:  Nutr Res       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.315

3.  Personalized Nutrition by Prediction of Glycemic Responses.

Authors:  David Zeevi; Tal Korem; Niv Zmora; David Israeli; Daphna Rothschild; Adina Weinberger; Orly Ben-Yacov; Dar Lador; Tali Avnit-Sagi; Maya Lotan-Pompan; Jotham Suez; Jemal Ali Mahdi; Elad Matot; Gal Malka; Noa Kosower; Michal Rein; Gili Zilberman-Schapira; Lenka Dohnalová; Meirav Pevsner-Fischer; Rony Bikovsky; Zamir Halpern; Eran Elinav; Eran Segal
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 41.582

4.  Postmastication digestion factors influence glycemic variability in humans.

Authors:  Viren Ranawana; Miriam E Clegg; Amir Shafat; C Jeya Henry
Journal:  Nutr Res       Date:  2011-06-17       Impact factor: 3.315

5.  Swallowing food without chewing; a simple way to reduce postprandial glycaemia.

Authors:  N W Read; I M Welch; C J Austen; C Barnish; C E Bartlett; A J Baxter; G Brown; M E Compton; K E Hume; I Storie
Journal:  Br J Nutr       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 3.718

6.  Cognitive performance and its relationship with postprandial metabolic changes after ingestion of different macronutrients in the morning.

Authors:  K Fischer; P C Colombani; W Langhans; C Wenk
Journal:  Br J Nutr       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 3.718

7.  Effects of thorough mastication on postprandial plasma glucose concentrations in nonobese Japanese subjects.

Authors:  Hidehiko Suzuki; Mitsuo Fukushima; Shigeru Okamoto; Osamu Takahashi; Takuro Shimbo; Takeshi Kurose; Yuichiro Yamada; Nobuya Inagaki; Yutaka Seino; Tsuguya Fukui
Journal:  Metabolism       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 8.694

8.  Mastication effects on the glycaemic index: impact on variability and practical implications.

Authors:  V Ranawana; M K-S Leow; C J K Henry
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 4.016

9.  Increasing the number of masticatory cycles is associated with reduced appetite and altered postprandial plasma concentrations of gut hormones, insulin and glucose.

Authors:  Yong Zhu; Walter H Hsu; James H Hollis
Journal:  Br J Nutr       Date:  2012-11-27       Impact factor: 3.718

10.  Implications of postprandial glucose and weight control in people with type 2 diabetes: understanding and implementing the International Diabetes Federation guidelines.

Authors:  Baptist Gallwitz
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 19.112

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.