| Literature DB >> 36159452 |
Toluwalope Emmanuel Eyinla1,2, Rasaki Ajani Sanusi2, Busie Maziya-Dixon1.
Abstract
Consumption of high Glycemic Index (GI) foods is a risk factor for increasing prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM). The extent of variation in starch digestibility and GI of Yam varieties and products is not yet fully understood. This study was therefore designed to evaluate in vitro and in vivo Glycemic Index properties of commonly consumed products prepared from varieties of White Yam. Four products (boiled, fried, pounded yam, and Amala) were prepared from 5 common varieties of Yam and evaluated for Digestible Starch (DS) and Resistant Starch (RS). Based on results, two products-pounded yam and Amala-were processed from three of the most popular varieties. Analysis of Rapidly Digestible Starch (RDS), Slowly Digestible Starch (SDS), and estimated in vitro GI (eGI) were then carried out in this stage. Glycemic Index (GI) of these products consumed by apparently healthy young adults were also determined. Variety Amula had highest DS in Amala (19.1/100 g) and pounded Yam (20.4/100 g) while variety Alumaco had highest RS in all the products (2.9-3.3/100 g). When compared with RS in its raw tuber, RS of Alumaco generally increased after processing. Variety Alumaco had lowest RDS in Amala (0.6/100 g) and pounded yam (0.3/100 g) while eGI was lowest in Alumaco made into Amala (53) and pounded yam (48). Assessment of GI resulted in high GI for all products across each variety. Irrespective of variety, processing Yam into Amala released RDS fraction faster when compared with pounded yam. Generally, even though the products are considered as having high GI, Amala raised eGI and GI faster than Pounded yam. Variety-Alumaco particularly showed favorable properties applicable to dietary management of diabetes. Exploring more processing methods and genetic diversity is recommended.Entities:
Keywords: diabetes; glycemic carbohydrates; starch; starch digestibility; yam
Year: 2022 PMID: 36159452 PMCID: PMC9500522 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2022.983212
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Nutrient composition of products (per 100 g) from varieties of Yam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boiled Yam |
| 73.40bc | 1.44bc | 0.35ab | 19.07a | 2.34a | 3.40c |
| TDr/02665 | 70.58bc | 1.09ab | 0.30ab | 22.74a | 2.40a | 2.89bc | |
|
| 67.04ab | 1.52bc | 0.84c | 25.26ab | 4.12cd | 1.21ab | |
|
| 73.62bc | 1.75c | 0.68bc | 19.98a | 3.15abcd | 0.81a | |
|
| 73.06bc | 0.58a | 0.20a | 21.82a | 3.83bcd | 0.52a | |
| Mean | 70.25 | 1.26 | 0.43 | 23.23 | 3.26 | 1.56 | |
| SD | 3.58 | 0.32 | 0.24 | 4.12 | 0.63 | 1.09 | |
| 5.09 | 25.06 | 55.65 | 17.72 | 19.34 | 69.43 | ||
| Pounded Yam |
| 71.97b | 0.86abc | 0.13a | 23.74bc | 2.53ab | 0.77abc |
| TDr/02665 | 70.95ab | 0.98abc | 0.21abc | 24.12bc | 2.59ab | 1.14c | |
|
| 70.98ab | 1.03abcd | 0.28abcd | 22.16ab | 4.46d | 1.08bc | |
|
| 76.06c | 0.97abc | 0.21abc | 19.41a | 2.69ab | 0.67a | |
|
| 68.29a | 1.55d | 0.42d | 25.34c | 3.65bcd | 0.75ab | |
| Mean | 72.15 | 1.08 | 0.26 | 22.64 | 3.13 | 0.73 | |
| SD | 1.89 | 0.28 | 0.09 | 1.52 | 0.66 | 0.21 | |
| 2.62 | 25.59 | 36.01 | 6.71 | 21.12 | 29.02 | ||
| Fried Yam |
| 38.26ab | 1.58ab | 3.98d | 50.22bc | 2.02ab | 3.95bc |
| TDr/02665 | 54.50d | 1.12a | 3.62cd | 33.40a | 2.51abc | 4.84c | |
|
| 45.34bcd | 1.92abc | 3.32abcd | 44.29abc | 3.50bc | 1.63ab | |
|
| 37.24ab | 1.99abc | 2.69ab | 54.26c | 2.16ab | 1.67ab | |
|
| 43.77bcd | 1.40a | 2.52a | 48.29bc | 3.14bc | 0.88a | |
| Mean | 41.89 | 1.90 | 3.19 | 48.33 | 2.55 | 2.13 | |
| SD | 7.32 | 0.59 | 0.43 | 7.66 | 0.80 | 1.36 | |
| 17.48 | 30.87 | 13.34 | 15.85 | 31.31 | 63.72 | ||
|
|
| 75.47a | 1.04b | 0.29abc | 18.57bc | 3.82c | 0.80c |
| TDr/02665 | 75.12a | 0.38a | 0.19ab | 21.58c | 2.10ab | 0.63abc | |
|
| 77.04ab | 0.77ab | 0.21ab | 18.92bc | 2.69bc | 0.37a | |
|
| 80.30bc | 1.04b | 0.63bcd | 14.77ab | 2.79bc | 0.47ab | |
|
| 80.97c | 0.29a | 0.08a | 14.19a | 4.05c | 0.42a | |
| Mean | 77.12 | 0.74 | 0.35 | 18.48 | 2.78 | 0.52 | |
| SD | 2.02 | 0.27 | 0.24 | 2.35 | 0.80 | 0.14 | |
| 2.62 | 35.80 | 68.61 | 12.74 | 28.85 | 26.54 |
Percentage Coefficient of variation.
Superscripts represent significance and separation of mean for nutrients across columns.
Values are mean of duplicates.
Figure 1Digestible Starch of raw tuber and products from five selected yam varieties.
Figure 2Resistant Starch of raw tuber and products from five selected yam varieties.
Rapidly Digestible Starch (RDS), Slowly Digestible Starch (SDS) and GI values in Amala and Pounded Yam made from Yam (g/100 g).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 1.38b | 14.98b | 261.96 | 86a | High | 59.39a |
|
| 1.25ab | 17.84c | 305.66 | 89a | High | 57.78a | |
|
| 0.61a | 12.49a | 381.67 | 83a | High | 52.99a | |
| Pounded Yam |
| 0.36a | 16.04ab | 304.84 | 92a | High | 48a |
|
| 0.34a | 20.08c | 244.81 | 97a | High | 49a | |
|
| 0.34a | 13.55a | 359.85 | 104a | High | 48.2a |
GI, Glycemic Index; eGI, estimated Glycemic Index.
Values represent mean of duplicates with exception of GI which represents mean of 11 participants.
Different superscripts represent significance and separation of mean for across columns for Amala and Pounded Yam, respectively.
Figure 3Rate of in-vitro Starch Hydrolysis in Amala made from three varieties of Yam.
Figure 4Rate of in-vitro Starch Hydrolysis in Pounded yam made from three varieties of Yam.
Test of between-subjects effect of in vitro and in vivo parameters as influenced by yam variety and product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variety | 0.010 | 0.053 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.039 | 0.014 |
| Product | 0.003 | 0.791 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Variety × Product | 0.005 | 0.995 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.044 | 0.001 |