4.6 Article

The Glycemic Response Does Not Reflect the In Vivo Starch Digestibility of Fiber-Rich Wheat Products in Healthy Men

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
Volume 142, Issue 2, Pages 258-263

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3945/jn.111.147884

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Top Institute Food and Nutrition

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Starchy food products differ in the rate of starch digestion, which can affect their metabolic impact. In this study, we examined how the in vivo starch digestibility is reflected by the glycemic response, because this response is often used to predict starch digestibility. Ten healthy male volunteers [age 21 +/- 0.5 y, BMI 23 +/- 0.6 kg/m(2) (mean +/- SEM)] participated in a cross-over study, receiving three different meals: pasta with normal wheat bran (PA) and bread with normal (CB) or purple wheat bran (PBB). Purple wheat bran was added in an attempt to decrease the rate of starch digestion. The meals were enriched in C-13 and the dual isotope technique was applied to calculate the rate of appearance of exogenous glucose (RaE). The C-13-isotopic enrichment of glucose in plasma was measured with GC/combustion/isotope ratio MS (IRMS) and liquid chromatography/IRMS. Both IRMS techniques gave similar results. Plasma glucose concentrations [2-h incremental AUC (iAUC)] did not differ between the test meals. The RaE was similar after consumption of CB and PBB, showing that purple wheat bran in bread does not affect in vivo starch digestibility. However, the iAUC of RaE after men consumed PA was less than after they consumed CB (P < 0.0001) despite the similar glucose response. To conclude, the glycemic response does not always reflect the in vivo starch digestibility. This could have implications for intervention studies in which the glycemic response is used to characterize test products. J. Nutr. 142: 258-263, 2012.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available