4.6 Article

Glycemic Responses and Sensory Characteristics of Whole Yellow Pea Flour Added to Novel Functional Foods

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
卷 74, 期 9, 页码 S385-S389

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01347.x

关键词

diabetes; functional food; glycemic response; pea flour; sensory

资金

  1. Pulse Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A fundamental understanding regarding postprandial glycemic responses to foods containing whole yellow-pea flour (WYPF) remains unknown. This, alongside concerns that WYPF possesses unfavorable sensory characteristics has limited the incorporation of WYPF into new functional food products as a healthy novel ingredient. The objective of this study was to evaluate how WYPF modulates postprandial glycemic responses as well as sensory characteristics in novel foods. In a single-blind crossover trial, the present study assessed postprandial glycemic responses of banana bread, biscotti, and spaghetti containing either WYPF or whole wheat flour (WWF). Boiled yellow peas (BYP) and white bread (WB) were used as positive and negative controls, respectively. On day 1, subjects evaluated appearance, taste, texture, smell as well as overall acceptance of each WYPF and WWF food on a 5-point hedonic scale. WYPF banana bread (97.9 +/- 17.8 mmol . min/L) and biscotti (83 +/- 13 mmol . min/L), as well as BYP (112.3 +/- 19.9 mmol . min/L), reduced (P < 0.05) glycemic responses compared to WB(218.1 +/- 29.5 mmol . min/L). The glycemic response of WYPF pasta (160.7 +/- 19.4 mmol . min/ L) was comparable to WB. WYPF biscotti produced a lower (P = 0.019) postprandial glycemic response compared to WWF biscotti (117.2 +/- 13.1 mmol . min/L). Hedonic responses between corresponding foods were similar except for the WYPF pasta (2.9 +/- 0.9) which possessed a lower sensory score (P = 0.02) for smell compared to WWF pasta (3.6 +/- 1). WYPF can be used to produce low-glycemic functional foods possessing sensory attributes that are comparable to identical food products containing WWF.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据