4.7 Article

The contribution of gastric digestion of starch to the glycaemic index of breads with different composition or structure

Journal

FOOD & FUNCTION
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages 1718-1724

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d1fo03901f

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. TRANSFORM Division of INRAE

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the relationship between bread density, oral and gastric digestion, and glycaemic index (GI). The results suggest that higher bread density is associated with a lower GI, possibly due to the impact of gastric digestion on the proportion of starch remaining to be digested in the small intestine.
Breads of higher density exhibit lower glycaemic index (GI) both in vivo and in vitro, a phenomenon generally attributed to a slower intestinal starch digestion. The aim of this work was to gain a better understanding of the relationship between bread density, oral and gastric digestion, and GI. Three breads were studied: industrial-style and traditional-style French baguettes (similar composition, different densities), and whole-wheat baguette. In vitro GI predictions confirmed that, for an identical composition, higher bread density was associated with a lower GI. Subsequent oro-gastric digestions, using the dynamic system DIDGI (R), showed extensive starch digestion at the gastric stage by salivary alpha-amylase, in line with recently published data. They further showed that higher bread density led to a lower hydrolysis rate. The concurrence of these results with those of in vivo studies, suggests a mediating role for gastric digestion in the relationship between bread density and GI, possibly via the repercussions on the starch proportion that remains to be hydrolysed in the small intestine. This study therefore adds to the scientific knowledge of the importance of salivary alpha-amylase to starch digestion, and draws special attention to the possible role of the gastric phase in determining the GI.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available