4.5 Article

High-molecular-weight barley β-glucan in chapatis (unleavened Indian flatbread) lowers glycemic index

期刊

NUTRITION RESEARCH
卷 29, 期 7, 页码 480-486

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.nutres.2009.07.003

关键词

Area under the curve; Barley beta-glucan; Blood Glucose; Chapatis; Glycemic index; Human; Randomized crossover trial

资金

  1. Higher Education Innovation Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Food products incorporated with soluble dietary fiber beta-glucan have shown varying effects on postprandial glycemia. The objective of the present study was to test the hypothesis that a food product fortified with barley beta-glucan and subjected to minimum processing and mild cooking might be effective in lowering glycemic response. In a randomized, single-blind, controlled crossover trial, 8 healthy human subjects (3 men, 5 women; aged 26-50 years; body mass index, <30 kg/m(2)) consumed unleavened Indian flatbreads called chapatis containing high-molecular-weight barley beta-glucan at doses of 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8 g on different occasions. Capillary blood samples were collected at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after consuming the chapatis. The incremental area under the glucose curve values for all the 5 different types of chapatis were significantly low (P<.001) compared with reference food glucose. The incremental area under the glucose curve of chapatis containing 4 and 8 g beta-glucan were significantly lower than control chapatis (P<.05). Postprandial blood glucose was significantly reduced at 45 minutes by chapatis containing 4 g (P<.05) and 8 g beta-glucan (P<.01) and at 60 minutes by chapatis with 8 g beta-glucan (P<.01). The glycemic index (GI) values of chapatis with 4 and 8 g beta-glucan were 43% to 47% lower (GI, 30 and 29, respectively) compared with chapatis without beta-glucan (GI, 54). We conclude that barley beta-glucan significantly reduces GI of chapatis, particularly at doses of 4 and 8 g per serving, (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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