4.5 Article

Gluten-free breadmaking: Improving nutritional and bioactive compounds

期刊

JOURNAL OF CEREAL SCIENCE
卷 67, 期 -, 页码 83-91

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcs.2015.08.005

关键词

Gluten-free; Nutrition; Glycemic response; Sensory acceptance

资金

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2012/17838-4]
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [12/17838-4] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review focuses on the contemporary approaches that are used to increase nutrient and bioactive compound contents of gluten-free bread (GFB), and highlights the use of nutrient-dense alternative raw materials, nutritional and functional ingredients, and their combinations. Few studies address micro nutrient fortification in GFB, and only one study has addressed the performance of in vitro trials to examine bioaccessibility. Some studies have demonstrated the potential use of nutrient-dense raw materials, dietary fiber enrichment and technological processes in decreasing the GFB glycemic response, which is evaluated through in vivo trials or by using the in vitro -predicted glycemic response method. The reviewed studies have shown promising approaches to overcoming both the technological and nutritional challenges involved in GFB development. However, further studies on the improvement or development of new nutrient-dense GFB and their evaluation using digestibility, bioaccessibility, and bioavailability trials are required to understand or improve their efficacy as vehicles of micronutrients and bioactive compounds. In addition, short- and long-term controlled clinical trials are needed to evaluate their potential health benefits. Furthermore, efforts to apply some of this promising research to commercial products should be made to make GFB with good technological, sensory and nutritional properties available to consumers with gluten-related disorders. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. 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