4.5 Article

Glycemic indices of dates Ramadan Symbolic Foodin patients with type 2 diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring system

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD

关键词

Type 2 diabetes; Glycemic index; Postprandial blood glucose; Dates; Dietary intervention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found no significant difference in the average GI of dates between patients with T2DM and healthy subjects, but there was a significant difference in the time of peak blood glucose among different types of date-containing meals in patients with T2DM. Dates have a low GI, and CGMS has potential value in studying postprandial glucose excursions in patients with T2DM.
Aim: The high consumption of dates during Ramadan raises the question about its glyce-mic index (GI) and its effect on the glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). We aimed to determine the GI of varieties of meals containing dates in healthy subjects compared to patients with T2DM and the effect of dates on the postprandial glucose excur-sions using continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS). Method and Results: Twenty patients with T2DM and twenty healthy subjects matched for age, sex and body weight participated. Testing was applied on separate days (on 3 occa-sions) with 50 g of glucose and 50 g equivalent of available carbohydrates from 9 date meals. The GI was calculated as ratios of the incremental areas under the response curves for dates in comparison to glucose. Minimed-530 g-diabetes-system-with-enlite was used for continuous glucose monitoring. There was no significant difference between the mean GI of dates between both study groups. However, there was a significant difference accord-ing to the time of peak blood glucose among varieties of meals containing dates in T2DM. Conclusion: Studied varieties of dates have low GI. CGMS valued beyond GI calculation to study the postprandial glucose excursions among patients with T2DM. (c) 2020 Elsevier B.V. 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