4.0 Article

A polyol-stevia blended sugar replacer exhibits low glycemic response among human subjects

期刊

CLINICAL NUTRITION ESPEN
卷 33, 期 -, 页码 39-41

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2019.07.014

关键词

SUITENA (TM); Polyol; Stevia; Sugar replacer; Glycemic index

资金

  1. Fiatec Biosystem Sdn Bhd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & aims: Consumption of sugars in food and beverages has increased at an alarming rate. While excessive daily sugar intake has been well-associated as the onset of medical complications, additional sugars are still used in manufactured food products just to satisfy the consumers' needs. Hence, there is a need to develop sugar replacers that have low glycemic response without compromising the organoleptic characteristics of food products. This study aimed to determine if SUITENA (TM), a novel sweetener containing erythritol, xylitol, and Stevia, has low glycemic response upon consumption by human subjects. Methods: Six human subjects were randomly chosen and were healthy at the point of experimentation. Capillary blood was collected via finger-prick method to monitor the glycemic response of every individual for 90 min after ingestion of sugar solution. Results: It was found that the mean area under the curve (AUC) of the dextrose standard was 11.8-fold higher (p < 0.05) than the AUC of SUITENA (TM). SUITENA (TM) was not able to increase blood glucose level for up to 90 min while a spike in blood glucose level was observed from 15 min post-consumption of dextrose solution. We found that SUITENA (TM) has elicited a glycemic response 8% relative to the standard. Such low glycemic response has been reported by studies on other novel sugars. Conclusion: This preliminary finding suggested that SUITENA (TM) is a healthier alternative to fast sugars due to its low glycemic response. A larger sampling size is required to confirm the results. (C) 2019 European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. Published by 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

4.0
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