4.2 Article

Slowly Digestible Carbohydrate Sources Can Be Used to Attenuate the Postprandial Glycemic Response to the Ingestion of Diabetes-Specific Enteral Formulas

期刊

DIABETES EDUCATOR
卷 35, 期 4, 页码 631-640

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0145721709335466

关键词

-

资金

  1. Danone Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The purpose of this study is to compare the glycemic and insulinemic responses following the ingestion of recently developed diabetes-specific enteral formulas versus a standard and a high-fat formula. Methods Fifteen type 2 diabetes patients were selected to participate in a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Two enteral formulas (47 energy percent [En%] carbohydrate, 34En% fat, and 4 g fiber/200 mL) were defined with either isomaltulose (formula 1) or sucromalt (formula 2) as the main carbohydrate source. For comparison, an isoenergetic diabetes-specific, high-fat (33En% carbohydrate, 50En% fat, 2.9 g fiber/200 mL) and a standard formula (55En% carbohydrate, 30En% fat, 2.8 g fiber/200 mL) were tested. Results Ingestion of formulas 1 and 2 and the high-fat formula resulted in an attenuated blood glucose response when compared with the standard formula (P<.05). In accordance, peak plasma glucose concentrations were significantly lower when compared with the standard formula (189 +/- 3.6 mg/dL [10.5 +/- 0.2 mmol/L], 196.2 +/- 3.6 mg/dL [10.9 +/- 0.2 mmol/L], 187.2 +/- 3.6 mg/dL [10.4 +/- 0.2 mmol/L], and 237.6 +/- 3.6 mg/dL [13.2 +/- 0.2 mmol/L], respectively). Plasma insulin responses were lower after consumption of the newly developed and high-fat formulas. Ingestion of the high-fat formula resulted in a greater postprandial triglyceride response (P<.05). Conclusions Diabetes-specific enteral formulas rich in slowly digestible carbohydrate sources can be equally effective in attenuating the postprandial blood glucose response as low-carbohydrate, high-fat enteral formulas without elevating the plasma triglyceride response.

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

4.2
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