4.2 Article

Glycemic, Insulinemic, and Appetite Responses of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes to Commonly Consumed Breads

期刊

DIABETES EDUCATOR
卷 39, 期 3, 页码 376-386

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0145721713479675

关键词

-

资金

  1. UCD Foundation Bray Lions Club Scholarship in Diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify the breads most commonly consumed by adults with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and then examine the postprandial glycemic, insulinemic, and appetite responses that these breads elicit. Methods One hundred people with T2DM were surveyed to identify the varieties of bread they most frequently consumed. According to a randomized crossover design, 11 fasting participants with T2DM consumed 50 g of available carbohydrate from 4 breads. Glucose and insulin concentrations and appetite ratings were determined over 270 minutes. Results Three commonly consumed varieties (white, whole wheat buttermilk, whole grain) identified in the surveyplus a lower-glycemic-index control bread (pumpernickel rye)-were tested in the second phase. Despite perceived differences between brown and white breads, the white, whole wheat buttermilk, and wholegrain breads promoted similar glycemic and insulinemic responses. Pumpernickel bread resulted in a significantly lower peak glucose (P < .01) than all other breads and a lower peak insulin (P < .001) than white or wholegrain bread. Similar appetite responses were found with all 4 breads. Conclusions Adults with T2DM are choosing a variety of breads with perceived differential effects on glycemic, insulinemic, and appetite responses. Appreciable benefits, however, are not conferred by the commonly consumed breads. If breads known to promote favorable metabolic responses are unavailable, the primary emphasis in education should be placed on portion control. Conveying this information to patients is crucial if nutrition education is to achieve its aim of empowering individuals to manage their diabetes through their food choices.

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