A Snack Formulated with Ingredients to Slow Carbohydrate Digestion and Absorption Reduces the Glycemic Response in Humans: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Journal of medicinal food. 2020;23(1):21-28

Plain language summary

The rate, extent, and location of carbohydrate digestion and absorption are factors that influence metabolic outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a savoury snack (Test-snack) on the glycaemic response [changes in blood glucose after consuming a carbohydrate-containing food] in humans. The study is randomized, controlled crossover trial which enrolled twenty subjects, aged between 18 and 60 years. Each subject was randomly assigned to one of six unique orders for receiving the three interventions. Results show that the Test-snack formulated with ingredients and processes to slow carbohydrate digestion lowered the glycaemic response compared to the Control-snack. Furthermore, slowing of starch digestion influences subjective appetite ratings independent of the glycaemic response. Authors conclude that foods designed to slow starch digestion can help consumers meet their need to moderate the postprandial [after a meal] glycaemic response.

Abstract

This study compared the effect of a snack with ingredients to slow carbohydrate digestion (Test-snack) on postprandial blood glucose and insulin concentrations and subjective appetite ratings. We hypothesized that Test-snack would lower glucose and insulin responses and reduce appetite compared with a Control-snack. Overweight or obese subjects (n = 17) completed a randomized crossover study. Glucose, insulin, and appetite ratings were measured before consuming each snack or white bread (Bread) and over a period of 4 h. Subjects received Test-snack, Control-snack, or Bread in random order at least a week apart. The a priori primary outcome was the glucose response, and the secondary outcomes were appetite ratings and insulin responses. Mixed effects statistical models were used to perform analysis of variance in terms of the area under curve (AUC) and at specific time points. The 2-h AUC for glucose was significantly lower with Test-snack compared to Control-snack and Bread (AUC and 95% confidence intervals: Test = 2186.43 [1783.36-2589.51]; Control = 3293.75 [2893.97-3693.54]; Bread = 2800.28 [2405.79-3194.77] mg/dL · min). Four-hour AUC for glucose, and insulin, followed a similar pattern except that Test-snack did not differ from Bread. The glucose concentrations peaked at 45 min under all three conditions, but Test-snack elicited a lower response than Control-snack and Bread (P < .01). Test increased fullness and satisfaction and reduced hunger and prospective intake compared to Bread (P < .02), but was not significantly different from Control-snack. Ingredients that slow carbohydrate digestion in a snack reduce the postprandial glucose and insulin responses compared to a product without these ingredients.

Lifestyle medicine

Fundamental Clinical Imbalances : Hormonal ; Digestive, absorptive and microbiological
Patient Centred Factors : Mediators/Glycaemic response
Environmental Inputs : Diet ; Nutrients
Personal Lifestyle Factors : Nutrition
Functional Laboratory Testing : Blood

Methodological quality

Jadad score : 3
Allocation concealment : Yes

Metadata