A double-blind randomised controlled trial testing the effect of a barley product containing varying amounts and types of fibre on the postprandial glucose response of healthy volunteers

Ames, Nancy; Blewett, Heather; Storsley, Joanne; Thandapilly, Sijo Joseph; Zahradka, Peter; Taylor, Carla G.

doi:10.1017/s0007114515000367

Cited by 41 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 46 publications

(41 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…; Ames et al . ). Studies with greater doses of RS suggest that satiety increases with intake of RS.…”

Section: Resistant Starch and Appetite Regulationmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…; Ames et al . ). Two studies have observed an increase in postprandial PYY after RS consumption in healthy subjects (Nilsson et al .…”

Section: Resistant Starch and Appetite Regulationmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…; Ames et al . ). Most RS studies have measured only a few selected gut hormones rather than a broad range, with very few examining CCK and PP, meaning that full understanding of the cascade of gut hormone release in response to RS intake is a long way off (Klosterbuer et al .…”

Section: Resistant Starch and Appetite Regulationmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…) or β‐glucans (Ames et al . ), but appeared to act synergistically with guar gum (Ekstrom et al . ).…”

Section: Role Of Resistant Starch In Metabolic Responses – Lipid and mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Health effects of resistant starch

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The merits of a fibre-rich diet are well documented. Resistant starch (RS) is a form of starch that resists digestion in the small intestine and, as such, is classified as a type of dietary fibre. RS can be categorised as one of five types (RS1-5), some of which occur naturally in foods such as bananas, potatoes, grains and legumes and some of which are produced or modified commercially, and incorporated into food products. This review describes human evidence on the health effects of RS consumption, with the aim of identifying any benefits of RS-rich foods and RS as a functional ingredient. The reduced glycaemic response consistently reported with RS consumption, when compared with digestible carbohydrate, has resulted in an approved European Union health claim. Thus, RS-rich foods may be particularly useful for managing diabetes. There appears to be little impact of RS on other metabolic markers, such as blood pressure and plasma lipids, though data are comparatively limited. Promising results on markers of gut health suggest that further research may lead to the classification of RS as a prebiotic. Microbial fermentation of RS in the large intestine to produce short-chain fatty acids likely underpins some of its biological effects, including increasing satiety. However, effects on appetite have not resulted in notable changes in bodyweight after long-term consumption. Emerging research suggests potential for RS as an ingredient in oral rehydration solutions and in the treatment of chronic kidney disease. Overall, RS possesses positive properties as a healthy food component.

show abstract

“…; Ames et al . ). Studies with greater doses of RS suggest that satiety increases with intake of RS.…”

Section: Resistant Starch and Appetite Regulationmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…; Ames et al . ). Two studies have observed an increase in postprandial PYY after RS consumption in healthy subjects (Nilsson et al .…”

Section: Resistant Starch and Appetite Regulationmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Resistant Starch and Appetite Regulationmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…) or β‐glucans (Ames et al . ), but appeared to act synergistically with guar gum (Ekstrom et al . ).…”

Section: Role Of Resistant Starch In Metabolic Responses – Lipid and mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Health effects of resistant starch

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Notwithstanding the benefits of fiber with respect to gastrointestinal function, the data to support benefits for the glycemic response have been inconsistent. Some studies have reported that fiber-rich foods, either soluble or insoluble fiber, resulted in lower glucose AUC i (28,29,(62)(63)(64)(65)(66)(67), insulin AUC i (62,64,67,68), and GI or GL (28,29,65,66,68,69) values. This effect has been attributed to the ability of fiber to increase the gastrointestinal content viscosity, to decrease the gastric-emptying rate, and to slow glucose-absorption rates (61,62).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of macronutrients and fiber on postprandial glycemic responses and meal glycemic index and glycemic load value determinations

Meng

Matthan

Ausman

et al. 2017

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The potential confounding effect of different amounts and proportions of macronutrients across eating patterns on meal or dietary glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) value determinations has remained partially unaddressed. Objective: The study aimed to determine the effects of different amounts of macronutrients and fiber on measured meal GI and GL values. Design: Four studies were conducted during which participants [n = 20-22; women: 50%; age: 50-80 y; body mass index (in kg/m 2 ): 25-30)] received food challenges containing different amounts of the variable nutrient in a random order. Added to the standard 50 g available carbohydrate from white bread was 12.5, 25, or 50 g carbohydrate; 12.5, 25, or 50 g protein; and 5.6, 11.1, or 22.2 g fat from rice cereal, tuna, and unsalted butter, respectively, and 4.8 or 9.6 g fiber from oat cereal. Arterialized venous blood was sampled for 2 h, and measured meal GI and GL and insulin index (II) values were calculated by using the incremental area under the curve (AUC i ) method. Results: Adding carbohydrate to the standard white-bread challenge increased glucose AUC i (P , 0.0001), measured meal GI (P = 0.0066), and mean GL (P , 0.0001). Adding protein (50 g only) decreased glucose AUC i (P = 0.0026), measured meal GI (P = 0.0139), and meal GL (P = 0.0140). Adding fat or fiber had no significant effect on these variables. Adding carbohydrate (50 g), protein (50 g), and fat (11.1 g) increased the insulin AUC i or II; fiber had no effect. Conclusions: These data indicate that uncertainty in the determination of meal GI and GL values is introduced when carbohydratecontaining foods are consumed concurrently with protein (equal amount of carbohydrate challenge) but not with carbohydrate-, fat-, or fiber-containing foods. Future studies are needed to evaluate whether this uncertainty also influences the prediction of average dietary GI and GL values for eating patterns. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01023646.Am J Clin Nutr 2017;105:842-53.

show abstract