Mastication or masceration: Does the preparation of sample affect the predictive in vitro glycemic response of pasta?

Abstract

A series of experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of different sample preparation steps, prior to the in vitro starch digestion process, on the predictive in vitro glycemic response of durum wheat pasta (control), and pasta made with durum wheat semolina and pea flour combinations. The physico‐chemical, textural, and cooking quality of the pastas were also assessed. The evaluation of the different preparations processes illustrated that the maceration of the samples prior to starch digestion significantly increased the extent of starch degradation and hence the area under the curve (AUC) of reducing sugar released during the digestion process. Mastication of the samples prior to in vitro assessment increased the initial reducing sugar content of samples but yielded the lowest recorded AUC for all samples. The replacement of durum wheat semolina with pea flour significantly reduced the samples AUC compared to the control samples when prepared by mastication. This difference was not apparent for the samples prepared by maceration. The results indicate that the choice of the preparation step used prior to in vitro starch digestion procedures can significantly affect the predictive glycemic response – AUC values of samples, and hence manipulate differences attributed to product composition or structure. This may have an impact in terms of choosing the most appropriate method of glycemic analysis for the food industry.

Utilisation of beef lung protein powder as a functional ingredient to enhance protein and iron content of fresh pasta

“…Control fresh pasta OCT (6 min 30 s) was similar to the results of Foschia et al . () and Lu et al . () that used the same processing procedures.…”

“…A Texture Analyser (TA.XT2; Stable Micro System, Godalming, UK) equipped with a 5‐kg load cell was used to analyse the pasta firmness and elasticity with equipment settings as in Foschia et al . ().…”

“…Optimal cooking time Optimal cooking time (OCT) was determined according to the method of Foschia et al (2014). Raw pasta was cut into 4-cm-long strands (20 g) and cooked in 600 mL boiling water.…”

“…Cooked pasta elasticity was measured on single pasta strands, and firmness was measured based on the force required to cut five strands of pasta placed parallel to each other. A Texture Analyser (TA.XT2; Stable Micro System, Godalming, UK) equipped with a 5-kg load cell was used to analyse the pasta firmness and elasticity with equipment settings as in Foschia et al (2014).…”

In vitro digestion of bread: How is it influenced by the bolus characteristics?

“…As illustrated in Figure , four frequently reported in vitro oral processing methods were investigated, including cutting (Goh et al, ), cut‐and‐pestle (Foschia, Peressini, Sensidoni, Brennan, & Brennan, ), blending (Tamura, Singh, Kaur, & Ogawa, ), and grinding (Holm & Bjorck, ; Mishra et al, ). For each method, the bread sample was mechanically broken down into two levels with an intention to create boluses presenting different degrees of disintegration.…”