CSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Adelaide, Australia.
CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Canberra, Australia.
J Nutr. 2019 Aug 1;149(8):1335-1345. doi: 10.1093/jn/nxz067.
Conventional wheat-based foods contain high concentrations of readily digestible starch that commonly give these foods a high postprandial glycemic response and may contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
The aim of this study was to determine if bread made from high-amylose wheat (HAW) and enriched in resistant starch dampens postprandial glycemia compared with bread made from conventional low-amylose wheat (LAW).
This single-center, randomized, double-blinded, crossover controlled study involved 7 consecutive weekly visits. On separate mornings, 20 healthy nondiabetic men and women (mean age 30 ± 3 y; body mass index 23 ± 0.7 kg/m2) consumed a glucose beverage or 4 different breads (each 121 g); LAW-R (refined), LAW-W (wholemeal), HAW-R, or HAW-W. The starch contents of the LAW and HAW breads were 24% and 74% amylose, respectively. Venous blood samples were collected at regular intervals before and for 3 h after the breakfast meal to measure plasma glucose, insulin, ghrelin, and incretin hormone concentrations, and the incremental area under the curve (AUC) was calculated (mmol/L × 3 h). Satiety and cravings were also measured at 30-min intervals during the postprandial period.
HAW breads had a glycemic response (AUC) that was 39% less than that achieved with conventional wheat breads (HAW 39 ± 5 mmol/L × 3 h; LAW 64 ± 5 mmol/L × 3 h; P < 0.0001). Insulinemic and incretin responses were 24-30% less for HAW breads than for LAW breads (P < 0.05). Processing of the flour (wholemeal or refined) did not affect the glycemic, insulinemic, or incretin response. The HAW breads did not influence plasma ghrelin, or subjective measures of satiety or cravings during the postprandial period.
Replacing LAW with HAW flour may be an effective strategy for lowering postprandial glycemic and insulinemic responses to bread in healthy men and women, but further research is warranted. This trial was registered at the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry as ACTRN12616001289404.
传统的小麦食品含有高浓度的易消化淀粉,通常会使这些食品产生高餐后血糖反应,可能导致 2 型糖尿病和心血管疾病的发生。
本研究旨在确定与由传统低直链淀粉小麦(LAW)制成并富含抗性淀粉的面包相比,由高直链淀粉小麦(HAW)制成并富含抗性淀粉的面包是否能降低餐后血糖。
这是一项单中心、随机、双盲、交叉对照研究,共涉及 7 次连续的每周就诊。在不同的早晨,20 名健康的非糖尿病男性和女性(平均年龄 30±3 岁;体重指数 23±0.7 kg/m2)分别饮用葡萄糖饮料或食用 4 种不同的面包(每种 121 g);LAW-R(精制)、LAW-W(全麦)、HAW-R 和 HAW-W。LAW 和 HAW 面包的淀粉含量分别为 24%和 74%直链淀粉。早餐后,每隔一定时间采集静脉血样,以测量血浆葡萄糖、胰岛素、胃饥饿素和肠促胰岛素激素浓度,并计算增量曲线下面积(mmol/L×3 h)。在餐后期间还以 30 分钟的间隔测量饱腹感和食欲。
HAW 面包的血糖反应(AUC)比传统小麦面包低 39%(HAW 39±5 mmol/L×3 h;LAW 64±5 mmol/L×3 h;P<0.0001)。HAW 面包的胰岛素和肠促胰岛素反应比 LAW 面包低 24-30%(P<0.05)。面粉加工(全麦或精制)不影响血糖、胰岛素或肠促胰岛素反应。HAW 面包对餐后血浆胃饥饿素或饱腹感和食欲的主观测量没有影响。
用 HAW 面粉代替 LAW 可能是降低健康男性和女性对面包餐后血糖和胰岛素反应的有效策略,但需要进一步研究。该试验在澳大利亚和新西兰临床试验注册中心注册,注册号为 ACTRN12616001289404。