Effect of prior meal macronutrient composition on postprandial glycemic responses and glycemic index and glycemic load value determinations - PubMed (original) (raw)
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2017 Nov;106(5):1246-1256.
doi: 10.3945/ajcn.117.162727. Epub 2017 Sep 13.
Affiliations
- PMID: 28903959
- PMCID: PMC5657290
- DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.117.162727
Randomized Controlled Trial
Effect of prior meal macronutrient composition on postprandial glycemic responses and glycemic index and glycemic load value determinations
Huicui Meng et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 2017 Nov.
Abstract
Background: The potential impact of prior meal composition on the postprandial glycemic response and glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) value determinations remains unclear.Objective: We determined the effect of meals that varied in macronutrient composition on the glycemic response and determination of GI and GL values of a subsequent standard test food.Design: Twenty healthy participants underwent 6 test sessions within 12 wk. The subjects received each of 3 isocaloric breakfast meals (i.e., high carbohydrate, high fat, or high protein) on separate days in a random order, which was followed by a standard set of challenges (i.e., white bread and a glucose drink) that were tested on separate days in a random order 4 h thereafter. Each challenge provided 50 g available carbohydrate. Arterialized venous blood was sampled throughout the 2-h postchallenge period. GI, GL, and insulin index (II) values were calculated with the use of the incremental area under the curve (AUCi) method, and serum lipids were determined with the use of standard assays.Results: The consumption of the high-protein breakfast before the white-bread challenge attenuated the rise in the postprandial serum glucose response (P < 0.0001) and resulted in lower glucose AUCi (P < 0.0001), GI (P = 0.0096), and GL (P = 0.0101) values than did the high-carbohydrate and high-fat breakfasts. The high-protein breakfast resulted in a lower insulin AUCi (P = 0.0146) for white bread than did the high-fat breakfast and a lower II value (P = 0.0285) than did the high-carbohydrate breakfast. The 3 breakfasts resulted in similar serum lipid responses to the white-bread challenge.Conclusions: These data indicate that the macronutrient composition of the prior meal influences the glycemic response and the determination of GI and GL values for white bread. Future studies are needed to determine whether the background food macronutrient composition influences mean dietary GI and GL values that are calculated for eating patterns, which may alter the interpretation of the associations between these values and chronic disease risk. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01023646.
Keywords: glycemic index and glycemic load; glycemic response; healthy participants; macronutrient composition; nonesterified fatty acids.
© 2017 American Society for Nutrition.
Figures
FIGURE 1
Mean ± SD effects of different breakfasts on glycemic and insulin responses to the glucose-drink and white-bread challenges. Serum postprandial glucose (A) and insulin (B) concentrations from the glucose-drink and white-bread challenges that were preceded by breakfasts varying in macronutrient composition are presented. Differences in serum postprandial glucose or insulin concentrations in test breakfasts over a 2-h test period were determined with a 2-factor mixed ANOVA with the main effects of the test breakfast and time and test breakfast × time interaction with repeated measures for the participants after the glucose-drink and white-bread challenges, respectively. In the analysis of serum postprandial glucose concentrations, P values for the breakfast × time interaction after intakes of the glucose drink and white bread were P = 0.23 and P < 0.0001, respectively. In the analysis of serum postprandial insulin concentrations, P values of the breakfast × time interaction after intakes of the glucose drink and white bread were P = 0.34 and P = 0.0312, respectively. Because the breakfast × time interaction for white bread in both postprandial glucose and insulin analyses was significant at P ≤ 0.05, multiple comparisons at each time point were carried out with the use of the Tukey-Kramer method. Significance was accepted at P ≤ 0.05. Means with different letters are significantly different from each other at the same time point. n = 20. C-GLU, carbohydrate, glucose drink; C-WB, carbohydrate, white bread; F-GLU, fat, glucose drink; F-WB, fat, white bread; P-GLU, protein, glucose drink; P-WB, protein, white bread.
FIGURE 2
Mean ± SD effects of different breakfasts on glucose AUCi, glycemic index, and glycemic load values. Glucose AUCi values for the glucose drink (A) and white bread (B) and glycemic index (C) and glycemic load (D) values for white bread after consumption of breakfasts varying in macronutrient compositions are presented. Differences in glucose AUCi, glycemic index, and glycemic load values between test breakfasts over a 2-h test period were determined with the use of a mixed-design ANOVA model with the participant as a random effect and the test breakfast as a fixed effect. The Tukey-Kramer method was used for post hoc analyses. Significance was accepted at P ≤ 0.05. Means with different letters are significantly different from each other. n = 20. AUCi, incremental AUC; C-GLU, carbohydrate, glucose drink; C-WB, carbohydrate, white bread; F-GLU, fat, glucose drink; F-WB, fat, white bread; P-GLU, protein, glucose drink; P-WB, protein, white bread.
FIGURE 3
Mean ± SD effects of different breakfasts on insulin AUCi and insulin index values. Insulin AUCi values for the glucose drink (A) and white bread (B) and insulin index values (C) for white bread after consumption of breakfasts varying in macronutrient composition are presented. Differences in insulin AUCi and insulin index values between test breakfasts over a 2-h test period were determined with the use of mixed-design ANOVA model with the participant as a random effect and the test breakfast as a fixed effect. The Tukey-Kramer method was used for post hoc analyses. Significance was accepted at P ≤ 0.05. Means with different letters are significantly different from each other. n = 20. AUCi, incremental AUC; C-GLU, carbohydrate, glucose drink; C-WB, carbohydrate, white bread; F-GLU, fat, glucose drink; F-WB, fat, white bread; P-GLU, protein, glucose drink; P-WB, protein, white bread.
FIGURE 4
Mean ± SD effects of different breakfasts on postprandial serum NEFA, TAG, HDL-C, and LDL-C responses to the glucose-drink and white-bread challenges. Serum NEFA (A), TAG (B), HDL-C (C), and LDL-C (D) concentrations after glucose-drink and white-bread challenges preceded by breakfasts varying in macronutrient composition are presented. Differences in serum postprandial NEFA, TAG, HDL-cholesterol, and LDL-cholesterol concentrations between breakfasts over a 2-h test period were determined with the use of a 2-factor mixed ANOVA with the main effects of the test breakfast and time and test breakfast × time interaction with repeated measures for participants after intakes of the glucose drink and white bread, respectively. P values for the breakfast × time interaction after intake of the glucose drink were P = 0.0216, P = 0.91, P = 0.99, and P = 0.53 for NEFA, TAG, HDL-C, and LDL-C, respectively. P values for the breakfast × time interaction after white-bread intake were P = 0.78, P = 0.30, P = 0.40, and P = 0.31 for NEFA, TAG, HDL-C, and LDL-C, respectively. Because the breakfast × time interaction for NEFA after glucose-drink intake was significant at P ≤ 0.05, multiple comparisons at each time point were carried out via the Tukey-Kramer method. Significance was accepted at P ≤ 0.05. Means with different letters are significantly different from each other at the same time point. n = 20. C-GLU, carbohydrate, glucose drink; C-WB, carbohydrate, white bread; F-GLU, fat, glucose drink; F-WB, fat, white bread; HDL-C, HDL cholesterol; LDL-C, LDL cholesterol; NEFA, nonesterified fatty acid; P-GLU, protein, glucose drink; P-WB, protein, white bread; TAG, triacylglycerol.
Comment in
- Glycemic response and the glycemic index of foods: more remains to be seen on the second-meal effect of proteins.
Brighenti F, Kendall CWC, Augustin LSA, Brouns FJPH, La Vecchia C, Salas-Salvadó J, Riccardi G; International Carbohydrate Quality Consortium. Brighenti F, et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 2018 May 1;107(5):845-850. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy030. Am J Clin Nutr. 2018. PMID: 29722839 No abstract available. - Reply to Brighenti F et al.
Meng H, Matthan NR, Lichtenstein AH. Meng H, et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 2018 May 1;107(5):846-847. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy031. Am J Clin Nutr. 2018. PMID: 29722840 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Similar articles
- Effect of macronutrients and fiber on postprandial glycemic responses and meal glycemic index and glycemic load value determinations.
Meng H, Matthan NR, Ausman LM, Lichtenstein AH. Meng H, et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 2017 Apr;105(4):842-853. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.116.144162. Epub 2017 Feb 15. Am J Clin Nutr. 2017. PMID: 28202475 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial. - Postprandial lipid responses to standard carbohydrates used to determine glycaemic index values.
Vega-López S, Ausman LM, Matthan NR, Lichtenstein AH. Vega-López S, et al. Br J Nutr. 2013 Nov;110(10):1782-8. doi: 10.1017/S000711451300130X. Epub 2013 May 9. Br J Nutr. 2013. PMID: 23656707 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial. - Effects of breakfast meal composition on second meal metabolic responses in adults with Type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Clark CA, Gardiner J, McBurney MI, Anderson S, Weatherspoon LJ, Henry DN, Hord NG. Clark CA, et al. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2006 Sep;60(9):1122-9. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602427. Epub 2006 May 3. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2006. PMID: 16670695 Clinical Trial. - Glycemic index and glycemic load: measurement issues and their effect on diet-disease relationships.
Venn BJ, Green TJ. Venn BJ, et al. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2007 Dec;61 Suppl 1:S122-31. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602942. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2007. PMID: 17992183 Review. - Glycemic Index (GI) or Glycemic Load (GL) and Dietary Interventions for Optimizing Postprandial Hyperglycemia in Patients with T2 Diabetes: A Review.
Vlachos D, Malisova S, Lindberg FA, Karaniki G. Vlachos D, et al. Nutrients. 2020 May 27;12(6):1561. doi: 10.3390/nu12061561. Nutrients. 2020. PMID: 32471238 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
- Manipulation of Post-Prandial Hyperglycaemia in Type 2 Diabetes: An Update for Practitioners.
Shibib L, Al-Qaisi M, Guess N, Miras AD, Greenwald SE, Pelling M, Ahmed A. Shibib L, et al. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2024 Aug 23;17:3111-3130. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S458894. eCollection 2024. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2024. PMID: 39206417 Free PMC article. Review. - Trajectory Patterns of Macronutrient Intake and Their Associations with Obesity, Diabetes, and All-Cause Mortality: A Longitudinal Analysis over 25 Years.
Huang J, Rong R, Ma ZF, Chen Y. Huang J, et al. Nutrients. 2024 Aug 5;16(15):2567. doi: 10.3390/nu16152567. Nutrients. 2024. PMID: 39125446 Free PMC article. - The association between multiple trajectories of macronutrient intake and the risk of new-onset diabetes in Chinese adults.
Wang S, Ruirui G, Li X, Wang F, Wu Z, Liu Y, Dong Y, Li B. Wang S, et al. J Diabetes. 2024 May;16(5):e13555. doi: 10.1111/1753-0407.13555. J Diabetes. 2024. PMID: 38721664 Free PMC article. - Timing and Nutrient Type of Isocaloric Snacks Impacted Postprandial Glycemic and Insulinemic Responses of the Subsequent Meal in Healthy Subjects.
Lou X, Fan Z, Wei J, Peng X, Hu J, Lu X, Liu A. Lou X, et al. Nutrients. 2024 Feb 14;16(4):535. doi: 10.3390/nu16040535. Nutrients. 2024. PMID: 38398859 Free PMC article. - Whey Protein-Enriched and Carbohydrate-Rich Breakfasts Attenuate Insulinemic Responses to an ad libitum Lunch Relative to Extended Morning Fasting: A Randomized Crossover Trial.
Smith HA, Watkins JD, Walhin JP, Gonzalez JT, Thompson D, Betts JA. Smith HA, et al. J Nutr. 2023 Oct;153(10):2842-2853. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2023.08.008. Epub 2023 Aug 7. J Nutr. 2023. PMID: 37557957 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
References
- Liu S, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Hu FB, Franz M, Sampson L, Hennekens CH, Manson JE. A prospective study of dietary glycemic load, carbohydrate intake, and risk of coronary heart disease in US women. Am J Clin Nutr 2000;71:1455–61. - PubMed
- Barclay AW, Petocz P, McMillan-Price J, Flood VM, Prvan T, Mitchell P, Brand-Miller JC. Glycemic index, glycemic load, and chronic disease risk–a meta-analysis of observational studies. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:627–37. - PubMed
- Jenkins DJ, Kendall CW, Vuksan V, Faulkner D, Augustin LS, Mitchell S, Ireland C, Srichaikul K, Mirrahimi A, Chiavaroli L, et al. . Effect of lowering the glycemic load with canola oil on glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2014;37:1806–14. - PubMed
- Salmerón J, Ascherio A, Rimm EB, Colditz GA, Spiegelman D, Jenkins DJ, Stampfer MJ, Wing AL, Willett WC. Dietary fiber, glycemic load, and risk of NIDDM in men. Diabetes Care 1997;20:545–50. - PubMed
- Salmerón J, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Wing AL, Willett WC. Dietary fiber, glycemic load, and risk of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in women. JAMA 1997;277:472–7. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical