Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:02:55.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cooking attenuates the ability of high-amylose meals to reduce plasma insulin concentrations in rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Marc A. Brown ,
Leonard H. Storlien ,
Ian L. Brown  and
Janine A. Higgins
Marc A. Brown
Affiliation:
Metabolic Research Centre, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, University of Wollongong, New South Wales 2522, Australia
Leonard H. Storlien
Affiliation:
Metabolic Research Centre, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, University of Wollongong, New South Wales 2522, Australia
Ian L. Brown
Affiliation:
Penford Food Ingredients Co, Englewood, Colorado 80112, USA
Janine A. Higgins*
Affiliation:
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Center for Human Nutrition, Denver, Colorado 80262, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Dr Janine A. Higgins, fax +1 303 315 3273, email Janine.Higgins@UCHSC.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Postprandial glycaemic control is important in the prevention and therapy of type 2 diabetes and related diseases. Agents that may reduce postprandial glycaemia and/or insulinaemia, such as consumption of high-amylose foods, are considered beneficial; however, little is known about the dose–response relationship and the effects of cooking. The aim of the present study was to define the dose–response curve for postprandial glycaemic and insulinaemic excursions following meals of different amylose content and to compare the dose–response curves for meals containing cooked and uncooked starches. Following an overnight fast, rats ingested a test meal and blood was sampled over 2 h. The meal was given at 1.0 g carbohydrate/kg body weight, with an amylose content of 0, 270, 600 or 850 g/kg total starch. The area under the glucose curve did not differ under any condition investigated. For the uncooked-starch diets, area under the insulin curve was higher for the 0 g amylose/kg total starch meal than all other meals (P = 0·0001). For the cooked-starch diets, area under the insulin curve was higher in the O than the 600 and 850 g amylose/kg total starch groups (P < 0·01), but did not differ from the 270 amylose/kg total starch group. These results suggest that even a relatively small proportion of uncooked amylose (270 g/kg total starch) is sufficient to achieve a maximal attenuating effect on postprandial insulin concentrations as compared with 0 g amylose/kg total starch. Following cooking, however, a much higher proportion of amylose (≥ 600 g/kg total starch) is needed to achieve a similar effect.

Keywords

AmyloseAmylopectinCookingInsulin
Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 90 , Issue 4 , October 2003 , pp. 823 - 827
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 2003

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1995) Total dietary fibre in foods: enzymatic–gravimetric method (method 985.29). In Official Methods of Analysis, 16th ed. Arlington, VA: AOAC.Google Scholar
Annison, G & Topping, DL (1994) Nutritional role of resistant starch: chemical structure vs. physiological function. Ann Rev Nutr 14, 297–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrnes, SE, Brand Miller, JC & Denyer, GS (1995) Amylopectin starch promotes the development of insulin resistance in rats. J Nutr 125, 1430–1437.Google ScholarPubMed
Doublier, JL & Chopin, L (1989) A rheological description of amylose gelation. Carbohydr Res 193, 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granfeldt, Y (1994) Glucose and insulin responses to barley products: influence of food structure and amylose–amylopectin ratio. Am J Clin Nutr 59, 699S–705S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, JA, Brand Miller, JC & Denyer, GS (1996) Development of insulin resistance in the rat is dependent on the rate of glucose absorption from the diet. J Nutr 126, 596–602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, KL & Zemel, MB (1999) Glycemic index, cardiovascular disease, and obesity. Nutr Rev 57, 273–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noakes, M, Clifton, PM, Nestel, PJ, Le Leu, R & McIntosh, G (1996) Effect of high-amylose starch and oat bran on metabolic variables and bowel function in subjects with hypertriglyceridemia. Am J Clin Nutr 64, 944–951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pascoe, WS, Jenkins, AB, Kusunoki, M & Storlien, LH (1992) Insulin action and determinants of glycaemia in a rat model of Type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia 35, 208–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmeron, J, Ascherio, A, Rimm, EB, et al. (1997 a) Dietary fiber, glycemic load, and risk of NIDDM in men. Diabetes Care 20, 545–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salmeron, J, Manson, JE, Stampfer, MJ, Colditz, GA, Wing, AL & Willett, WC (1997 b) Dietary fiber, glycemic load, and risk of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in women. JAMA 277, 472–477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siljestrom, M & Asp, N (1985) Resistant starch formation during baking – Effect of baking time and temperature and variations in recipe. Z Lebensm Unters Forsch 181, 4–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storlien, LH, Kraegen, EW, Jenkins, AB & Chisholm, DJ (1988) Effects of sucrose vs starch diets on in vivo insulin action, thermogenesis, and obesity in rats. Am J Clin Nutr 47, 420–427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed