The hypothesis that coarse grain particles in breads reduce glycaemic response only if the particles remain intact during ingestion was tested. Three breads were formulated: (1) White bread (WB – reference), (2) 75 % of kibbled purple wheat in 25 % white bread matrix (PB) and (3) a 1:1 mixture of 37·5 % kibbled soya beans and 37·5 % of kibble purple wheat in 25 % white bread matrix (SPB). Each bread was ingested in three forms: unchewed (U), as customarily consumed (C) and homogenised (H). Twelve participants ingested 40 g available carbohydrate portions of each bread in each form, with post-prandial blood glucose measured over 120 min. Glycaemic responses to WB were the same regardless of its form when ingested. Unchewed PB had significantly less glycaemic effect than WB, whereas the C and H forms were similar to WB. Based on a glycaemic index (GI) of 70 for WB, the GI values for the C, U and H breads, respectively, were WB: 70·0, 70 and 70, PB: 75, 42 and 61, SPB: 57, 48 and 55 (%) (Least significant difference = 17·43, P < 0·05, bold numbers significantly different from WB). The similar glycaemic response to the H and C forms of the breads, and their difference from the U form, showed that the glycaemia-moderating effect of grain structure on starch digestion was lost during customary ingestion of bread. We conclude that the kibbled-grain structure may not effectively retard starch digestion in breads as normally consumed because it is largely eliminated by ingestive processes including chewing.

The glycaemic index (GI) was introduced to guide food exchanges within equicarbohydrate food categories, and it expresses the glycaemic potency of the available carbohydrate component in a food relative to that of glucose. As GI is a relative value based on ‘available carbohydrate’ it cannot guide food choice for glycaemic control unless the foods are equal in available carbohydrate. Furthermore, GI cannot respond to food intake or to effects on food glycaemic potency of replacing glycaemic ingredients with non-glycaemic ingredients. The glycaemic glucose equivalent (GGE) overcomes these limitations of GI. The GGE content of an amount of food is the weight of glucose (g) that would induce a glycaemic response equal to that induced by the food. Few studies have compared GI and GGE as guides to food choice for glycaemic control, but in a direct test of the predictive validity of GGE in a group of foods of differing carbohydrate and GI, GGE predicted glycaemic potency well, whereas GI was unrelated to glycaemic effect. Furthermore, an information-processing model of the use of food information in food choice shows that GI has fundamental flaws when used outside the restriction of equicarbohydrate food exchange categories. As a general guide to food choices for the control of glycaemia GI does not satisfy the criteria predictive validity, accuracy, safety, ease of use, flexibility, sufficiency and compatability, whereas GGE does. GGE is also a scientifically precise and meaningful term with which to express glycaemic potency than is ‘glycaemic load’.