Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-mrcq8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-25T05:40:01.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Glycaemic index and perceived satiety following ingestion of sourdough breads enriched with soluble fibres

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2015

B. Buczkowski*
Manchester Metropolitan University, Department of Food and Tourism Management, Hollings Faculty, Cavendish Building, Cavendish Street, Manchester, M15 6BG
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]


Copyright © The Authors 2015 

High-glycaemic index (high-GI) diets have been linked to the prevalence of type II diabetes(Reference Salmerón, Ascherio and Rimm1Reference Brand-Miller3), coronary heart mortality, certain types of cancer and elevated blood levels of triglycerides and LDL cholesterol(Reference Brand-Miller3). Previously, sourdough was successfully used in development of low GI wheat bread(Reference De Angelis, Damiano and Rizello4) and was demonstrated to produce improved glycaemic response even in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance(Reference Maioli, Pes and Sanna5). Additionally, viscous soluble fibre may reduce postprandial glycaemia(Reference Brennan, Derbyshire and Tiwari6). Despite the fact that soluble fibres were shown to produce prolonged satiety(Reference Di Lorenzo, Williams and Hajnal7, Reference Calame, Thomassen and Hull8), the findings of studies concerning the satietogenic properties of carbohydrate remain inconclusive(Reference Anderson and Woodend9). The aim of this study was to assess the glycaemic and satietogenic properties of sourdough bread enriched with soluble fibres, control sourdough bread, and white wheat bread.

The glycaemic and satietogenic properties of sourdough bread enriched with soluble fibres (XG/GA/Pec), control sourdough bread and white wheat bread (WWB) were tested in a cross-over study using 11 healthy participants (mean age 35 ± 10 years, BMI 23·7 ± 2·86 kg/m2), a standard seven-point protocol and Satiety Labelled Intensity Magnitude (SLIM) scale.

The differences of values with different superscripts in columns are statistically significant (p < 0·05).

GI values were 66 for control sourdough bread (p = 0·03), 59 for XG/GA/Pec (p = 0·006) and 70 for white sliced bread (p = 0·019) with glucose as reference food (GI = 100). After 120 minutes from ingestion, subjects reported higher satiety after control sourdough bread (p = 0·027) and sourdough with XG/GA/Pec (p = 0·001) than after glucose. Additionally, the bread with XG/GA/Pec was perceived by the subjects to be more satiating after 120 minutes than WWB (p = 0·036). iAUC for control sourdough bread and XG/GA/Pec was higher than those of glucose (p = 0·018 and p = 0·007 respectively) and WWB (p = 0·045 and p = 0·036 respectively). The value of iAUC of XG/GA/Pec was higher than that of control sourdough bread. This result did not reach statistical significance in statistical analysis. In conclusion, sourdough bread and sourdough bread enriched with soluble fibres were characterised by increased perceived satiety. Delayed gastric emptying is a plausible explanation of the satietogenic properties of sourdough breads enriched with soluble dietary fibre.

This study was conducted according to The Declaration of Helsinki.

Acknowledgements: Dr Joanna Kershaw, Dr Emma Derbyshire, Dr Weili Li and Prof. Charles Brennan. The author would like to acknowledge the help of Prof. Glyn Phillips.


1.Salmerón, J, Ascherio, A, Rimm, EB et al. (1997) Diabetes Care 20, 545550.Google Scholar
2.Salmerón, J, Manson, JE, Stampfer, MJ et al. (1997) J Am Med Assoc 277, 472477.Google Scholar
3.Brand-Miller, JC (2003) Nutr Rev 61, S49S55.Google Scholar
4.De Angelis, M, Damiano, N, Rizello, CG et al. (2009) Eur Food Res Technol 229, 593601.Google Scholar
5.Maioli, M, Pes, GM, Sanna, M et al. (2008) Acta Diabetol 45, 9196.Google Scholar
6.Brennan, MA, Derbyshire, E, Tiwari, BK et al. (2012) J Agric Food Chem 60, 43964401.Google Scholar
7.Di Lorenzo, C, Williams, CM, Hajnal, F et al. (1988) Gastroenterology 95, 12111215.Google Scholar
8.Calame, W, Thomassen, F, Hull, S et al. (2011) Appetite 57, 358364.Google Scholar
9.Anderson, GH & Woodend, D (2003) Nutr Rev 61, S17S26.Google Scholar