Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-46n74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T02:05:56.637Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of fat type in baked bread on amylose–lipid complex formation and glycaemic response

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2016

Evelyn Lau
Affiliation:
Clinical Nutrition Research Centre (CNRC), Centre for Translational Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, 14 Medical Drive #07-02, MD 6 Building, Singapore 117599, Singapore Singapore Institute for Clinical Sciences, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), 30 Medical Drive, Singapore 117609, Singapore
Weibiao Zhou
Affiliation:
Food Science and Technology Programme, Department of Chemistry, National University of Singapore, 3 Science Drive 3, Singapore 117543, Singapore
Christiani Jeyakumar Henry*
Affiliation:
Clinical Nutrition Research Centre (CNRC), Centre for Translational Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, 14 Medical Drive #07-02, MD 6 Building, Singapore 117599, Singapore Singapore Institute for Clinical Sciences, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), 30 Medical Drive, Singapore 117609, Singapore Department of Biochemistry, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, 14 Medical Drive, #14-01, Singapore 117599, Singapore
*
* Corresponding author: C. J. Henry, fax +65 6776 6840, email jeya_henry@sics.a-star.edu.sg
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The formation of amylose–lipid complexes (ALC) had been associated with reduced starch digestibility. A few studies have directly characterised the extent of ALC formation with glycaemic response. The objectives of this study were to investigate the effect of using fats with varying degree of saturation and chain length on ALC formation as well as glycaemic and insulinaemic responses after consumption of bread. Healthy men consumed five test breads in a random order: control bread without any added fats (CTR) and breads baked with butter (BTR), coconut oil (COC), grapeseed oil (GRP) or olive oil (OLV). There was a significant difference in glycaemic response between the different test breads (P=0·002), primarily due to COC having a lower response than CTR (P=0·016), but no significant differences between fat types were observed. Insulinaemic response was not altered by the addition of fats/oils. Although BTR was more insulinotropic than GRP (P<0·05), postprandial β-cell function did not differ significantly. The complexing index (CI), a measure of ALC formation, was significantly higher for COC and OLV compared with BTR and GRP (P<0·05). CI was significantly negatively correlated with incremental AUC (IAUC) of change in blood glucose concentrations over time (IAUCglucose) (r –0·365, P=0·001). Linear regression analysis showed that CI explained 13·3 % of the variance and was a significant predictor of IAUCglucose (β=–1·265, P=0·001), but IAUCinsulin did not predict IAUCglucose. Our study indicated that a simple way to modulate glycaemic response in bread could lie in the choice of fats/oils, with coconut oil showing the greatest attenuation of glycaemic response.

Information

Type
Full Papers
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2016 
Figure 0

Table 1 Anthropometric characteristics of healthy, male subjects (Mean values with their standard errors; n 15)

Figure 1

Fig. 1 Complexing index results for different types of bread. Values are means (n 6), with standard errors represented by vertical bars. a,b Mean values with unlike letters were significantly different (P<0·05; one-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey’s test). BTR, bread baked with butter; COC, bread baked with coconut oil; GRP, bread baked with grapeseed oil; OLV, bread baked with olive oil.

Figure 2

Table 2 Serving size, energy content and macronutrient composition of each type of test bread (per serving basis)

Figure 3

Fig. 2 (a) Postprandial response curves for change in blood glucose and (b) plasma insulin levels after consumption of 50 g available carbohydrate portion of test bread. Values are means (n 15), with standard errors represented by vertical bars. For glucose response, there were significant time (P<0·001), bread (P<0·001) and bread×time interaction effects (P=0·002) when analysed by two-way, repeated-measures ANOVA. For insulin response, two-way, repeated-measures ANOVA showed a significant time effect (P<0·001) and bread×time interaction effect at near significant levels (P=0·074), but no effect of bread was seen (P=0·195). , Control bread without oil; , bread with butter; , bread with coconut oil; , bread with grapeseed oil; , bread with olive oil.

Figure 4

Table 3 Fasting and postprandial parameters for glycaemic and insulinaemic responses after consumption of test bread (Mean values with their standard errors for fifteen healthy young men)

Figure 5

Fig. 3 Surrogate measures of postprandial β-cell function after consumption of 50 g available carbohydrate portion of test bread. Values are means (n 15), with standard errors represented by vertical bars. Repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni’s correction was used to analyse significance. Mean values were significantly different from each other: * P<0·05. CTR, control bread without added fats; BTR, bread baked with butter; COC, bread baked with coconut oil; GRP, bread baked with grapeseed oil; OLV, bread baked with olive oil. , Insulinogenic index at 30 min (IGI30), calculated as IGI30=(I30−I0)/(G30−G0); , insulin to glucose net incremental area under the curve ratios, insulin:glucose ratio (IGR), calculated as IGR=IAUCinsulin/IAUCglucose.

Supplementary material: File

Lau supplementary material

Table S1

Download Lau supplementary material(File)
File 13.7 KB