Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-mzsfj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-15T02:26:25.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Summation of blood glucose and TAG to characterise the ‘metabolic load index’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2016

Sam R. Emerson
Affiliation:
Department of Food, Nutrition, Dietetics and Health, Kansas State University, 212 Justin Hall, 1324 Lovers Lane, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
Mark D. Haub
Affiliation:
Department of Food, Nutrition, Dietetics and Health, Kansas State University, 212 Justin Hall, 1324 Lovers Lane, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
Colby S. Teeman
Affiliation:
Department of Food, Nutrition, Dietetics and Health, Kansas State University, 212 Justin Hall, 1324 Lovers Lane, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
Stephanie P. Kurti
Affiliation:
Department of Kinesiology, Kansas State University, 1A Natatorium, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
Sara K. Rosenkranz*
Affiliation:
Department of Food, Nutrition, Dietetics and Health, Kansas State University, 212 Justin Hall, 1324 Lovers Lane, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
*
* Corresponding author: S. K. Rosenkranz, fax +1 785 532 3132, email SaraRose@ksu.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research points to postprandial glucose and TAG measures as preferable assessments of cardiovascular risk as compared with fasting values. Although elevated postprandial glycaemic and lipaemic responses are thought to substantially increase chronic disease risk, postprandial glycaemia and lipaemia have historically only been considered separately. However, carbohydrates and fats can generally ‘compete’ for clearance from the stomach, small intestine, bloodstream and within the peripheral cell. Further, there are previous data demonstrating that the addition of carbohydrate to a high-fat meal blunts the postprandial lipaemic response, and the addition of fat to a high-carbohydrate meal blunts the postprandial glycaemic response. Thus, postprandial glycaemia and lipaemia are interrelated. The purpose of this brief review is 2-fold: first, to review the current evidence implicating postprandial glycaemia and lipaemia in chronic disease risk, and, second, to examine the possible utility of a single postprandial glycaemic and lipaemic summative value, which will be referred to as the metabolic load index. The potential benefits of the metabolic load index extend to the clinician, patient and researcher.

Information

Type
Full Papers
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2016 
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Postprandial lipaemia, postprandial hyperglycaemia and CVD risk. Multiple potential mechanisms exist to explain the connection between postprandial dysmetabolism (glycaemia and lipaemia) and CVD risk. Similar primary facets involved in both postprandial glycaemia and lipaemia are elevated markers of systemic inflammation, increased subendothelial retention of lipoproteins and increased intracellular adhesion molecules. See the ‘Mechanisms behind blood glucose and cardiovascular risk’ and ‘Mechanisms behind TAG and cardiovascular risk’ sections for more details. ROS, reactive oxygen species.

Figure 1

Fig. 2 Hourly changes in glucose, TAG and metabolic load index following a high-fat meal. These data were taken from a previously published study in our laboratory(79). This figure displays glucose (●),TAG (■) and metabolic load index (Δ) at baseline (time 0) and for 8 h during the postprandial period following consumption of a high-fat meal. With these data, fasting and postprandial metabolic load index can be determined by adding the TAG and glucose value at each time point. See the ‘Summing glucose and TAG to characterise “metabolic load index”’ section for more details. Values are means, with their standard errors.

Figure 2

Fig. 3 Postprandial TAG responses to a high-fat meal with (▲) and without (□) 75 g of added glucose. The TAG response is blunted in terms of both peak value and time to peak when glucose is added to the high-fat meal. Incremental AUC (iAUC) is 42 % lower in the fat meal with added glucose compared with the fat meal alone (P = 0·017). *Mean value was significantly different from that of the meal with added glucose at the same time point (P<0·05). Adapted with permission from Westphal et al.(84). Diff, difference.