Influence of oral processing behaviour and bolus properties of brown rice and chickpeas on in vitro starch digestion and postprandial glycaemic response

Yao Chen, Markus Stieger, Edoardo Capuano, Ciarán G Forde, Sandra van der Haar, Meeke Ummels, Heleen van den Bosch, Rene de Wijk, Yao Chen, Markus Stieger, Edoardo Capuano, Ciarán G Forde, Sandra van der Haar, Meeke Ummels, Heleen van den Bosch, Rene de Wijk

Abstract

Purpose: Oral processing behaviour may contribute to individual differences in glycaemic response to foods, especially in plant tissue where chewing behaviour can modulate release of starch from the cellular matrix. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of chewing time of two starch based foods (brown rice and chickpeas) on bolus properties, in vitro starch digestion and postprandial glycaemic excursion in healthy subjects.

Methods: In a cross-over trial participants (n = 26) consumed two carbohydrates-identical test meals (brown rice: 233 g; chickpeas: 323 g) with either long (brown rice: 41 s/bite; chickpeas: 37 s/bite) or short (brown rice: 23 s/bite; chickpeas: 20 s/bite) chewing time in duplicate while glycaemic responses were monitored using a continuous glucose monitoring device. Expectorated boli were collected, then bolus properties (number, mean area, saliva amylase activity) and in vitro starch digestion were determined.

Results: Longer chewing resulted in significantly (p < 0.05) more and smaller bolus particles, higher bolus saliva uptake and higher in vitro degree of intestinal starch hydrolysis (DH_Schewing time%) than shorter chewing for both foods (brown rice: DH_S%23 s = 84 ± 4% and DH_%S41s = 90 ± 6%; chickpeas: DH_S%20 s = 27 ± 3% and DH_%S37s = 34 ± 5%, p < 0.001). No significant effect of chewing time on glycaemic response (iAUC) (p > 0.05) was found for both meals. Brown rice showed significantly and considerably higher in vitro degree of intestinal starch hydrolysis and glycaemic response (iAUC) than chickpeas regardless of chewing time. No significant correlations were observed between bolus properties and in vitro starch hydrolysis or glycaemic response (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: Differences in the innate structure of starch based foods (brown rice compared to chickpeas) have a larger effect on postprandial glucose response than differences in mastication behaviour although oral processing behaviour showed consistent effects on bolus properties and in vitro starch digestion. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04648397 (First posted: December 1, 2020).

Keywords: Brown rice; Chewing time; Chickpeas; In vitro starch digestion; Postprandial glycaemic response.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Schematical overview of study process
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Bolus properties of brown rice and chickpeas chewed for short and long time. Brown rice chewed for 23 or 41 s; Chickpeas chewed for 20 or 37 s. a Representative pictures of expectorated boli of one participant. b Representative scans of separated boli particles of one participant. c Number of bolus particles (mean ± SD; Brown rice_23 s: n = 12; Brown rice_41 s: n = 16; Chickpeas_20 s: n = 8; Chickpeas_37 s: n = 16; duplicate). d Mean area of bolus particles (mean ± SD; Brown rice_23 s: n = 12; Brown rice_41 s: n = 16; Chickpeas_20 s: n = 8; Chickpeas_37 s: n = 16; duplicate). e Salivary amylase activity of bolus (U/g) (mean ± SD; Brown rice_23 s: n = 16; Brown rice _41 s: n = 13; Chickpeas_20 s: n = 13; Chickpeas_37 s: n = 13) Number (no.) and mean area (mm2) of bolus particles were normalized by weight (g) of scanned bolus. Different letters indicate significant differences between means between short and long chewing time (p < 0.05)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
In vitro degree of starch hydrolysis (DH_S%) of brown rice and chickpeas. Brown rice chewed for 23 or 41 s; Chickpeas chewed for 20 or 37 s. Brown rice_41 s is reported as mean ± SD of n = 16 participants. Brown rice_23 s is reported as mean ± SD of n = 12 participants. Chickpeas_37 s is reported as mean ± SD of n = 8 participants. Chickpeas_20 s is reported as mean ± SD of n = 16 participants
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Postprandial glycaemic response for four hours after lunch of brown rice and chickpeas chewed for short and long time. Brown rice chewed for 23 or 41 s; Chickpeas chewed for 20 or 37 s. Insert shows the incremental area under the curve (iAUC) for postprandial blood glucose at 0–30 min, between 30 and 150 min and total iAUC (0–240 min). Data is reported as mean ± SEM of n = 26 participants. Letters (a, b) indicate significant difference at p < 0.05 (Games-Howell multiple comparison tests)

References

    1. Mosca AC, van de Velde F, Bult JHF, van Boekel MAJS, Stieger M. Taste enhancement in food gels: effect of fracture properties on oral breakdown, bolus formation and sweetness intensity. Food Hydrocoll. 2015;43:794–802. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2014.08.009.
    1. Devezeaux de Lavergne M, van Delft M, van de Velde F, van Boekel MAJS, Stieger M. Dynamic texture perception and oral processing of semi-solid food gels: Part 1: comparison between QDA, progressive profiling and TDS. Food Hydrocoll. 2015;43:207–217. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2014.05.020.
    1. Read NW, Welch IM, Austen CJ, Barnish C, Bartlett CE, Baxter AJ, et al. Swallowing food without chewing; a simple way to reduce postprandial glycaemia. Br J Nutr. 1986;55(1):43–47. doi: 10.1079/bjn19860008.
    1. Suzuki H, Fukushima M, Okamoto S, Takahashi O, Shimbo T, Kurose T, et al. Effects of thorough mastication on postprandial plasma glucose concentrations in nonobese Japanese subjects. Metabolism. 2005;54(12):1593–1599. doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2005.06.006.
    1. Ranawana V, Henry CJK, Pratt M. Degree of habitual mastication seems to contribute to interindividual variations in the glycemic response to rice but not to spaghetti. Nutr Res. 2010;30(6):382–391. doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2010.06.002.
    1. American Diabetes Association 5 Prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(Supplement 1):S31–2. doi: 10.2337/dc15-S008.
    1. Blaak EE, Antoine JM, Benton D, Björck I, Bozzetto L, Brouns F, et al. Impact of postprandial glycaemia on health and prevention of disease. Obes Rev. 2012;13(10):923–984. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2012.01011.x.
    1. Gallwitz B. Implications of postprandial glucose and weight control in people with type 2 diabetes: understanding and implementing the International Diabetes Federation guidelines. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(Supplement 2):S322–S325. doi: 10.2337/dc09-s331.
    1. Fischer K, Colombani PC, Langhans W, Wenk C. Cognitive performance and its relationship with postprandial metabolic changes after ingestion of different macronutrients in the morning. Br J Nutr. 2001;85(3):393–405. doi: 10.1079/BJN2000269.
    1. Zeevi D, Korem T, Zmora N, Israeli D, Rothschild D, Weinberger A, et al. Personalized nutrition by prediction of glycemic responses. Cell. 2015;163(5):1079–1094. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.11.001.
    1. Zhu Y, Hsu WH, Hollis JH. Increasing the number of masticatory cycles is associated with reduced appetite and altered postprandial plasma concentrations of gut hormones, insulin and glucose. Br J Nutr. 2013;110(2):384–390. doi: 10.1017/S0007114512005053.
    1. Ranawana V, Clegg ME, Shafat A, Henry CJ. Postmastication digestion factors influence glycemic variability in humans. Nutr Res. 2011;31(6):452–459. doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2011.05.006.
    1. Ranawana V, Leow MKS, Henry CJK. Mastication effects on the glycaemic index: impact on variability and practical implications. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2014;68(1):137–139. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2013.231.
    1. Goh AT, Choy JYM, Chua XH, Ponnalagu S, Khoo CM, Whitton C, et al. Increased oral processing and a slower eating rate increase glycaemic, insulin and satiety responses to a mixed meal tolerance test. Eur J Nutr. 2021;60:2719–2733. doi: 10.1007/s00394-020-02466-z.
    1. Golding M. Exploring and exploiting the role of food structure in digestion. Interdisciplinary approaches to food digestion. 2019 doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-03901-1_5.
    1. Mandel AL, Breslin PAS. High endogenous salivary amylase activity is associated with improved glycemic homeostasis following starch ingestion in adults. J Nutr. 2012;142(5):853–858. doi: 10.3945/jn.111.156984.
    1. Tan VMH, Ooi DSQ, Kapur J, Wu T, Chan YH, Henry CJ, et al. The role of digestive factors in determining glycemic response in a multiethnic Asian population. Eur J Nutr. 2016;55(4):1573–1581. doi: 10.1007/s00394-015-0976-0.
    1. Kubala E, Strzelecka P, Grzegocka M, Lietz-Kijak D, Gronwald H, Skomro P, et al. A review of selected studies that determine the physical and chemical properties of saliva in the field of dental treatment. Biomed Res Int. 2018 doi: 10.1155/2018/6572381 .
    1. Madhu V, Shirali A, Pawaskarz PN, Madi D, Chowta N, Ramapuram JT. Mastication frequency and postprandial blood sugar levels in normoglycaemic and dysglycaemic individuals: a cross-sectional comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(7):6–8. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/18855.8082.
    1. Chen Y, Capuano E, Stieger M. Chew on it: influence of oral processing behaviour on in vitro protein digestion of chicken and soy-based vegetarian chicken. Br J Nutr. 2020;126(9):1408–1419. doi: 10.1017/S0007114520005176.
    1. Devezeaux M, Van De VF, Van BMAJS, Stieger M. Dynamic texture perception and oral processing of semi-solid food gels : Part 2: impact of breakdown behaviour on bolus properties and dynamic texture perception. Food Hydrocoll. 2015;49:61–72. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2015.02.037.
    1. Brodkorb A, Egger L, Alminger M, Alvito P, Assunção R, Ballance S, et al. INFOGEST static in vitro simulation of gastrointestinal food digestion. Nat Protoc. 2019;14(4):991–1014. doi: 10.1038/s41596-018-0119-1.
    1. Dartois A, Singh J, Kaur L, Singh H. Influence of guar gum on the in vitro starch digestibility-rheological and Microstructural characteristics. Food Biophys. 2010;5(3):149–160. doi: 10.1007/s11483-010-9155-2.
    1. Monro J, Mishra S, Blandford E, Anderson J, Genet R. Potato genotype differences in nutritionally distinct starch fractions after cooking, and cooking plus storing cool. J Food Compos Anal. 2009;22(6):539–545. doi: 10.1016/j.jfca.2008.11.008.
    1. Freitas D, Le Feunteun S, Panouillé M, Souchon I. The important role of salivary α-amylase in the gastric digestion of wheat bread starch. Food Funct. 2018;9(1):200–208. doi: 10.1039/c7fo01484h.
    1. Gigliola A, Parada J, Cataldo LR, Vega J, Aguilera CM, Alvarez-Mercado AI, et al. Glycemic response after starch consumption in relation to salivary amylase activity and copy-number variation of AMY1 gene. J Food Nutr Res. 2015;3(8):558–563. doi: 10.12691/jfnr-3-8-11.
    1. Edwards CH, Warren FJ, Campbell GM, Gaisford S, Royall PG, Butterworth J, et al. A study of starch gelatinisation behaviour in hydrothermally-processed plant food tissues and implications for in vitro digestibility. Food Funct. 2015;6:3634–3641. doi: 10.1039/c5fo00754b.
    1. Dhital S, Bhattarai RR, Gorham J, Gidley MJ. Intactness of cell wall structure controls the in vitro digestion of starch in legumes. Food Funct. 2016;7:1367–1379. doi: 10.1039/c5fo01104c.
    1. Li J, Zhang N, Hu L, Li Z, Li R, Li C, et al. Improvement in chewing activity reduces energy intake in one meal and modulates plasma gut hormone concentrations in obese and lean young Chinese men. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;94(3):709–716. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.111.015164.
    1. Karl JP, Young AJ, Montain SJ. Eating rate during a fixed-portion meal does not affect postprandial appetite and gut peptides or energy intake during a subsequent meal. Physiol Behav. 2011;102(5):524–531. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.01.007.
    1. Borvornparadorn M, Sapampai V, Champakerdsap C, Kurupakorn W, Sapwarobol S. Increased chewing reduces energy intake, but not postprandial glucose and insulin, in healthy weight and overweight young adults. Nutr Diet. 2019;76(1):89–94. doi: 10.1111/1747-0080.12433.
    1. Kokkinos A, Le Roux CW, Alexiadou K, Tentolouris N, Vincent RP, Kyriaki D, et al. Eating slowly increases the postprandial response of the anorexigenic gut hormones, peptide YY and glucagon-like peptide-1. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010;95(1):333–337. doi: 10.1210/jc.2009-1018.
    1. Zhu Y, Hsu WH, Hollis JH. Increased number of chews during a fixed-amount meal suppresses postprandial appetite and modulates glycemic response in older males. Physiol Behav. 2014;133:136–140. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.05.011.
    1. Sato A, Ohtsuka Y, Yamanaka Y. Morning mastication enhances postprandial glucose metabolism in healthy young subjects. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2019;249(3):193–201. doi: 10.1620/tjem.249.193.
    1. Pallares Pallares A, Loosveldt B, Karimi SN, Hendrickx M, Grauwet T. Effect of process-induced common bean hardness on structural properties of in vivo generated boluses and consequences for in vitro starch digestion kinetics. Br J Nutr. 2019;122(4):388–399. doi: 10.1017/S0007114519001624.
    1. Zahir M, Fogliano V, Capuano E. Food matrix and processing modulate: in vitro protein digestibility in soybeans. Food Funct. 2018;9(12):6326–6336. doi: 10.1039/c8fo01385c.
    1. Ranawana V, Monro JA, Mishra S, Henry CJK. Degree of particle size breakdown during mastication may be a possible cause of interindividual glycemic variability. Nutr Res. 2010;30(4):246–254. doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2010.02.004.
    1. Lau E, Soong YY, Zhou W, Henry J. Can bread processing conditions alter glycaemic response? Food Chem. 2015;173:250–256. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.10.040.
    1. Al-Rabadi GJS, Gilbert RG, Gidley MJ. Effect of particle size on kinetics of starch digestion in milled barley and sorghum grains by porcine alpha-amylase. J Cereal Sci. 2009;50(2):198–204. doi: 10.1016/j.jcs.2009.05.001.
    1. Mahasukhonthachat K, Sopade PA, Gidley MJ. Kinetics of starch digestion in sorghum as affected by particle size. J Food Eng. 2010;96(1):18–28. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2009.06.051.
    1. Engelen L, Fontijn-Tekamp A, Van Der Bilt A. The influence of product and oral characteristics on swallowing. Arch Oral Biol. 2005;50(8):739–746. doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2005.01.004.
    1. Bolhuis DP, Forde CG. Application of food texture to moderate oral processing behaviors and energy intake. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2020;106:445–456. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2020.10.021.
    1. Pu D, Duan W, Huang Y, Zhang L, Zhang Y, Sun B, et al. Characterization of the dynamic texture perception and the impact factors on the bolus texture changes during oral processing. Food Chem. 2021;339:128078. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.128078.
    1. Edwards CH, Grundy MML, Grassby T, Vasilopoulou D, Frost GS, Butterworth PJ, et al. Manipulation of starch bioaccessibility in wheat endosperm to regulate starch digestion, postprandial glycemia, insulinemia, and gut hormone responses: a randomized controlled trial in healthy ileostomy participants. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;102(4):791–800. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.114.106203.
    1. Rovalino-Córdova AM, Fogliano V, Capuano E. A closer look to cell structural barriers affecting starch digestibility in beans. Carbohydr Polym. 2018;181:994–1002. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.11.050.
    1. Miraji KF, Linnemann AR, Fogliano V, Laswai HS, Capuano E. Nutritional quality and in vitro digestion of immature rice-based processed products. Food Funct. 2020;11(9):7611–7625. doi: 10.1039/d0fo01668c.
    1. Moongngarm A, Bronlund J, Grigg N, Sriwai N. Chewing behavior and bolus properties as affected by different rice types. Int J Med Biol Sci. 2012;6:51–56. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1079549.
    1. Huang J, Schols HA, van Soest JJG, Jin Z, Sulmann E, Voragen AGJ. Physicochemical properties and amylopectin chain profiles of cowpea, chickpea and yellow pea starches. Food Chem. 2007;101(4):1338–1345. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.03.039.
    1. Polesi LF, Bruder Silveira Sarmento S, Prudente B, dos Anjos C. Composition and characterization of pea and chickpea starches. Brazilian J Food Technol. 2011;14(01):74–81. doi: 10.4260/bjft2011140100010.
    1. Cai M, Dou B, Pugh JE, Lett AM, Frost GS. The impact of starchy food structure on postprandial glycemic response and appetite: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized crossover trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2021;114(2):472–487. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqab098.
    1. Wolever TMS, Van Klinken BJW, Bordenave N, Kaczmarczyk M, Jenkins AL, Chu YF, et al. Reformulating cereal bars: high resistant starch reduces in vitro digestibility but not in vivo glucose or insulin response; Whey protein reduces glucose but disproportionately increases insulin. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016;104(4):995–1003. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.116.132431.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi