Pasta Structure Affects Mastication, Bolus Properties, and Postprandial Glucose and Insulin Metabolism in Healthy Adults

Saara Vanhatalo, Margherita Dall'Asta, Marta Cossu, Laura Chiavaroli, Veronica Francinelli, Giuseppe Di Pede, Rossella Dodi, Johanna Närväinen, Monica Antonini, Matteo Goldoni, Ulla Holopainen-Mantila, Alessandra Dei Cas, Riccardo Bonadonna, Furio Brighenti, Kaisa Poutanen, Francesca Scazzina, Saara Vanhatalo, Margherita Dall'Asta, Marta Cossu, Laura Chiavaroli, Veronica Francinelli, Giuseppe Di Pede, Rossella Dodi, Johanna Närväinen, Monica Antonini, Matteo Goldoni, Ulla Holopainen-Mantila, Alessandra Dei Cas, Riccardo Bonadonna, Furio Brighenti, Kaisa Poutanen, Francesca Scazzina

Abstract

Background: Structure and protein-starch interactions in pasta products can be responsible for lower postprandial glycemic responses compared with other cereal foods.

Objectives: We tested the effect on postprandial glucose metabolism induced by 2 pasta products, couscous, and bread, through their structural changes during mastication and simulated gastric digestion.

Methods: Two randomized controlled trials (n = 30/trial) in healthy, normal-weight adults (mean BMI of 23.9 kg/m2 (study 1) and 23.0 kg/m2 (study 2)) evaluated postprandial glucose metabolism modulation to portions of durum wheat semolina spaghetti, penne, couscous, and bread each containing 50 g available carbohydrate. A mastication trial involving 26 normal-weight adults was conducted to investigate mastication processes and changes in particle size distribution and microstructure (light microscopy) of boluses after mastication and in vitro gastric digestion.

Results: Both pasta products resulted in lower areas under the 2-h curve for blood glucose (-40% for spaghetti and -22% for penne compared with couscous; -41% for spaghetti and -30% for penne compared with bread), compared with the other grain products (P < 0.05). Pasta products required more chews (spaghetti: 34 ± 18; penne: 38 ± 20; bread: 27 ± 13; couscous: 24 ± 17) and longer oral processing (spaghetti: 21 ± 13 s; penne: 23 ± 14 s; bread: 18 ± 9 s; couscous: 14 ± 10 s) compared with bread or couscous (P < 0.01). Pastas contained more large particles (46-67% of total particle area) compared with bread (0-30%) and couscous (1%) after mastication and in vitro gastric digestion. After in vitro gastric digestion, pasta samples still contained large areas of nonhydrolyzed starch embedded within the protein network; the protein in bread and couscous was almost entirely digested, and the starch was hydrolyzed.

Conclusions: Preservation of the pasta structure during mastication and gastric digestion explains slower starch hydrolysis and, consequently, lower postprandial glycemia compared with bread or couscous prepared from the same durum wheat semolina flour in healthy adults.The postprandial in vivo trials were registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03098017 and NCT03104686.

Keywords: C-peptide response; glycemic response; insulin response; mastication; structure.

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society for Nutrition.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Design of the study.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Incremental AUC and incremental postprandial curve (0–120 min) for capillary blood glucose (A), plasma insulin (B), and plasma C-peptide (C) for pasta products (penne and spaghetti), couscous, and glucose, all consumed at 50 g available carbohydrate (n = 30) (study 1). Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. Labeled means in the bars without a common letter differ, P < 0.05.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Incremental AUC and incremental postprandial response curve (0–120 min) for capillary blood glucose (A), plasma insulin (B), and plasma C-peptide (C) for pasta products (penne and spaghetti), bread, and glucose, all consumed at 50 g available carbohydrate (n = 30) (study 2). Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. Labeled means in the bars without a common letter differ, P < 0.05.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Average mastication parameters (n = 26) for mouthful of samples for (A) number of chews, (B) duration of oral processing (seconds), and (C) relative work (%, calculated relative to the work used for chewing gum). The error bars shown are average of SDs for the 4 muscles analyzed. Labeled means in the bars without a common letter differ, P < 0.05.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Photographs of pooled boluses (n = 12) after mastication (A) and after in vitro gastric digestion (C), and particle area distribution of the same samples (B and D). The curves represent a cumulative percentage of the total area occupied by particles. Values for particle area are logarithmic.
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Light micrographs of pooled boluses (n = 12) after mastication and after in vitro gastric digestion. Protein appears green (stained with Light Green) and starch granules purple (stained with Lugol iodine). Scale bar is 500 μm in the main figures showing the overall appearance of the bolus particles, and 20 μm in the subfigures presenting the outermost layer of bolus particles.
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 7
Mastication-induced post vivo starch hydrolysis during 30-min incubation. Values (mean and SD) are percentages of hydrolyzed starch from initial starch of the pooled bolus samples (n = 12).

References

    1. Singh J, Dartois A, Kaur L. Starch digestibility in food matrix: a review. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2010;21(4):168–80.
    1. Singh H, Ye A, Ferrua MJ. Aspects of food structures in the digestive tract. Curr Opin Food Sci. 2015;3:85–93.
    1. Bornhorst GM, Singh RP. Bolus formation and disintegration during digestion of food carbohydrates. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2012;11(2):101–18.
    1. Autio K, Parkkonen T, Fabritius M. Observing structural differences in wheat and rye breads. Cereal Foods World. 1997;42(8):702–5.
    1. Hébrard A, Oulahna D, Galet L, Cuq B, Abecassis J, Fages J. Hydration properties of durum wheat semolina: influence of particle size and temperature. Powder Technol. 2003;130(1):211–18.
    1. Petitot M, Abecassis J, Micard V. Structuring of pasta components during processing: impact on starch and protein digestibility and allergenicity. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2009;20(11):521–32.
    1. Zou W, Sissons M, Gidley MJ, Gilbert RG, Warren FJ. Combined techniques for characterising pasta structure reveals how the gluten network slows enzymic digestion rate. Food Chem. 2015;188:559–68.
    1. Cunin C, Handschin S, Walther P, Escher F. Structural changes of starch during cooking of durum wheat pasta. LWT Food Sci Technol. 1995;28(3):323–8.
    1. Englyst HN, Veenstra J, Hudson GJ. Measurement of rapidly available glucose (RAG) in plant foods: a potential in vitro predictor of the glycaemic response. Br J Nutr. 1996;75(3):327–37.
    1. Scazzina F, Dall'Asta M, Casiraghi MC, Sieri S, Del Rio D, Pellegrini N, Brighenti F. Glycemic index and glycemic load of commercial Italian foods. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2016;26(5):419–29.
    1. Huang M, Li J, Ha MA, Riccardi G, Liu S. A systematic review on the relations between pasta consumption and cardio-metabolic risk factors. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2017;27(11):939–48.
    1. Chiavaroli L, Di Pede G, Dall'Asta M, Cossu M, Francinelli V, Goldoni M, Scazzina F, Brighenti F. The importance of glycemic index on post-prandial glycaemia in the context of mixed meals: a randomized controlled trial on pasta and rice. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2020;31(2):615–25.
    1. Welch RW, Antoine JM, Berta JL, Bub A, de Vries J, Guarner F, Hasselwander O, Hendriks H, Jakel M, Koletzko BVet al. . Guidelines for the design, conduct and reporting of human intervention studies to evaluate the health benefits of foods. Br J Nutr. 2011;106(Suppl 2):S3–15.
    1. ISO . Food products—determination of the glycaemic index (GI) and recommendation for food classification. ISO 26642:2010. International Organization for Standardization;2010.
    1. Brighenti F, Benini L, Del Rio D, Casiraghi C, Pellegrini N, Scazzina F, Jenkins DJ, Vantini I. Colonic fermentation of indigestible carbohydrates contributes to the second-meal effect. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;83(4):817–22.
    1. Pentikäinen S, Sozer N, Närväinen J, Sipilä K, Alam SA, Heiniö R-L, Paananen J, Poutanen K, Kolehmainen M. Do rye product structure, product perceptions and oral processing modulate satiety?. Food Qual Preference. 2017;60:178–87.
    1. Granfeldt Y, Björck I, Drews A, Tovar J. An in vitro procedure based on chewing to predict metabolic response to starch in cereal and legume products. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1992;46(9):649–60.
    1. Pentikäinen S, Sozer N, Närväinen J, Ylätalo S, Teppola P, Jurvelin J, Holopainen-Mantila U, Törrönen R, Aura A-M, Poutanen K. Effects of wheat and rye bread structure on mastication process and bolus properties. Food Res Int. 2014;66:356–64.
    1. Foster-Powell K, Holt SHA, Brand-Miller JC. International table of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 2002. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;76(1):5–56.
    1. Atkinson FS, Foster-Powell K, Brand-Miller JC. International tables of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 2008. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(12):2281–3.
    1. Foster-Powell K, Miller JB. International tables of glycemic index. Am J Clin Nutr. 1995;62(4):871S–90S.
    1. Holt SH, Miller JC, Petocz P. An insulin index of foods: the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997;66(5):1264–76.
    1. Englyst KN, Vinoy S, Englyst HN, Lang V. Glycaemic index of cereal products explained by their content of rapidly and slowly available glucose. Br J Nutr. 2003;89(3):329–40.
    1. Hoebler C, Karinthi A, Devaux MF, Guillon F, Gallant DJ, Bouchet B, Melegari C, Barry JL. Physical and chemical transformations of cereal food during oral digestion in human subjects. Br J Nutr. 1998;80(5):429–36.
    1. Juntunen KS, Laaksonen DE, Autio K, Niskanen LK, Holst JJ, Savolainen KE, Liukkonen KH, Poutanen KS, Mykkänen HM. Structural differences between rye and wheat breads but not total fiber content may explain the lower postprandial insulin response to rye bread. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;78(5):957–64.
    1. Bornhorst GM, Singh RP. Gastric digestion in vivo and in vitro: how the structural aspects of food influence the digestion process. Annu Rev Food Sci. 2014;5(1):111–32.
    1. Wolever TM, Jenkins DJ, Kalmusky J, Giordano C, Giudici S, Jenkins AL, Thompson LU, Wong GS, Josse RG. Glycemic response to pasta: effect of surface area, degree of cooking, and protein enrichment. Diabetes Care. 1986;9(4):401–4.
    1. Granfeldt Y, Björck I, Hagander B. On the importance of processing conditions, product thickness and egg addition for the glycaemic and hormonal responses to pasta: a comparison with bread made from ‘pasta ingredients’. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991;45(10):489–99.
    1. Jayedi A, Soltani S, Jenkins D, Sievenpiper J, Shab-Bidar S. Dietary glycemic index, glycemic load, and chronic disease: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2020:1–10.
    1. Livesey G, Livesey H. Coronary heart disease and dietary carbohydrate, glycemic index, and glycemic load: dose-response meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2019;3(1):52–69.
    1. Jenkins DJA, Dehghan M, Mente A, Bangdiwala SI, Rangarajan S, Srichaikul K, Mohan V, Avezum A, Díaz R, Rosengren Aet al. . Glycemic index, glycemic load, and cardiovascular disease and mortality. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(14):1312–22.
    1. Augustin LS, Kendall CW, Jenkins DJ, Willett WC, Astrup A, Barclay AW, Bjorck I, Brand-Miller JC, Brighenti F, Buyken AEet al. . Glycemic index, glycemic load and glycemic response: an International Scientific Consensus Summit from the International Carbohydrate Quality Consortium (ICQC). Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2015;25(9):795–815.
    1. Blaak EE, Antoine JM, Benton D, Bjorck I, Bozzetto L, Brouns F, Diamant M, Dye L, Hulshof T, Holst JJet al. . Impact of postprandial glycaemia on health and prevention of disease. Obes Rev. 2012;13(10):923–84.
    1. Scazzina F, Dei Cas A, Del Rio D, Brighenti F, Bonadonna RC. The β-cell burden index of food: a proposal. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2016;26(10):872–8.
    1. Ludwig DS. The glycemic index: physiological mechanisms relating to obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. JAMA. 2002;287(18):2414–23.
    1. Pounis G, Castelnuovo AD, Costanzo S, Persichillo M, Bonaccio M, Bonanni A, Cerletti C, Donati MB, de Gaetano G, Iacoviello L. Association of pasta consumption with body mass index and waist-to-hip ratio: results from Moli-sani and INHES studies. Nutr Diabetes. 2016;6(7):e218.
    1. Vitale M, Masulli M, Rivellese AA, Bonora E, Babini AC, Sartore G, Corsi L, Buzzetti R, Citro G, Baldassarre MPAet al. . Pasta consumption and connected dietary habits: associations with glucose control, adiposity measures, and cardiovascular risk factors in people with type 2 diabetes— Study. Nutrients. 2019;12(1):101.
    1. Rosi A, Tesan M, Cremonini A, Biasini B, Bicchieri L, Cossu M, Brighenti F, Dall'Aglio E, Scazzina F. Body weight of individuals with obesity decreases after a 6-month high pasta or low pasta Mediterranean diet weight-loss intervention. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2020;30(6):984–95.
    1. Chiavaroli L, Kendall CWC, Braunstein CR, Blanco Mejia S, Leiter LA, Jenkins DJA, Sievenpiper JL. Effect of pasta in the context of low-glycaemic index dietary patterns on body weight and markers of adiposity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in adults. BMJ Open. 2018;8(3):e019438.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever