Glucose ResponseNCT06152874
Glycemic and Insulinemic Response of Durum Wheat Bread
A study testing consumption of glucose solution 1, consumption of glucose solution 2 and consumption of Bread A and oral processing in people with Glucose Response and Glycemic Index, run by University of Udine at 1 site in Italy.
Trial summary
In the last decades, the consumption of energy-dense diets, primarily consisting of highly digestible starchy foods like bread, along with a global increase in obesity rates and a sedentary lifestyle, has emerged as the main contributors to the development of non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular diseases… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 50 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Glucose Response, Glycemic Index, Insulin Response
- What is being tested?
- consumption of glucose solution 1, consumption of glucose solution 2 and consumption of Bread A and oral processing
- Type of treatment
- Pill or oral medicine
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 16 participants
- Where
- 1 siteItaly
- Study dates
- 19 Sep 2023to 23 Dec 2023
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 50 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Age between 18-50 years old;
- Have good general health;
- Have normal smell and taste functions;
- Have a normal body mass index (BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m2) (based on self-reported weight and height).
Who cannot join
- Have dental braces or a piercing in or around the mouth (except removable piercings);
- Use medications known to affect glucose tolerance and influence digestion and absorption of nutrients (excluding oral contraceptives) - stable doses of oral contraceptives, acetylsalicylic acid, thyroxin, vitamins, and mineral supplements or drugs to treat hypertension are acceptable.
- Have a known history of diabetes mellitus or the use of antihyperglycemic drugs or insulin to treat diabetes and related conditions;
- Have a major medical or surgical event requiring hospitalization within the preceding 3 months;
- Have any food allergy or intolerance for gluten;
- Being pregnant or lactating (self-reported);
- Use medication that may affect the function of taste, smell, mastication, and salivation;
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Italy1 site
Department of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Sciences, University of Udine,
Udine, 33100
About this study
Official title: The Combined Effect of Gluten Addition and Cell Wall Integrity in Durum Wheat Bread on Glycemic and Insulinemic Response in Vivo.
In the last decades, the consumption of energy-dense diets, primarily consisting of highly digestible starchy foods like bread, along with a global increase in obesity rates and a sedentary lifestyle, has emerged as the main contributors to the development of non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and diabetes type 2. Therefore, there is a need to reduce the starch digestibility of bakery products, and in turn their glycemic index, with a specific emphasis on wheat bread. Several strategies have been used to decrease the glycemic index and insulin response of bread; however, most of these techniques have a detrimental effect on the texture, volume, taste, and color of bread, limiting the consumer's acceptability. Preservation of the native microstructure (cell wall integrity) and employing processing techniques to create a macrostructure (protein network and food matrix) can be used to influence the product structure and therefore how the product is chewed (oral processing), and how these factors can affect carbohydrate digestion and glycemic response. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of different textural characteristics of bread on oral processing in relation to the glycemic and insulin response of the three breads. In the present study, a total of 16 healthy volunteers will be recruited, and if eligible (they need to meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria), they will attend an oral processing test on three breads, a test to measure the glycemic index (ISO) and insulin response.
The bread sample composition will be as follows:
Bread A is made with 95% durum wheat fine semolina (< 400 micrometer) + 5% gluten+ 1.2% yeast + 1% salt + 59% water Bread B is made with 80% durum wheat fine semolina (< 400 micrometer) + 20% gluten+ 1.2% yeast + 1% salt + 59 % water Bread C is made with 80% durum wheat coarse semolina (> 500 micrometer) + 20% gluten+ 1.2% yeast + 1% salt + 59 % water.
Read the detailed description
Worldwide, the number of people suffering from type 2 diabetes is around 422 million, and this number is continuously rising. It is globally agreed that, by 2025, serious action against the spread of this disease must be taken, also because diabetes is a major cause of the development of cardiovascular diseases. The spread of diabetes in the last decades is the result of a global rise in obesity, a more sedentary lifestyle, and an energy-dense diet, given the overconsumption of mainly highly digestible starchy food. Among highly digestible starchy foods, bread is a staple food consumed daily in western countries and is characterized by a high glycemic index. Carbohydrate-rich foods can be divided into three categories depending on their glycemic index (GI) (low: GI < 55, medium: 55 < GI < 69, or high: GI > 70). This classification is based on how the consumption of food containing carbohydrates affects the blood glucose level in relation to a reference food (such as glucose solution or white bread), which has the same quantity of available carbohydrates (50 g). Foods with a high GI induce a significant rise in postprandial blood glucose concentration and, consequently, a high insulin response, which could lead to hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance. For this reason, how to decrease the blood glucose response of starchy foods, such as bread, and consequently its GI, has been extensively studied in the last few decades. In plant food, starch granules are naturally encapsulated in the cell. For cereals, the intact cell could limit the accessibility of starch in flours (wheat, sorghum, and barley) and simple food products such as porridge both in vitro and in vivo. However, when coarse flour containing intact cells is used to produce complex foods, such as bread, this effect of protection is lost. The authors hypothesized that during the long mixing time and fermentation, the cell walls increased their porosity due to the solubilization of the cell wall components, such as beta-glucans and arabinoxylans, increasing the diffusivity of the enzymes inside the cell. Moreover, in bread, the addition of coarse flour could also limit the cohesiveness of the crumb, increasing the disintegration rate and, in turn, the contact surface between the enzyme and its substrate. For these reasons, coarse flour could not efficiently decrease the in vitro starch digestibility of bakery products. Protein, the second macronutrient present in cereals, also has a role in decreasing starch digestibility. Gliadin and glutenin, which are the main proteins of wheat grain, formed a discontinuous network that surrounded the starch granules, named gluten. It has been demonstrated that a dense and compact gluten network could decrease starch accessibility, acting as a barrier between starch and enzyme.More specifically, in pasta, its lower glucose release and, in turn, its lower GI compared to bread must be researched in light of the dense and compact structure given by the strong gluten network. Indeed, the dense structure of pasta limits disintegration during oral processing and gastric digestion. This leads to lower postprandial glycemic and insulinemic responses compared to foods with the same recipe but a more porous and easier-to-disintegrate structure. A strong gluten network in bread could, therefore, change the crumb structure, increasing the crumb cohesiveness and resilience.
There is mounting evidence that demonstrates that food structure plays an important role in the digestion and absorption of nutrients. Bread texture affects bread disintegration during the gastric phase, but it mainly influences oral processing and the mastication rate. Oral processing behavior contributes to individual differences in glycemic response to foods, especially in plant tissue, where chewing behavior can modulate the release of starch from the cellular matrix. The addition of gluten cannot only physically hamper the contact between starch and enzyme and reduce the physical disintegration during gastric digestion, but it was also demonstrated that this protein complex could bind pancreatic alpha-amylase and consequently inhibit starch digestibility. The aim of this study is to examine the effect of different textural characteristics of bread on oral processing in relation to the glycemic and insulinemic responses of the three breads. A total of 16 healthy volunteers will be recruited, and if eligible (they need to meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria), they will attend an oral processing test on three breads, a test to measure the glycemic index (ISO) and insulin response.
The bread sample composition will be as follows:
Bread A is made with 95% durum wheat fine semolina (< 400 micrometer) + 5% gluten+ 1.2% yeast + 1% salt + 59% water Bread B is made with 80% durum wheat fine semolina (< 400 micrometer) + 20% gluten+ 1.2% yeast + 1% salt + 59 % water Bread C is made with 80% durum wheat coarse semolina (> 500 micrometer) + 20% gluten+ 1.2% yeast + 1% salt + 59 % water.
For the determination of glycaemic index and insulin response, one fasting capillary blood sample will be taken within 5 minutes, immediately after the participants arrive in the departments. These blood sample results will be used as the baseline blood glucose concentration, expressed in millimoles per liter (mmol/L), and insulin concentration, expressed in milliliters per liter (mU/L). The bread samples and the glucose solution will contain 50 g of available carbohydrates. The different bread samples and glucose solutions will be served to the volunteers using a randomized schedule, and they will finish the portion within 12 to 15 minutes. Test foods will be served with 250 mL of room-temperature natural water; each subject will be asked to drink the same volume for all the tests. The blood sample will be taken at six points (15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes) after the exact time at which the participant started to consume the sample. During testing, the subjects will rest and stay seated. Capillary blood samples will be taken by finger-prick analysis using a sampling lancet (21G x 1.8 mm, ACCU-CHEK Safe-T-Pro Plus, Roche, Switzerland). The blood will be collected in two tubes. At each time point, 3-4 drops of blood will be collected in one Microvette® CB 300 Fluoride/Heparin (SARSTEDT AG \& Co., Nümbrech, Germany) for the analysis of capillary blood glucose, and 6-8 drops will be collected in one Microvette® B 300 K2E (Sarstedt Ltd., Germany) for the analysis of plasma insulin. The tubes collected for blood glucose will be immediately analyzed, while plasma from the second set of tubes will be obtained after centrifugation at 4500 rpm for 10 min at 4 °C (Labnet Hermle tabletop Centrifuge Z 200 M/H, Labnet International, Inc., New York, USA) and stored at -80 °C for insulin determination. Blood glucose analysis will be performed using the YSI 2500 Biochemistry Analyzer (Yellow Springs Instrument Company, USA). Insulin concentrations in plasma samples will be determined using a specific immunoassay test kit (Mercodia Insulin ELISA 10-1113-10, Mercodia AB-Uppsala, Sweden). Hunger, satiety, and gastrointestinal symptoms ratings after the test meal consumption will be evaluated with a self-reported questionnaire administered to the volunteers to check subjective feelings of fullness, hunger, and gastrointestinal symptoms at specific time points (before eating, [T0], and after, 30, 60, and 120 min) using a 10 cm visual analog scale. Oral processing parameters will be evaluated for each bread sample through video recording. During this session, the participants will be seated in a chair, and in front of them, there will be a desk with a camera approximately 50 cm from their faces. Participants will be instructed to place the whole sample in the mouth (e.g., a single bite) and to chew naturally until the bolus is ready for swallowing. The oral processing behavior will be described by the following parameters, which will be extracted from video recordings manually: Number of chews and swallows; total eating duration in seconds; chewing rate (number of chews per minute). The food bolus will be evaluated for each bread sample through image analysis to determine particle size distribution and the number of particles present in the bolus, as well as the moisture content, saliva content (grams of saliva per 100 g of bread), and saliva incorporation rate (grams of saliva per minute). For the determination of reducing sugars, the participants will be asked to chew and spit two bites of bread. In the first bolus, HCl will be added to immediately stop the alpha-amylase activity, and then the reducing sugar content will be quantified. For the second one, the reaction will be stopped after 15 minutes, and then the reducing sugars will be measured. The reducing sugars will be anlyzed by the 3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid (DNS) method.
- Conditions
- Glucose Response, Glycemic Index, Insulin Response, Oral Processing
- Being tested
- consumption of glucose solution 1, consumption of glucose solution 2, consumption of Bread A and oral processing, consumption of Bread B and oral processing, consumption of Bread C and oral processing
- Keywords
- glucose, insulin, durum wheat bread, oral processing, salivary amylase activity
- Medical subject headings
- Insulin Resistance
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
consumption of glucose solution 1Other
Also called glucose solution
glucose solution prepared dissolving 55 g of monohydrate glucose powder in 250 mL of water
consumption of glucose solution 2Other
Also called glucose solution
glucose solution prepared dissolving 55 g of monohydrate glucose powder in 250 mL of water
consumption of Bread A and oral processingOther
bread made with 95% durum wheat fine semolina (< 400 micrometer) + 5% of gluten + 1.2% of yeast + 1% of salt + 59%of water) (portion corresponding to 50 g available carbohydrates) + 250 mL water
consumption of Bread B and oral processingOther
bread made with 80% durum wheat fine semolina (< 400micrometer) + 20% of gluten+ 1.2% of yeast + 1% of salt + 59%of water (portion corresponding to 50g available carbohydrates) +250 mL water
consumption of Bread C and oral processingOther
bread made with 80% durum wheat coarse semolina (> 500micrometer)+ 20% of gluten+ 1.2% of yeast + 1% of salt + 59%of water (portion corresponding to 50g available carbohydrates) +250 mL water
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| glucose solution 1 | Active comparator | glucose solution prepared dissolving 55 g of monohydrate glucose powder in 250 mL of water Receives: Other: consumption of glucose solution 1 |
| glucose solution 2 | Active comparator | glucose solution prepared dissolving 55 g of monohydrate glucose powder in 250 mL of water Receives: Other: consumption of glucose solution 2 |
| BREAD A | Experimental | bread made with 95% durum wheat fine semolina (< 400 micrometer)+ 5% of gluten+ 1.2% of yeast + 1% of salt + 59% of water (portion corresponding to 50 g available carbohydrates) +250 mL water Receives: Other: consumption of Bread A and oral processing |
| BREAD B | Experimental | bread made with 80% durum wheat fine semolina (< 400 micrometer)+ 20% of gluten+ 1.2% of yeast + 1% of salt + 59% of water (portion corresponding to 50 g available carbohydrates) +250 mL water Receives: Other: consumption of Bread B and oral processing |
| BREAD C | Experimental | bread made with 80% durum wheat coarse semolina (> 500 micrometer)+ 20% of gluten+ 1.2% of yeast + 1% of salt + 59% of water) (portion corresponding to 50 g available carbohydrates) +250 mL water Receives: Other: consumption of Bread C and oral processing |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Post-prandial glycemic response
Post-prandial glycemic response (incremental area under the curve)
Measured: Time 2 hours (sampling at 0 -fasting-, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 minutes)
Secondary outcomes (12)
Maximum peak for glucose
maximum value of postprandial glucose
Measured: Time 2 hours (sampling at 0 -fasting-, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 minutes)
Maximum peak for insulin
maximum value of postprandial insulin
Measured: Time 2 hours (sampling at 0 -fasting-, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 minutes)
Satiety using a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale
Differences in subject-rated satiety using a Visual Analogue Scale consist of a 10 cm line with two endpoints representing 0 ('no satisfied') and 10 ('fully satisfied'). Higher scores mean a better outcome. The incremental area under the curve will be used to check differences over time.
Measured: Time 2 hours (before the meal and after the meal at 30, 60 and 120 minutes)
Gastrointestinal symptoms using a questionnaire with symptoms rated using a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale
Differences in subject-rated gastrointestinal symptoms using a Visual Analogue Scale consist of a 10 cm line with two endpoints representing 0 ('no pain') and 10 ('pain as bad as it could possibly be'). Higher scores mean a worse outcome. The incremental area under the curve will be used to check differences over time.
Measured: Time 2 hours (before the meal and after the meal at 30, 60 and 120 minutes)
Post-prandial insulinemic response
Post-prandial insulinemic response (incremental area under the curve)
Measured: Time 2 hours (sampling at 0 -fasting-, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 minutes)
Number of chews
The number of chews extracted from the video recorded during bread consumption.
Measured: Time 5 minutes performed after 2.30 hours of the consumption of samples for the determination of glycemic and insulinemic curves
Number of swallows
The number of swallows extracted from the video recorded during bread consumption
Measured: Time 5 mininutes performed after 2.30 hours of the consumption of samples for the determination of glycemic and insulinemic curves
Eating duration
Eating duration extracted from the video recorded during bread consumption
Measured: Time 5 minutes performed after 2.30 hours of the consumption of samples for the determination of glycemic and insulinemic curves
Saliva content in food bolus
The amount of saliva that is incorporated in the food bolus during chewing
Measured: Time 5 minutes performed after 2.30 hours of the consumption of samples for the determination of glycemic and insulinemic curves
Particle size distribution of bolus
The particle size distribution of the bolus, after chewing and spitting in a container, anlyzed with images analysis
Measured: Time 5 minutes performed after 2.30 hours of the consumption of samples for the determination of glycemic and insulinemic curves
Reducing sugar produced in bolus after mastication at time 0
The amount of reducing sugar produced by alpha-amylase in the bolus immediately after it is spitted in a specific container
Measured: Time 10 minutes performed after 2.30 hours of the consumption of samples for the determination of glycemic and insulinemic curves
Reducing sugar produced in bolus after mastication at time 15
The amount of reducing sugar produced by alpha-amylase in the bolus after it is spitted in a specific container and incubated for 15 minutes
Measured: Time 25 min performed after 2.30 h of the consumption of samples for the determination of glycemic and insulinemic curves
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted1 Dec 2023
- Study start19 Sep 2023
- Primary completion15 Dec 2023
- Study completion23 Dec 2023
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (16)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Glucose ResponseStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 16 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Udine
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Wageningen University and Research
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Nicoletta Pelegrini, University of Udine
- Investigators
- Nicoletta Pellegrini, PhD, Principal investigator, Department of Food Environmental and Animal Sciences
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06152874
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- W_D_UDI1
- Status last verified
- May 2024
- First submitted
- 30 Oct 2023
- Last updated
- 9 May 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Tagliasco M, Tecuanhuey M, Reynard R, Zuliani R, Pellegrini N, Capuano E. Monitoring the effect of cell wall integrity in modulating the starch digestibility of durum wheat during different steps of bread making. Food Chem. 2022 Dec 1;396:133678. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.133678. Epub 2022 Jul 15.
PubMed 35849983Vanhatalo S, Dall'Asta M, Cossu M, Chiavaroli L, Francinelli V, Pede GD, Dodi R, Narvainen J, Antonini M, Goldoni M, Holopainen-Mantila U, Cas AD, Bonadonna R, Brighenti F, Poutanen K, Scazzina F. Pasta Structure Affects Mastication, Bolus Properties, and Postprandial Glucose and Insulin Metabolism in Healthy Adults. J Nutr. 2022 Apr;152(4):994-1005. doi: 10.1093/jn/nxab361. Epub 2023 Feb 18.
PubMed 36967189Dall'Asta M, Dodi R, Pede GD, Marchini M, Spaggiari M, Gallo A, Righetti L, Brighenti F, Galaverna G, Dall'Asta C, Ranieri R, Folloni S, Scazzina F. Postprandial blood glucose and insulin responses to breads formulated with different wheat evolutionary populations (Triticum aestivum L.): A randomized controlled trial on healthy subjects. Nutrition. 2022 Feb;94:111533. doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2021.111533. Epub 2021 Nov 3.
PubMed 34936948Dhital S, Bhattarai RR, Gorham J, Gidley MJ. Intactness of cell wall structure controls the in vitro digestion of starch in legumes. Food Funct. 2016 Mar;7(3):1367-79. doi: 10.1039/c5fo01104c.
PubMed 26786854Lau E, Soong YY, Zhou W, Henry J. Can bread processing conditions alter glycaemic response? Food Chem. 2015 Apr 15;173:250-6. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.10.040. Epub 2014 Oct 19.
PubMed 25466020Stamataki NS, Yanni AE, Karathanos VT. Bread making technology influences postprandial glucose response: a review of the clinical evidence. Br J Nutr. 2017 Apr;117(7):1001-1012. doi: 10.1017/S0007114517000770. Epub 2017 May 2.
PubMed 28462730Zou W, Sissons M, Warren FJ, Gidley MJ, Gilbert RG. Compact structure and proteins of pasta retard in vitro digestive evolution of branched starch molecular structure. Carbohydr Polym. 2016 Nov 5;152:441-449. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.06.016. Epub 2016 Jun 3.
PubMed 27516291Korompokis K , De Brier N , Delcour JA . Differences in endosperm cell wall integrity in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) milling fractions impact on the way starch responds to gelatinization and pasting treatments and its subsequent enzymatic in vitro digestibility. Food Funct. 2019 Aug 1;10(8):4674-4684. doi: 10.1039/c9fo00947g. Epub 2019 Jul 11.
PubMed 31292590Chen X, He X, Zhang B, Sun L, Liang Z, Huang Q. Wheat gluten protein inhibits alpha-amylase activity more strongly than a soy protein isolate based on kinetic analysis. Int J Biol Macromol. 2019 May 15;129:433-441. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.01.215. Epub 2019 Feb 1.
PubMed 30716375Edwards CH, Grundy MM, Grassby T, Vasilopoulou D, Frost GS, Butterworth PJ, Berry SE, Sanderson J, Ellis PR. 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 Oct;102(4):791-800. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.114.106203. Epub 2015 Sep 2.
PubMed 26333512Chatterjee S, Khunti K, Davies MJ. Type 2 diabetes. Lancet. 2017 Jun 3;389(10085):2239-2251. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30058-2. Epub 2017 Feb 10.
PubMed 28190580Chen Y, Capuano E, Stieger M. Chew on it: influence of oral processing behaviour on in vitro protein digestion of chicken and soya-based vegetarian chicken. Br J Nutr. 2021 Nov 14;126(9):1408-1419. doi: 10.1017/S0007114520005176. Epub 2020 Dec 28.
PubMed 33645495Gao J, Lin S, Jin X, Wang Y, Ying J, Dong Z, Zhou W. In vitro digestion of bread: How is it influenced by the bolus characteristics? J Texture Stud. 2019 Jun;50(3):257-268. doi: 10.1111/jtxs.12391. Epub 2019 Feb 14.
PubMed 30693521Li HT, Li Z, Fox GP, Gidley MJ, Dhital S. Protein-starch matrix plays a key role in enzymic digestion of high-amylose wheat noodle. Food Chem. 2021 Jan 30;336:127719. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.127719. Epub 2020 Aug 1.
PubMed 32768911Mosca AC, Moretton M, Angelino D, Pellegrini N. Effect of presence of gluten and spreads on the oral processing behavior of breads. Food Chem. 2022 Mar 30;373(Pt B):131615. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.131615. Epub 2021 Nov 16.
PubMed 34839974
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 9 May 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Combined Effect of Gluten Addition and Cell Wall Integrity in Durum Wheat Bread on Glycemic and Insulinemic Response in Vivo.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06152874
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- W_D_UDI1
- Conditions
- Glucose Response, Glycemic Index, Insulin Response, Oral Processing
- Keywords
- glucose, insulin, durum wheat bread, oral processing, salivary amylase activity
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 16 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of UdineUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Wageningen University and Research
- Study start
- 19 Sep 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 15 Dec 2023 (actual)
- Study completion
- 23 Dec 2023 (actual)
- First posted
- 1 Dec 2023 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
In the last decades, the consumption of energy-dense diets, primarily consisting of highly digestible starchy foods like bread, along with a global increase in obesity rates and a sedentary lifestyle, has emerged as the main contributors to the development of non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and diabetes type 2. Therefore, there is a need to reduce the starch digestibility of bakery products, and in turn their glycemic index, with a specific emphasis on wheat bread. Several strategies have been used to decrease the glycemic index and insulin response of bread; however, most of these techniques have a detrimental effect on the texture, volume, taste, and color of bread, limiting the consumer's acceptability. Preservation of the native microstructure (cell wall integrity) and employing processing techniques to create a macrostructure (protein network and food matrix) can be used to influence the product structure and therefore how the product is chewed (oral processing), and how these factors can affect carbohydrate digestion and glycemic response. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of different textural characteristics of bread on oral processing in relation to the glycemic and insulin response of the three breads. In the present study, a total of 16 healthy volunteers will be recruited, and if eligible (they need to meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria), they will attend an oral processing test on three breads, a test to measure the glycemic index (ISO) and insulin response.
The bread sample composition will be as follows:
Bread A is made with 95% durum wheat fine semolina (< 400 micrometer) + 5% gluten+ 1.2% yeast + 1% salt + 59% water Bread B is made with 80% durum wheat fine semolina (< 400 micrometer) + 20% gluten+ 1.2% yeast + 1% salt + 59 % water Bread C is made with 80% durum wheat coarse semolina (> 500 micrometer) + 20% gluten+ 1.2% yeast + 1% salt + 59 % water.
Detailed description
Worldwide, the number of people suffering from type 2 diabetes is around 422 million, and this number is continuously rising. It is globally agreed that, by 2025, serious action against the spread of this disease must be taken, also because diabetes is a major cause of the development of cardiovascular diseases. The spread of diabetes in the last decades is the result of a global rise in obesity, a more sedentary lifestyle, and an energy-dense diet, given the overconsumption of mainly highly digestible starchy food. Among highly digestible starchy foods, bread is a staple food consumed daily in western countries and is characterized by a high glycemic index. Carbohydrate-rich foods can be divided into three categories depending on their glycemic index (GI) (low: GI < 55, medium: 55 < GI < 69, or high: GI > 70). This classification is based on how the consumption of food containing carbohydrates affects the blood glucose level in relation to a reference food (such as glucose solution or white bread), which has the same quantity of available carbohydrates (50 g). Foods with a high GI induce a significant rise in postprandial blood glucose concentration and, consequently, a high insulin response, which could lead to hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance. For this reason, how to decrease the blood glucose response of starchy foods, such as bread, and consequently its GI, has been extensively studied in the last few decades. In plant food, starch granules are naturally encapsulated in the cell. For cereals, the intact cell could limit the accessibility of starch in flours (wheat, sorghum, and barley) and simple food products such as porridge both in vitro and in vivo. However, when coarse flour containing intact cells is used to produce complex foods, such as bread, this effect of protection is lost. The authors hypothesized that during the long mixing time and fermentation, the cell walls increased their porosity due to the solubilization of the cell wall components, such as beta-glucans and arabinoxylans, increasing the diffusivity of the enzymes inside the cell. Moreover, in bread, the addition of coarse flour could also limit the cohesiveness of the crumb, increasing the disintegration rate and, in turn, the contact surface between the enzyme and its substrate. For these reasons, coarse flour could not efficiently decrease the in vitro starch digestibility of bakery products. Protein, the second macronutrient present in cereals, also has a role in decreasing starch digestibility. Gliadin and glutenin, which are the main proteins of wheat grain, formed a discontinuous network that surrounded the starch granules, named gluten. It has been demonstrated that a dense and compact gluten network could decrease starch accessibility, acting as a barrier between starch and enzyme.More specifically, in pasta, its lower glucose release and, in turn, its lower GI compared to bread must be researched in light of the dense and compact structure given by the strong gluten network. Indeed, the dense structure of pasta limits disintegration during oral processing and gastric digestion. This leads to lower postprandial glycemic and insulinemic responses compared to foods with the same recipe but a more porous and easier-to-disintegrate structure. A strong gluten network in bread could, therefore, change the crumb structure, increasing the crumb cohesiveness and resilience.
There is mounting evidence that demonstrates that food structure plays an important role in the digestion and absorption of nutrients. Bread texture affects bread disintegration during the gastric phase, but it mainly influences oral processing and the mastication rate. Oral processing behavior contributes to individual differences in glycemic response to foods, especially in plant tissue, where chewing behavior can modulate the release of starch from the cellular matrix. The addition of gluten cannot only physically hamper the contact between starch and enzyme and reduce the physical disintegration during gastric digestion, but it was also demonstrated that this protein complex could bind pancreatic alpha-amylase and consequently inhibit starch digestibility. The aim of this study is to examine the effect of different textural characteristics of bread on oral processing in relation to the glycemic and insulinemic responses of the three breads. A total of 16 healthy volunteers will be recruited, and if eligible (they need to meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria), they will attend an oral processing test on three breads, a test to measure the glycemic index (ISO) and insulin response.
The bread sample composition will be as follows:
Bread A is made with 95% durum wheat fine semolina (< 400 micrometer) + 5% gluten+ 1.2% yeast + 1% salt + 59% water Bread B is made with 80% durum wheat fine semolina (< 400 micrometer) + 20% gluten+ 1.2% yeast + 1% salt + 59 % water Bread C is made with 80% durum wheat coarse semolina (> 500 micrometer) + 20% gluten+ 1.2% yeast + 1% salt + 59 % water.
For the determination of glycaemic index and insulin response, one fasting capillary blood sample will be taken within 5 minutes, immediately after the participants arrive in the departments. These blood sample results will be used as the baseline blood glucose concentration, expressed in millimoles per liter (mmol/L), and insulin concentration, expressed in milliliters per liter (mU/L). The bread samples and the glucose solution will contain 50 g of available carbohydrates. The different bread samples and glucose solutions will be served to the volunteers using a randomized schedule, and they will finish the portion within 12 to 15 minutes. Test foods will be served with 250 mL of room-temperature natural water; each subject will be asked to drink the same volume for all the tests. The blood sample will be taken at six points (15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes) after the exact time at which the participant started to consume the sample. During testing, the subjects will rest and stay seated. Capillary blood samples will be taken by finger-prick analysis using a sampling lancet (21G x 1.8 mm, ACCU-CHEK Safe-T-Pro Plus, Roche, Switzerland). The blood will be collected in two tubes. At each time point, 3-4 drops of blood will be collected in one Microvette® CB 300 Fluoride/Heparin (SARSTEDT AG \& Co., Nümbrech, Germany) for the analysis of capillary blood glucose, and 6-8 drops will be collected in one Microvette® B 300 K2E (Sarstedt Ltd., Germany) for the analysis of plasma insulin. The tubes collected for blood glucose will be immediately analyzed, while plasma from the second set of tubes will be obtained after centrifugation at 4500 rpm for 10 min at 4 °C (Labnet Hermle tabletop Centrifuge Z 200 M/H, Labnet International, Inc., New York, USA) and stored at -80 °C for insulin determination. Blood glucose analysis will be performed using the YSI 2500 Biochemistry Analyzer (Yellow Springs Instrument Company, USA). Insulin concentrations in plasma samples will be determined using a specific immunoassay test kit (Mercodia Insulin ELISA 10-1113-10, Mercodia AB-Uppsala, Sweden). Hunger, satiety, and gastrointestinal symptoms ratings after the test meal consumption will be evaluated with a self-reported questionnaire administered to the volunteers to check subjective feelings of fullness, hunger, and gastrointestinal symptoms at specific time points (before eating, [T0], and after, 30, 60, and 120 min) using a 10 cm visual analog scale. Oral processing parameters will be evaluated for each bread sample through video recording. During this session, the participants will be seated in a chair, and in front of them, there will be a desk with a camera approximately 50 cm from their faces. Participants will be instructed to place the whole sample in the mouth (e.g., a single bite) and to chew naturally until the bolus is ready for swallowing. The oral processing behavior will be described by the following parameters, which will be extracted from video recordings manually: Number of chews and swallows; total eating duration in seconds; chewing rate (number of chews per minute). The food bolus will be evaluated for each bread sample through image analysis to determine particle size distribution and the number of particles present in the bolus, as well as the moisture content, saliva content (grams of saliva per 100 g of bread), and saliva incorporation rate (grams of saliva per minute). For the determination of reducing sugars, the participants will be asked to chew and spit two bites of bread. In the first bolus, HCl will be added to immediately stop the alpha-amylase activity, and then the reducing sugar content will be quantified. For the second one, the reaction will be stopped after 15 minutes, and then the reducing sugars will be measured. The reducing sugars will be anlyzed by the 3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid (DNS) method.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 5
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| glucose solution 1 | Active comparator | Other: consumption of glucose solution 1glucose solution prepared dissolving 55 g of monohydrate glucose powder in 250 mL of water |
| glucose solution 2 | Active comparator | Other: consumption of glucose solution 2glucose solution prepared dissolving 55 g of monohydrate glucose powder in 250 mL of water |
| BREAD A | Experimental | Other: consumption of Bread A and oral processingbread made with 95% durum wheat fine semolina (< 400 micrometer)+ 5% of gluten+ 1.2% of yeast + 1% of salt + 59% of water (portion corresponding to 50 g available carbohydrates) +250 mL water |
| BREAD B | Experimental | Other: consumption of Bread B and oral processingbread made with 80% durum wheat fine semolina (< 400 micrometer)+ 20% of gluten+ 1.2% of yeast + 1% of salt + 59% of water (portion corresponding to 50 g available carbohydrates) +250 mL water |
| BREAD C | Experimental | Other: consumption of Bread C and oral processingbread made with 80% durum wheat coarse semolina (> 500 micrometer)+ 20% of gluten+ 1.2% of yeast + 1% of salt + 59% of water) (portion corresponding to 50 g available carbohydrates) +250 mL water |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 50 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Age between 18-50 years old;
- Have good general health;
- Have normal smell and taste functions;
- Have a normal body mass index (BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m2) (based on self-reported weight and height).
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- Have dental braces or a piercing in or around the mouth (except removable piercings);
- Use medications known to affect glucose tolerance and influence digestion and absorption of nutrients (excluding oral contraceptives) - stable doses of oral contraceptives, acetylsalicylic acid, thyroxin, vitamins, and mineral supplements or drugs to treat hypertension are acceptable.
- Have a known history of diabetes mellitus or the use of antihyperglycemic drugs or insulin to treat diabetes and related conditions;
- Have a major medical or surgical event requiring hospitalization within the preceding 3 months;
- Have any food allergy or intolerance for gluten;
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| consumption of glucose solution 1Also: glucose solutionglucose solution prepared dissolving 55 g of monohydrate glucose powder in 250 mL of water | Other | glucose solution 1 |
| consumption of glucose solution 2Also: glucose solutionglucose solution prepared dissolving 55 g of monohydrate glucose powder in 250 mL of water | Other | glucose solution 2 |
| consumption of Bread A and oral processingbread made with 95% durum wheat fine semolina (< 400 micrometer) + 5% of gluten + 1.2% of yeast + 1% of salt + 59%of water) (portion corresponding to 50 g available carbohydrates) + 250 mL water | Other | BREAD A |
| consumption of Bread B and oral processingbread made with 80% durum wheat fine semolina (< 400micrometer) + 20% of gluten+ 1.2% of yeast + 1% of salt + 59%of water (portion corresponding to 50g available carbohydrates) +250 mL water | Other | BREAD B |
| consumption of Bread C and oral processingbread made with 80% durum wheat coarse semolina (> 500micrometer)+ 20% of gluten+ 1.2% of yeast + 1% of salt + 59%of water (portion corresponding to 50g available carbohydrates) +250 mL water | Other | BREAD C |
Primary outcome
Post-prandial glycemic response
Time frame: Time 2 hours (sampling at 0 -fasting-, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 minutes)
Post-prandial glycemic response (incremental area under the curve)
12 secondary outcomes
Maximum peak for glucose
Time frame: Time 2 hours (sampling at 0 -fasting-, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 minutes)
Maximum peak for insulin
Time frame: Time 2 hours (sampling at 0 -fasting-, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 minutes)
Satiety using a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale
Time frame: Time 2 hours (before the meal and after the meal at 30, 60 and 120 minutes)
Gastrointestinal symptoms using a questionnaire with symptoms rated using a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale
Time frame: Time 2 hours (before the meal and after the meal at 30, 60 and 120 minutes)
Post-prandial insulinemic response
Time frame: Time 2 hours (sampling at 0 -fasting-, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 minutes)
Number of chews
Time frame: Time 5 minutes performed after 2.30 hours of the consumption of samples for the determination of glycemic and insulinemic curves
Number of swallows
Time frame: Time 5 mininutes performed after 2.30 hours of the consumption of samples for the determination of glycemic and insulinemic curves
Eating duration
Time frame: Time 5 minutes performed after 2.30 hours of the consumption of samples for the determination of glycemic and insulinemic curves
Saliva content in food bolus
Time frame: Time 5 minutes performed after 2.30 hours of the consumption of samples for the determination of glycemic and insulinemic curves
Particle size distribution of bolus
Time frame: Time 5 minutes performed after 2.30 hours of the consumption of samples for the determination of glycemic and insulinemic curves
Reducing sugar produced in bolus after mastication at time 0
Time frame: Time 10 minutes performed after 2.30 hours of the consumption of samples for the determination of glycemic and insulinemic curves
Reducing sugar produced in bolus after mastication at time 15
Time frame: Time 25 min performed after 2.30 h of the consumption of samples for the determination of glycemic and insulinemic curves
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 9 May 2024.
- Background: PubMed 35849983Tagliasco M, Tecuanhuey M, Reynard R, Zuliani R, Pellegrini N, Capuano E. Monitoring the effect of cell wall integrity in modulating the starch digestibility of durum wheat during different steps of bread making. Food Chem. 2022 Dec 1;396:133678. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.133678. Epub 2022 Jul 15.
- Background: PubMed 36967189Vanhatalo S, Dall'Asta M, Cossu M, Chiavaroli L, Francinelli V, Pede GD, Dodi R, Narvainen J, Antonini M, Goldoni M, Holopainen-Mantila U, Cas AD, Bonadonna R, Brighenti F, Poutanen K, Scazzina F. Pasta Structure Affects Mastication, Bolus Properties, and Postprandial Glucose and Insulin Metabolism in Healthy Adults. J Nutr. 2022 Apr;152(4):994-1005. doi: 10.1093/jn/nxab361. Epub 2023 Feb 18.
- Background: PubMed 34936948Dall'Asta M, Dodi R, Pede GD, Marchini M, Spaggiari M, Gallo A, Righetti L, Brighenti F, Galaverna G, Dall'Asta C, Ranieri R, Folloni S, Scazzina F. Postprandial blood glucose and insulin responses to breads formulated with different wheat evolutionary populations (Triticum aestivum L.): A randomized controlled trial on healthy subjects. Nutrition. 2022 Feb;94:111533. doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2021.111533. Epub 2021 Nov 3.
- Background: PubMed 26786854Dhital S, Bhattarai RR, Gorham J, Gidley MJ. Intactness of cell wall structure controls the in vitro digestion of starch in legumes. Food Funct. 2016 Mar;7(3):1367-79. doi: 10.1039/c5fo01104c.
- Background: PubMed 25466020Lau E, Soong YY, Zhou W, Henry J. Can bread processing conditions alter glycaemic response? Food Chem. 2015 Apr 15;173:250-6. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.10.040. Epub 2014 Oct 19.
- Background: PubMed 28462730Stamataki NS, Yanni AE, Karathanos VT. Bread making technology influences postprandial glucose response: a review of the clinical evidence. Br J Nutr. 2017 Apr;117(7):1001-1012. doi: 10.1017/S0007114517000770. Epub 2017 May 2.
- Background: PubMed 27516291Zou W, Sissons M, Warren FJ, Gidley MJ, Gilbert RG. Compact structure and proteins of pasta retard in vitro digestive evolution of branched starch molecular structure. Carbohydr Polym. 2016 Nov 5;152:441-449. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.06.016. Epub 2016 Jun 3.
- Background: PubMed 31292590Korompokis K , De Brier N , Delcour JA . Differences in endosperm cell wall integrity in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) milling fractions impact on the way starch responds to gelatinization and pasting treatments and its subsequent enzymatic in vitro digestibility. Food Funct. 2019 Aug 1;10(8):4674-4684. doi: 10.1039/c9fo00947g. Epub 2019 Jul 11.
- Background: PubMed 30716375Chen X, He X, Zhang B, Sun L, Liang Z, Huang Q. Wheat gluten protein inhibits alpha-amylase activity more strongly than a soy protein isolate based on kinetic analysis. Int J Biol Macromol. 2019 May 15;129:433-441. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.01.215. Epub 2019 Feb 1.
- Background: PubMed 26333512Edwards CH, Grundy MM, Grassby T, Vasilopoulou D, Frost GS, Butterworth PJ, Berry SE, Sanderson J, Ellis PR. 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 Oct;102(4):791-800. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.114.106203. Epub 2015 Sep 2.
- Background: PubMed 28190580Chatterjee S, Khunti K, Davies MJ. Type 2 diabetes. Lancet. 2017 Jun 3;389(10085):2239-2251. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30058-2. Epub 2017 Feb 10.
- Background: PubMed 33645495Chen Y, Capuano E, Stieger M. Chew on it: influence of oral processing behaviour on in vitro protein digestion of chicken and soya-based vegetarian chicken. Br J Nutr. 2021 Nov 14;126(9):1408-1419. doi: 10.1017/S0007114520005176. Epub 2020 Dec 28.
Related trials for Glucose Response
Not yet recruiting
Impact of Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty (ESG) in Obese Adults With Type 2 Diabetes (T2D)
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2D), Obesity (BMI>30)
RecruitingObservational study
Food-i-Sense Analytics: Integrating AI Into Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Analysis for Precision Nutrition.
Prediabetes (Insulin Resistance, Impaired Glucose Tolerance), Artificial Intelligence Mobile Application
Active, not recruiting
Postprandial Glycemic and GLP-1 Responses to Modified Full-sugar Drinks
Postprandial Glucose, GLP-1 Concentration
Recruiting
Hypothalamic GLP-1 Response in Healthy Weight and Obesity
Obesity, Normal Weight
Active, not recruitingPhase 4
Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist (GLP-1 RA) and Diet in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) Patients
Crohn Disease
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Nicoletta Pellegrini, PhD principal investigator
Department of Food Environmental and Animal Sciences
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing consumption of glucose solution 1, consumption of glucose solution 2 and consumption of Bread A and oral processing in people with Glucose Response and Glycemic Index, run by University of Udine at 1 site in Italy.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 7 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 9 May 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Italy. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Post-prandial glycemic response (time frame: Time 2 hours (sampling at 0 -fasting-, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 minutes)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06152874, which also lists 16 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 9 May 2024.