SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.34 issue3Adherence and tolerance as key in brake on weight loss in cancer patients with nutritional risk after intervention with a high calorie nutritional and specific hyperproteic supplementEffect of glutamine on liver injuries induced by intestinal ischemia-reperfusion in rats author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Nutrición Hospitalaria

On-line version ISSN 1699-5198Print version ISSN 0212-1611

Abstract

ANGARITA-DAVILA, Lissé et al. Glycemic index, glycemic load and insulin response of two formulas of isoglucose with different sweeteners and dietary fiber in healthy adults and type-2 diabetes. Nutr. Hosp. [online]. 2017, vol.34, n.3, pp.532-539. ISSN 1699-5198.  http://dx.doi.org/10.20960/nh.654.

Objective:

The aim of this study is to compare the glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) of two formulas with the same glucose content with different sweeteners and dietary fiber for diabetics in healthy adults and in patients with type-2 diabetes (DM2).

Methodology:

In this randomized, double-blind crossover research, eleven healthy people and six with DM2 consumed two enteral formulas, Glucerna SR(r), Laboratorios Abbott C.A. (GF) and Enterex Diabetic(r), Victus C.A. (EF), sweetened with fructose y sucralose, with 1.2 and 1.3 g/100 ml of fiber source respectively (four times). Additionally, they consumed glucose solution once, obtaining blood samples at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 min for controls; in the diabetics, minutes 150 and 180 were added for measuring blood glucose, basal and postprandial insulin after two and three hours.

Results:

The incremental area under the curve (IAUC) was lower for the formulas rather than for SG. In the healthy controls was 12,857 ± 422 for EF and 11,601 ± 272 for GF (p < 0.014). In diabetics, this curve reduced for GF (28,656 ± 123) compared to EF (29,855 ± 496) (p < 0.01). The IG resulted in 58.07 ± 8.4 and 60.7 ± 2 for GF and EF, respectively, in the controls, and 65.16 ± 0.2 and 68.06 ± 1 in diabetics, without significant differences, as well as in post-prandial insulin.

Conclusions:

The GI and the GL of the two formulas resulted in an intermediate value in both groups, with a glycemic profile inferior to SG. No significant differences were observed regarding insulin behavior, showing that the absorption rate of carbohydrates in these formulas is slower, with a lower glycemic impact than the pattern product; thus, making its indication acceptable for the diabetic patient.

Keywords : Formulas; Fiber; Sweeteners; Diabetes.

        · abstract in Spanish     · text in Spanish     · Spanish ( pdf )