Cited by 19Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Consuming snacks mid-afternoon compared with just after lunch improves mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions in patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized crossover clinical trial

Imai, S., Kajiyama, S., Hashimoto, Y., Nitta, A., Miyawaki, T., Matsumoto, S., Ozasa, N., Tanaka, M. +2 more·2018·Diabetes & Metabolism

Abstract

Aims Our aim was to explore the acute effects of consuming snacks at different times on glucose excursions in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods Seventeen patients with T2D [means±SD: age 67.4±9.4-years; BMI 23.5±3.1kg/m 2; HbA 1c 55±6mmol/mol (7.2±1.0%)] were randomly assigned in this crossover study. Each participant wore a continuous glucose monitoring device for 4 days and consumed identical test meals on the second and third days, comprising breakfast at 0700h, lunch at 1200h and dinner at 1900h. Half the participants consumed 75kcal biscuits at 1230h (just after lunch) on the second day and at 1530h (mid-afternoon) on the third day, while the other half consumed snacks at the same times, but vice versa. Each patient's glucose parameters were compared against baseline for the 2days of snacking at different times of day. Results Consuming snacks in the mid-afternoon led to significantly lower mean amplitudes of glycaemic excursions (mean±SEM: 5.19±0.48 vs. 6.90±0.69mmol/L, P<0.01; standard deviation: 1.75±0.17 vs. 2.16±0.21mmol/L, P<0.01) and incremental areas under the curve for glucose after dinner (479±76 vs. 663±104mmol/L per min, P<0.01) compared with snacking just after lunch, whereas mean glucose levels did not differ over the 2days. Conclusion These results suggest that consuming snacks well separated from lunch may be an effective way to suppress postprandial glucose levels and glycaemic excursions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.diabet.2018.07.001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 25 · Cited by 19

Authors
Imai, S., Kajiyama, S., Hashimoto, Y., Nitta, A., Miyawaki, T., Matsumoto, S., Ozasa, N., Tanaka, M., Kajiyama, S., & Fukui, M.
Affiliations
  • Osaka Prefecture University (JP)
  • Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine (JP)
  • Kyoto Women's University (JP)
  • Kyoto University (JP)
Corresponding author
Imai, S.
Venue
Diabetes & Metabolism
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-12
Volume
44
Issue
6
Pages
482-487
ISSN
1262-3636 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2884229692
Cited by
19
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes & Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Osaka University
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (16K01801)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, snacks, glycaemic excursions, postprandial blood glucose, continuous glucose monitoring, meal timing, glycemic variability
MeSH terms
Aged, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Eating, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Cross-Over Studies, Postprandial Period, Lunch, Snacks

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review