Cited by 143Food composition and propertiesDiet, Metabolism, and DiseaseGastrointestinal motility and disorders

Swallowing food without chewing; a simple way to reduce postprandial glycaemia

Open access
Read, N. W., Welch, I. McL., Austen, C. J., Barnish, C., Bartlett, C. E., Baxter, A. J., Brown, G., Comption, M. E. +3 more·1986·British Journal of Nutrition

Abstract

1. The degree to which disruption by mastication affects the glycaemic response to four different carbohydrate foods was investigated in healthy human volunteers; each food was eaten by six subjects. 2. Subjects ate meals of sweetcorn, white rice, diced apple or potato on two occasions; on one occasion they chewed the food thoroughly, on the other occasion they swallowed each mouthful without chewing it. 3. When the foods were chewed the postprandial blood glucose levels rose to levels which vaned according to the food ingested. 4. Swallowing without chewing reduced the glycaemic response to each food, achieving a similar effect as administration of viscous polysaccharides or ‘slow-release’ carbohydrates.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1079/bjn19860008

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Carbohydrate-rich foods swallowed without chewing evoke a reduced postprandial glycemic response compared to when chewed.

    “This was clearly demonstrated by a study in which carbohydrate-rich foods (apple, potato, rice, and sweet corn) that were swallowed without chewing evoked a reduced postprandial glycemic response compared to when chewed (Read et al., 1986).”

    From Role of polysaccharides in food, digestion, and health (2017) · cites this paper as Read et al., 1986

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Read, N. W., Welch, I. M., Austen, C. J., Barnish, C., Bartlett, C. E., Baxter, A. J., Brown, G., Comption, M. E., Hume, K. E., Storie, I., & Worlding, J.
Affiliations
Royal Hallamshire Hospital (GB)
Venue
British Journal of Nutrition
Published
1986-01
Volume
55
Issue
1
Pages
43-47
ISSN
  • 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2662
OpenAlex
W2135855780
Cited by
143
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal Of Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diet, Metabolism, and Disease
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
Keywords
mastication, postprandial blood glucose, glycemic response, carbohydrate foods, sweet corn, white rice, apple, potato, glucose absorption
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Glucose, Dietary Carbohydrates, Eating, Female, Humans, Insulin, Male, Mastication, Polysaccharides

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