Cited by 304Food composition and propertiesNatural Antidiabetic Agents StudiesPhytase and its Applications

Factors affecting starch digestibility and the glycemic response with special reference to legumes

Thorne, MJ, Thompson, LU, Jenkins, DJ·1983·The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Large differences exist in the degree to which different starch containing foods affect the blood glucose levels of both normal volunteers and diabetics. These differences appear to relate to the digestibility of the starch and the factors determining this, including: the interaction of starch with fiber, antinutrients (eg, phytate) and protein in the food, together with the nature of the starch itself and its physical form (eg, raw or cooked, ground or whole). In this respect legumes exemplify a class of foods, high in fiber, protein and antinutrients, with a starch which is digested slowly in vitro. They also produce relatively small blood glucose rises after consumption by both normals and diabetics and in the longterm result in improved diabetic control. Identification of more such foods and further understanding of factors determining starch digestibility will allow greater therapeutic use of diet in the management of diabetics and disorders of carbohydrate metabolism.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ajcn/38.3.481

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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 GI of a food can be affected by fat, protein, anti-nutrients, and acidity or acidic compounds.

    “different elements can affect the GI of a food, such as the presence of fat (Collier & O'Dea, 1983), the presence of protein (Granfeldt et al. 1991), the presence of some anti-nutrients (Thorne et al. 1983), and acidity or the presence of acidic compounds (Liljeberg et al. 1995;Liljeberg & Bjorck, 1996, 1998).”

    From Glycaemic index methodology (2005) · cites this paper as Thorne et al. 1983

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 80 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thorne, M., Thompson, L., & Jenkins, D.
Venue
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1983-09
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
481-488
ISSN
0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1828892665
Cited by
304
References
80
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 14
FWCI
1.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Natural Antidiabetic Agents Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Phytase and its Applications
Keywords
starch digestibility, glycemic response, Fabaceae, blood glucose, diabetes mellitus, dietary fiber, antinutritional factors, phytic acid, proteins, carbohydrate metabolism, diabetic diet
MeSH terms
Animals, Blood Glucose, Cooking, Diabetes Mellitus, Dietary Carbohydrates, Dietary Fiber, Dietary Proteins, Digestion, Humans, Fabaceae, Particle Size, Plants, Medicinal, Starch

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