CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 202Food composition and propertiesDiabetes Management and ResearchNatural Antidiabetic Agents Studies

Insulinemic and glycemic indexes of six starch-rich foods taken alone and in a mixed meal by type 2 diabetics

Bornet, F R, Costagliola, D, Rizkalla, S W, Blayo, A, Fontvieille, A M, Haardt, M J, Letanoux, M, Tchobroutsky, G +1 more·1987·The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
DOI 10.1093/ajcn/45.3.588
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The glycemic index concept neglects the insulin secretion factor and has not been systematically studied during mixed meals. Six starch-rich foods were tested alone and in an isoglucido-lipido-protidic meal in 18 NIDDs and compared with a glucose challenge. These test meals were randomly assigned using a three factor experiment design. All three tests contained 50 g carbohydrate; mixed meals were adjusted to bring the same amount of fat (20 g), protein (24 g), water (300 mL), and calories (475 kcal) but not the same amount of fiber. Whatever the tested meals, foods elicited a growing glycemic index hierarchy from beans to lentils, rice, spaghetti, potato, and bread (mean range: 0.21 +/- 0.12-92 +/- 0.12, p less than 0.001). Mixing the meals significantly increased the insulinemic indexes (p less than 0.05) and introduced a positive correlation between glycemic and insulinemic indexes (n = 6, r = 0.903; p less than 0.05). The glycemic index concept remains discriminating, even in the context of an iso-glucido-lipido-protidic meal. Insulinemic indexes do not improve discrimination between foods taken alone in type 2 diabetics: they only discriminate between foods during mixed meals, similarly to glycemic indexes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ajcn/45.3.588

Cites

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 concept remains discriminating in the context of a meal.

    “This means that the GI concept remains discriminating in the context of a meal (Bornet et al. 1987).”

    From Glycaemic index methodology (2005) · cites this paper as Bornet et al. 1987

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bornet, F. R., Costagliola, D., Rizkalla, S. W., Blayo, A., Fontvieille, A. M., Haardt, M. J., Letanoux, M., Tchobroutsky, G., & Slama, G.
ORCID
Venue
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1987-03
Volume
45
Issue
3
Pages
588-595
ISSN
0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1093/ajcn/45.3.588
OpenAlex
W1806494436
Cited by
202
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 10
FWCI
6.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Natural Antidiabetic Agents Studies
Keywords
glycemic index, type 2 diabetes, mixed meal, insulin secretion, food comparison, beans, lentil, rice, spaghetti, potato, bread, glucose tolerance
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diet, Diabetic, Dietary Carbohydrates, Female, Humans, Insulin, Male, Middle Aged, Random Allocation, 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