Acute effects of pea protein and hull fibre alone and combined on blood glucose, appetite, and food intake in healthy young men – a randomized crossover trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether pulse components can be used as value-added ingredients in foods formulated for blood glucose (BG) and food intake (FI) control requires investigation. The objective of this study was to examine of the effects of pea components on FI at an ad libitum meal, as well as appetite and BG responses before and after the meal. In a repeated-measures crossover trial, men (n = 15) randomly consumed (i) pea hull fibre (7 g), (ii) pea protein (10 g), (iii) pea protein (10 g) plus hull fibre (7 g), (iv) yellow peas (406 g), and (v) control. Pea hull fibre and protein were served with tomato sauce and noodles, while yellow peas were served with tomato sauce. Control was noodles and tomato sauce. FI was measured at a pizza meal (135 min). Appetite and BG were measured pre-pizza (0-135 min) and post-pizza (155-215 min). Protein plus fibre and yellow peas led to lower pre-pizza BG area under the curve compared with fibre and control. At 30 min, BG was lower after protein plus fibre and yellow peas compared with fibre and control, whereas at 45 and 75 min, protein plus fibre and yellow peas led to lower BG compared with fibre (p < 0.05). Following the pizza meal (155 min), yellow peas led to lower BG compared with fibre (p < 0.05). No differences were observed in FI or appetite. This trial supports the use of pea components as value-added ingredients in foods designed to improve glycemic control.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".