Influence of dietary carbohydrates and glycaemic response on subjective appetite and food intake in healthy elderly persons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased satiety and decreased food intake are reported following the consumption of low glycaemic index (GI) foods, which gradually increase blood glucose. This observation, however, is not uniformly supported and few studies have examined the impact of different GI foods on satiety and intake in the elderly. After an overnight fast, 10 men and 10 women (aged 60-82 years) consumed similar amounts of available carbohydrate as high (glucose drink or potatoes) or low (barley) GI foods or a non-energy placebo drink on four mornings. Blood glucose and subjective appetite were measured throughout a 120 min post-ingestion period, followed by consumption of an ad libitum lunch. Differences in plasma glucose after test food ingestion (glucose > potatoes > barley > placebo; P < 0.03) did not predict subjective appetite or lunch intake. Potatoes increased subjective satiety the most, followed by barley, then glucose, which trended towards greater satiety than placebo. Potatoes led to less hunger than placebo (P = 0.0023) and less prospective consumption than the other three foods (P < 0.0083), and potatoes and barley led to greater fullness than glucose and placebo (P < 0.0001). Lunch intake was decreased, compared with placebo (502 +/- 47 kcal, P < 0.031), by potatoes (405 +/- 40 kcal) and barley (441 +/- 41 kcal); however, only potatoes (41.9 +/- 12.3%) led to greater compensation at lunch for test food ingestion compared with glucose (11.9 +/- 9.5%, P = 0.016). These results suggest that elderly subjects are sensitive to the effects of different foods on subjective appetite and food intake, and that the GI of the foods tested did not predict their effects on satiety and food intake.
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) | 0.000 | 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".