Comparison of Two Administration Forms of a Highly Viscous Fibre Blend on Appetite and Glycemic Response in Healthy Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The effect of viscous fibres on appetite and food intake have been equivocal, limited by the capacity of gel‐formation within the gastrointestinal tract. Differences in fibre administration form many determine the physiological effects of viscous fibres. Using a highly viscous fibre blend (VFB) of two complimentary fibres, konjac glucomannan and xanthan gum, we investigated the acute effects of pre‐hydrating VFB into a solid gel compared to the powdered form on appetite and glycemic response. Methods Eighteen (18) healthy participants completed the study (F: 11/M: 7; Age: 28.6 ± 3.2 years; BMI: 23.3 ± 0.7 kg/m 2 ) and 15 provided blood samples. In an acute, randomized, double‐blinded, cross‐over design, participants consumed 1 of 5 test meals on 5 separate occasions with > 2 day washout period. The test meals were: 50 g available carbohydrates in bread with 5 g VFB as a powder (50Pow), 5 g VFB as a pre‐hydrated gel (50Gel), or a fibre‐free control (50Con), and 25 g available carbohydrates in bread with 25 g available carbohydrates in the gel dessert with 5 g VFB pre‐hydrated into the gel (25Gel) or a fibre‐free control (25Con). All meals consisted of bread, margarine, and a gel dessert which totaled 50 g of available carbohydrates. A metabolically controlled lunch was consumed 180 min later. Satiety was recorded using visual analogue scales. Results The incremental area under the curve (iAUC) after 120 min for blood glucose was lower after 50Pow (mean difference: −40 %, p < 0.001) and 50Gel (mean difference: −23 %, p = 0.049) vs. 50Con. No differences were observed between 50Pow and 50Gel (p = 0.16). Additionally, 50Gel increased satiety after 120 min vs. 50Pow (MD: +26 %, p=0.035) and 50Con (mean difference: +28 %, p = 0.025). The iAUC after 120 min for blood glucose was lower in 25Gel vs. 25Con (mean difference: −28 %, p = 0.006), but no significant differences were observed in satiety. Conclusions These findings suggest that VFB may improve the postprandial glycemic response irrespective of administration mode, but consumption in a pre‐hydrated gel may confer additional benefits from improved satiety. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01657058
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".