Chickpea Bread, a Low Glycemic Index Bread Alternative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Pulses are low glycemic index (GI) foods that have been found to have beneficial effects on blood glucose control and other health factors. Due to widespread bread consumption and the low availability of low GI breads for individuals with diabetes, there is the need to develop low GI palatable breads that meet the needs of these individuals. Objective To develop a low GI pulse based bread with acceptable palatability. Methods We developed six different breads, a control white flour bread (C bread), a bread made out of 100% chickpea flour (T bread) and four others made with white flour and added wheat bran and/or gluten to isolate the effect of protein/fiber on GI. Their macronutrient composition was analyzed. These breads were then tested for their GI response and palatability and were compared to the C bread in healthy participants using student's t ‐test. Results GI and palatability (mean ± SEM) for the test breads were as follow: T bread 80.1 ± 5.3, 63.6 ± 8.0; control bread with added wheat bran and gluten (C+ bread) 90.5 ± 6.3, 58.7 ± 10.0; control bread with added wheat bran and extra gluten (CB3XG bread) 82.7 ± 6.4, 50.4 ± 10.2; control bread with extra gluten (C3XG bread) 78.7 ± 25.6, 51.5 ± 9.9; and control bread with wheat bran (CB bread) 102.1±25.5, 64.9 ± 8.1. When compared to C bread (GI = 100 ± 0), we observed a statistical significantly lower GI in T bread (GI = 80.1 ± 5.3, p < 0.01), CB3XG bread (GI = 82.7 ± 6.4, p < 0.05), and C3XG bread (GI = 78.7 ± 8.1, p < 0.05). Palatability was not statistically different between C bread and other breads. Limitations We developed and analyzed a single pulse bread (T bread) and with no dose effect measurement. GI test was done solely in healthy individuals. Conclusion T bread had satisfactorily GI and palatability, but further work remains to make it sufficiently palatable for general use. Support or Funding Information Saskatchewan Pulse Growers and Loblaw Companies Limited
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".