Glycemic response in nonracing sled dogs fed single starch ingredients and commercial extruded dog foods with different carbohydrate sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study adapted the established glycemic index (GI) methodology used in human research to perform two studies in sled dogs in order to assess the blood glucose-raising potential of pulse-based dog foods. The first was a pilot study (n = 6 dogs) to determine the GI of single starch sources (white bread, cooked white rice, and cooked green lentils) using a glucose solution as control. Next, the effect on glycemic and insulinemic meal responses and GI of commercial extruded dog foods containing different categories of starch sources (traditional grain, whole grain, grain-free, and vegan) were investigated on 11 dogs using a glucose control. Results were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Consumption of 10 g of available carbohydrate (Av CHO) was insufficient to elicit a measurable response in blood glucose for GI determination, and as such, the amount was increased to 25 g for the second study. The GI (±SE) of the single starch sources and dog foods was: white bread: 47 ± 11, cooked white rice: 71 ± 14, cooked green lentils: 60 ± 20 (P = 0.569), traditional grain: 83 ± 17, whole grain: 56 ± 8, grain-free: 41 ± 6, and vegan: 65 ± 15 (P = 0.154). No statistical differences in glycemic response over time were observed between the single starch sources or the extruded diets tested (P = 0.1412; P = 0.2651). The insulinemic response elicited by the extruded diets was also not different (P = 0.079); however, the traditional grain diet did have the slowest time to peak for insulin (P = 0.0078). Among single starch sources and extruded dog foods, there were no differences in the glycemic indices measured in this study. The GI methodology has not been validated for use in canine species, and it is likely that our results were due to higher interindividual variation or inadequate study power. Regardless, this study will serve to better define future studies to investigate the potential physiological benefits of low GI foods for dogs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".