A Review of the Relationship between Lentil Serving and Acute Postprandial Blood Glucose Response: Effects of Dietary Fibre, Protein and Carbohydrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulse consumption has been shown to confer beneficial effects on blood glucose and insulin levels. Lentil consumption, in particular, consistently lowers acute blood glucose and insulin response when compared to starchy control foods. The mechanism by which lentils lower postprandial blood glucose response (PBGR) and insulin levels is unclear; however, evidence suggests that this effect may be linked to macronutrients and/or the amount of lentils consumed. This review attempts to consolidate existing studies that examined lentil consumption and glycemic and/or insulinemic responses and declared information on macronutrient composition and dietary fibre content of the foods tested. Collectively, these studies suggest that consumption of lentils reduces PBGR, with the minimum effective serving being ~110g cooked to reduce PBGR by 20%. Reductions in PBGR show modest-to-strong correlations with protein (45-57 g) and dietary fibre (22-30 g) content, but has weaker correlations with available carbohydrates. Increased lentil serving sizes were found to moderately influence relative reductions in peak blood glucose concentrations and lower the area under the blood glucose curve (BG AUC). However, no clear relationship was identified between serving and relative reductions in the BG AUC, making it challenging to characterize consistent serving-response effects.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".