ArticleNutrients2024
Timing and Nutrient Type of Isocaloric Snacks Impacted Postprandial Glycemic and Insulinemic Responses of the Subsequent Meal in Healthy Subjects.
Article in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to explore the impact of both the macronutrient composition and snacking timing on the postprandial glycemic insulinemic responses and food intake. Seventeen healthy female volunteers completed the randomized crossover trials. The volunteers were provided a standard breakfast and lunch at 8:00 and 13:00, respectively, and an ad libitum dinner at 18:00. Provided at either 10:30 (midmorning) or 12:30 (preload), the glycemic effects of the three types of 70 kcal snacks, including chicken breast (mid-C and pre-C), apple (mid-A and pre-A), and macadamia nut (mid-M and pre-M), were compared with the non-snack control (CON), evaluated by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The mid-M showed increased insulin resistance after lunch compared with CON, while the pre-M did not. The pre-A stabilized the glycemic response in terms of all variability parameters after lunch, while the mid-A had no significant effect on postprandial glucose control. Both the mid-C and pre-C improved the total area under the glucose curve, all glycemic variability parameters, and the insulin resistance within 2 h after lunch compared with CON. The pre-C attained the lowest energy intake at dinner, while the mid-A and the mid-M resulted in the highest. In conclusion, the chicken breast snack effectively stabilized postprandial glycemic excursion and reduced insulin resistance while the macadamia snack did not, regardless of ingestion time. Only as a preload could the apple snack mitigate the glucose response after the subsequent meal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.