Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T19:21:05.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mycoprotein reduces endogenous glucose production when consumed with a mixed-meal tolerance test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2021

G. Whelehan ,
S. West ,
T.J.A. Finnigan ,
B.T. Wall  and
F.B. Stephens
G. Whelehan
Affiliation:
Department of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
S. West
Affiliation:
Department of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
T.J.A. Finnigan
Affiliation:
Marlow Foods Ltd, Stokesley, UK
B.T. Wall
Affiliation:
Department of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
F.B. Stephens
Affiliation:
Department of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Abstract
Information
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society , Volume 80 , Issue OCE3: Irish Section Conference, 22–24 June 2021, Nutrition, health and ageing — translating science into practice – Part A , 2021 , E153
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2021

Postprandial glucose kinetics can be managed by altering dietary composition. The addition of soluble fibre to a meal can decrease the total rate of glucose appearance (RaT)(Reference Boers, van Dijk and Himestra1), while insoluble fibre has been shown to increase the rate of glucose disappearance (RdT)(Reference Robertson, Currie and Morgan2). Mycoprotein (MYC) is a high-fibre food (1/3 soluble and 2/3 insoluble) shown to reduce postprandial glucose and insulin concentrations in healthy participants(Reference Turnbull and Ward3), though the underlying glucose kinetics have not been explored. The present study took a dual stable isotope tracer approach to determine how MYC impacts glucose kinetics when ingested with a mixed-meal. We hypothesised that the previously observed reduction in glucose concentrations with MYC ingestion would be due to a lower RaT. This study also aimed to determine whether this effect was dose dependent.

In a double-blind, randomised, cross-over design, 12 healthy adults (M:F 6:6) attended 3 experimental test days, involving ingestion of a test drink, enriched with 100 mg [U-13C] glucose, containing 250 ml whole milk, 50 g glucose, and either 0 (CON), 20 (MYC20), or 40 g (MYC40) MYC. CON and MYC20 were matched for energy, protein (18 g), carbohydrate (75 g) and fat (12 g). An intravenous infusion of D-[6,6-2H2] glucose was used to determine glucose kinetics over 6 h. Time-course and AUCs of glucose, insulin, and rate of appearance of total (RaT), exogenous (RaEx), endogenous (EGP), and RdT, of glucose were assessed using two- and one-way ANOVAs, respectively.

Drink ingestion resulted in a rapid increase in blood glucose and serum insulin concentrations, peaking at 45 and 30 min, respectively; however there were no differences between the conditions (P > 0.05). Both RaT and RdT decreased in the MYC40 compared with CON during 0–120 min (-14 ± SEM 4% and -16 ± 5%, respectively) (P < 0.05). RaEx was not affected by MYC in the first 0–120 min, but during 240–360 min RaEx was 14 (± 10)% greater in MYC40 than CON. MYC20 and MYC40 suppressed EGP by 19 ± 7% and 14 ± 5% respectively, compared to CON between 0–120 min, and this effect continued into 120–240 min for MYC20 but not for MYC40.

The present study showed MYC ingestion reduced postprandial EGP, implying that MYC, (or a product of its metabolism) directly affects the liver, particularly given there was no difference between MYC and CON in circulating insulin concentration.

References

Boers, HM, van Dijk, TH, Himestra, H, et al. (2017) Br J Nutr 118, 777–787.10.1017/S0007114517002781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, MD, Currie, JM, Morgan, LM, et al. (2003) Diabetologia 46, 659–665.10.1007/s00125-003-1081-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnbull, WH & Ward, T (1993) Am J Clin Nutr 61, 135–40.10.1093/ajcn/61.1.135CrossRefGoogle Scholar