Kathrin Schopen, Ann C. Ewald, Bernd W. Johannes, Wilhelm Bloch, Jörn Rittweger, Petra Frings-Meuthen
Abstract
Background: Whey protein is known to reduce postprandial glycaemia in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Lupin as a vegetable source of protein could be considered as an alternative, as the percentage of vegetarian and vegan consumers is raising. The present study compares the acute glycemic effects of whey and lupin in healthy volunteers following a carbohydrate-rich reference meal. Methods In cross-over design, three standardized meals (reference meal; reference meal + whey; reference meal + lupin) were provided to 12 healthy male and female volunteers, aged between 23 and 33, in a balanced, randomized order. Volunteers' blood glucose and insulin concentrations were analyzed at baseline and at seven time points following the ingestion of the meals. Results: The supplementation of whey or lupin significantly blunted the postprandial increase in blood glucose concentrations compared to the reference meal (p < 0.001). In the overall statistical analysis, this effect was comparable for whey and lupin [Δ AUC whey-lupin = 8%, 0-60 min area under the curve (0-60 min AUC), p = 0.937], with a blunting effect of -46% by whey (p = 0.005, 0-60 min AUC) and of -54% by lupin (p < 0.001, 0-60 min AUC). When comparing whey and lupin data only, the insulin increase was found to be more pronounced for whey protein than for lupin supplementation (Δ AUC whey-lupin = 39%, 0-60 min AUC, p = 0.022). However, when comparing the insulin response of each supplementation to the one of the reference meal, no differences could be detected (whey p = 0.259, 0-60 min AUC; lupin p = 0.275, 0-60 min AUC). Conclusions: Results suggest that lupin and whey can both lower the increase of postprandial blood glucose concentrations to a comparable extent, implying the usability of lupin to reduce postprandial glycaemia. However, the insulin response following the supplementations to a carbohydrate-rich meal seems to differ for these two protein sources.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 November 2018.
All research outputs
#12,972,913
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#4,059
of 13,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,429
of 310,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#79
of 226 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,129 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 226 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
