Slowing starch digestibility in foods
de Bruijn, Hanny Margriet
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2018
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
de Bruijn, H. M. (2018). Slowing starch digestibility in foods: Formulation, substantiation and metabolic effects related to health. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
CHAPTER 2
A systematic review of the influence of rice characteristics and
processing methods on postprandial glycaemic and
insulinaemic responses
Hanny M. Boers
Jack Seijen ten Hoorn
David J. Mela
Adapted fromABSTRACT
Rice is an important staple food for more than half of the world’s population. Especially in Asian countries rice is a major contributor to the dietary glycaemic load (GL). Sustained consumption of higher GL diets has been implicated in the development of chronic diseases such as diabetes mellitus type 2. Given that reduction in post-prandial glycaemic and insulinaemic responses is generally seen as a beneficial dietary change, it is useful to determine the variation in the range of postprandial glucose (PPG) and insulin (PPI) responses to rice and the primary intrinsic and processing factors known to affect such responses. We therefore identified relevant original research on glycaemic response to rice through a systematic search of literature in Scopus, Medline and Scifinder databases up to July 2014.
Based on a reference value of glucose = 100, the observed glycaemic index (GI) values for rices ranged from 48 to 93, while the insulinaemic index (II) ranged from 39 to 95. There are three main factors that appear to explain most of variation in the glycaemic and insulinaemic responses to rice: 1) inherent starch characteristics (amylose-amylopectin ratio and rice cultivar), 2) post-harvest processing (particularly parboiling) and 3) consumer processing (cooking, storage and re-heating). Milling shows a clear effect when compared at identical cooking times, with brown rice always producing a lower PPG and PPI response than white rise. However, at the longer cooking times normally used for preparation of brown rice, smaller and inconsistent differences between brown and white rice are observed.
INTRODUCTION
Rice is a daily dietary staple food for more than half of the world’s population, and the major single food source of carbohydrate and energy in China and many other Asian countries (1). In the South of India for example, nearly half of daily energy intake may
come from refined grains, and white polished rice constitutes > 75% of that (2). In China
brown rice is rarely consumed (3). As a result, in Asian populations white rice makes
large contributions to the dietary glycaemic load (GL), an index reflecting the acute blood glucose raising potential of foods or diets (4). Higher levels of postprandial
glycaemic exposures have been implicated in the development of chronic metabolic diseases, particularly type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cardiovascular diseases (5).
A recent systematic review and meta-analysis has shown a clear relationship between white rice intakes and T2DM, with higher rice intake levels being more strongly associated with risk in Asian than in Western populations (6, 7).
There are many varieties of rice grain in the world, and these vary considerably in the postprandial blood glucose (PPG) response they produce (8). Results in GI studies
around the world (9) reported values ranging from 64 to 93. Moreover, the post-harvest
treatment of rice and the method of consumer preparation can also play a significant role in this. Starch is comprised of two glucose polymers, amylose and amylopectin. Amylose is a linear and relatively short polymer of glucose units linked by α(1→4) bonds. Amylopectin is a branched and longer polymer where glucose units are arranged linearly through α(1→4) with branches emerging via α(1→6) bonds occurring every 24-30 glucose units (10). It is already generally known that starches with a higher
amount of amylose are more resistant to digestion (11).
In addition to the variation in the amylose content, cooking (and cooling) processes can influence the starch digestibility via the degree of gelatinization and retrogradation of rice starch. Gelatinization is the collapse (disruption) of molecular order (breaking of H-bonds) within the starch granule, manifested in irreversible changes in properties such as granular swelling, native crystallite melting, loss of birefringence and starch solubilisation during hydrothermal treatment (12). This leads to dissociation of the
crystalline regions in starch with associated hydration and swelling of the starch granules, leading to higher starch availability to human digestive enzymes (13).
Retrogradation is the recrystallization of the amorphous phases created by gelatinization (14) and in the case of amylose results in formation of type 3 resistant
starch (RS3) (15). RS3 is resistant for digestion, because it is heat stable and melts
above 120 0C (16). In contrast retrograded amylopectin is thought to melt upon
reheating (cooking), due to the low melting point (46-65 0C) of these crystallites and is
therefore digestible upon cooking.
Post-harvest processing include milling, parboiling and quick-cooking. The rice milling process starts with the husking stage to remove the husk from the paddy rice, followed
by the whitening-polishing stage to transform brown rice into polished white rice, and finally the grading and blending stage to obtain head rice with pre-defined amounts of broken rice. However, while this may affect the overall nutritional value, effects on digestibility and PPG are less clear (17). Other post-harvest treatments such as
parboiling can also play a role in digestibility. Parboiling is a hydrothermal treatment that includes soaking in water, heating, drying and milling of the paddy rice. During the parboiling process the crystalline structure of the starch present in rice is transformed into an amorphous form. Pressure parboiling is accomplished by soaking the paddy rice in warm water (65-680C) for 4-5h followed by steaming under pressure
and drying (18). Other post-harvest processes are used to produce quick-cooking rice.
This is rice where the starch has been partially gelatinized by soaking in water and heating (19). Additional processes for consumer consumption include cooking, storage
and reheating. There are different ways of rice cooking depending on the ratios between rice and water, equipment (pressure cooking and steaming), and consumer preference (sticky rice, aromatic Basmati, etc.). Cooking of polished white rice strongly affects gelatinization. Retrogradation is affected by cooling and storage conditions (see also figure 3).
Given that reductions in PPG responses is generally seen as a beneficial dietary change (5) it is useful to objectively establish the variation in the range of PPG
responses to rice and the primary intrinsic and processing factors known to affect such responses. We have therefore undertaken a systematic search of the literature characterizing the range of PPG and PPI responses to different rice types, and considered this alongside available data on rice grain and processing characteristics. The main emphasis is on in vivo studies in humans, supplemented in places by in vitro literature related to specific mechanisms that may be relevant (e.g. the influence of microstructure in rice).
METHODS
The literature database ‘Scopus’ was searched for the following combinations of keywords (without language or time restrictions): rice* AND glycaem* or glycem* or digestib* or glucose* or insulin* or hyperglycaem* or hyperglycem* or hypoglycaem* or hypoglycem* or normoglycaem* or normoglycem* AND combined with title from 1980 through July 2014 resulting in 94 records. In addition Pubmed + Scifinder were also searched with the same search string and one extra article was found. Three further ‘missed’ articles were identified from the cited references in the articles identified in the formal searches resulting in 98 articles. From manual inspection of the 98 abstracts, we identified 28 original articles describing results of 32 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with rice as the test food and a measure of PPG (and in some cases also PPI) as an outcome measure (for detailed flow chart see figure 1).
Rice r ev ie w 3 3 Fig . 1. Fl ow c ha rt of the s ys te m atic r ev iew ar ticl e s el ectio n pr oc es s, R CT , r ando m ised c ontr oll ed tr ia l
ap te r 2 ure 2 : Rice pr oc es si ng step s
RESULTS Evidence base
Studies identified in the search and the key relevant results from those are shown in tabular form in Table 1, and arranged for specific comparisons of amylose content, parboiling and milling respectively in Tables 2, 3 and 4 in the supplemental material. The 32 RCTs on PPG responses to rice include different rice types (e.g. regional varieties) and different processes (milling, (par)boiling, ‘quick cook’, (pressure) cooking). Outcome measures for blood glucose include Glycaemic Index (GI, 27 studies) and/or the incremental area under the PPG response curve (iAUC, 19 studies), or peak glucose values (8 studies). The iAUC is the actual blood glucose response to a given serving of rice, whereas GI and the corresponding insulinaemic index (II) use a fixed available carbohydrate load (usually 50 g) and represent responses as a comparison to a reference assigned a value of 100. Except where noted, the GI and II studies compared rice to glucose as the reference. A subset of studies report II (7 studies) or insulin AUC (8 studies). Two studies also took breath hydrogen into account as an indicator of carbohydrate malabsorption (20,21).
Characterization of rice and processing
In most studies the rice was well characterized with respect to % amylose (9 studies), dietary fibre (4 studies), resistant starch (RS) (2 studies) and available starch (16 studies). In some studies gelatinization or amylograph measures of the milled rice flour were taken into account (22, 23, 24, 25, 26), while in others in vitro glucose release assays
were included (24, 27, 21). A few studies reported grain sizes, rheology, or retrogradation
determined by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC; a thermo-analytical technique to identify phase transition) (28). The processes explored in the studies involved
post-harvest treatment such as parboiling and milling.
Variation observed in GI and II and causes for this variation
The observed GI values ranged from 48 to 93, while the II (0-120 min) ranged from 39 to 95 (Table 1).
Amongst the studies which specifically tested or varied the amylose content and its quantitative relationship with glycaemic and insulinaemic responses (9, 18, 20, 22, 23, 29-33)
most show that the latter measures are significantly inversely related to the amylose content (9, 18, 20, 29-32) (see also Table 2 in supplemental material). However, some
studies tested for but did not find this inverse relationship for all glycaemic parameters
(22, 23, 33). Large differences in amylose content (2% versus ~30% amylose) were often
associated with relatively large glycaemic and insulinaemic effects (≈300% decrease in PPG; ≈55% decrease in PPI) (9, 18, 29). However, there were also studies where this
Post-harvest treatments such as parboiling (21,29,34) and quick-cook rice (18,21) generally
gave a lower GI compared to white rice not undergoing these post-harvest treatments (see also Table 3 in supplemental material). Larsen et al. (28) reported that an
increased severity of parboiling conditions leads to significant decreases in PPG due to the formation of RS. In that study mild traditional parboiling had no effect on the GI, whereas severely pressure parboiling reduced the GI by almost 30% compared to non-parboiled rice. However, one study did not show an effect of parboiling (32), and the
reported GI of a thermally treated Indian Basmati rice variety (thermal treatment not specified) gave a GI of 55(35), which is in the range of 52-59 that Henry et al. (36)
reported for non-thermally treated Basmati rice. The influence of another post-harvest treatment, milling, by which brown rice is transformed into white rice, has been considered in several studies (9, 18, 26, 30, 37) (Table 4 in supplemental material). In
those studies where cooking times were identical (26,30,37), brown rice always produces
lower PPG and PPI responses. However, when realistic (longer) cooking times for brown rice are applied (9,18), the difference between brown and white is smaller and
inconsistent.
Consumer processing can also make a large contribution to the RS formation in rice. Chiu and Stewart (38) quantified the RS content in 4 white rice varieties (jasmine, long
grain, medium grain and short grain) cooked in three manners (oven baked, conventional rice cooker, and pressure cooker), and analyzed RS content immediately after preparation or after 3 days of refrigeration at 40C. Refrigerated long-grain rice
cooked in a conventional rice cooker had the highest RS content, while the refrigerated short-grain rice cooked in a pressure cooker had the lowest RS content. However, in this case the GI values did not differ significantly between higher RS and lower RS rices. Consumer processing can also have a large effect on gelatinization. Wolever et al (39) showed that GI generally increased with cooking time of rice, while Jung et al. (40) showed a marked increase in gelatinization upon cooking rice and a somewhat
higher GI and II. DISCUSSION
The literature reveals considerable variation in the the glycaemic or insulin response to rice. This is largely attributable to 1) starch characteristics, 2) post-harvest processing (particularly parboiling and to a much lesser extent de-hulling and milling) and 3) consumer processing (cooking, storage and re-heating). The relationships amongst rice characteristics and processing factors, and their physico-chemical effects and impact on glycaemic response are qualitatively illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Relationship between rice characteristics, processing factors, physico-chemical processes and glycaemic response (+ is increased effect, - is decreased effect). This is a general
figure, depending on specific processes e.g. conditions of parboiling, the effects may differ.
Influence of the composition and processing of the rice
The most consistently important source of variation in PPG responses to rice is amylose content. The amylose content of rice varies between 0% (waxy rice) and 30% (Doongara) (9), with Basmati having an intermediate value (20-25% amylose; (41)). One
of the reasons for the lower PPG responses to high amylose varieties is incomplete gelatinization of amylose under normal cooking conditions, while amylopectin is fully gelatinized under these conditions (42). Gelatinization temperature is known to be
positively correlated with amylose content (43), implying that rice with a higher amylose
content requires a higher gelatinization temperature due to the restrained swelling by amylose, resulting in a longer required cooking time (44). The formation of complexes
between amylose and lipids upon heating further contributes to reduced access to the starch by gut enzymes (33). These complexes with lipids are only found in association
with amylose, therefore the rice with highest amylose content would have more lipid-amylose complexes (33). In addition, a higher amylose content leads (after cooking and
cooling) to a greater degree of retrogradation (18). In a recent study the major gene
associated with variation in GI was the waxy gene (44), which codes for different
structures of amylose within the grain and different retrogradation rates (45).
In vitro literature shows that the rice cultivar, clustered as Indica, Japonica and Hybrid rice type, is also of importance for the rate and degree of starch digestion: low-amylose Indica shows a faster and higher degree of digestion compared to low-amylose Japonica, while a high-amylose Japonica is faster and more completely digested
(shown by a higher content of rapidly digestible starch and a lower content of slowly digestible and RS) than a high-amylose Indica (11). In addition, Benmoussa et al. (46)
showed that rice amylopectin fine structure affects starch digestion properties in vitro: cultivars with the highest amount of slowly digestible starch contained mainly long-chain amylopectin.
Post-harvest treatments such as parboiling (21, 29, 34) and quick-cook rice (18, 21) also
have a large influence on GI (Table 3 in supplemental material). Gelatinization and re-crystallization are the major changes in rice starch that occur during parboiling (47).
Parboiling process increases the gelatinization temperature of rice which is proportional with the severity of the heat treatment (48). This is probably the reason why
pressure parboiling lowers the GI to such a large extent, especially of high-amylose starches (49). The pressure parboiling process increases the gelatinization temperature
due to the formation of retrograded amylose and amylopectin. The wet heating and subsequent drying during these processing resulted in the gelatinization of the starch, followed by retrogradation of amylose and amylopectin (18) resulting in higher levels of
RS. It is possible that the amylopectin crystallites (part of the RS) retain some of the associating forces during the reheating, and are partly responsible for the low glucose response observed for pressure parboiling. The amylose-lipid complexes have a melting temperature above 100 0C and are not melted during the cooking process
resulting in higher RS levels (28).
Another way of getting a high RS content is having multiple heating/cooling cycles (50).
Thrice heated /cooled legumes, cereals and tubers increased the RS content from 4.18%, 1.86% and 1.51% to 8.16%, 3.25% and 2.51% respectively on dry matter basis. A ten times greater RS content in rice had however no effect on GI (38). It is
possible that the tested range of difference in RS in that study was not sufficient to observe a change in GI (38) and this is confirmed by the fact that only large differences
in amylose content (leading to high RS after cooking and cooling) lead to relatively large effects in GI (9).
Another final process shown to have a major influence on the PPG response is the gelatinization process during cooking, which needs moisture and a high temperature (above gelatinization temperature) for a particular period of time. Using different rice types with the same high amylose content, Panlasigui (25) reported that PPG responses
differed between rice types when a fixed cooking time was used, but these differences disappeared when the minimum cooking time for each particular rice type was used. This likely is attributed to the other physico-chemical properties of the rice types. Physico-chemical parameters which predict lower blood glucose response are high gelatinization temperature, high minimum cooking time, lower viscosity measured by amylograph consistency (amylograph is an instrument for measuring gelatinization temperature and viscosity of flour and starch pastes), and low volume expansion upon
cooking, all parameters related to lower gelatinization (25). Steaming also gave a larger
PPG response than boiling and simmering (51), which may reflect greater gelatinization
by steaming.
A factor which has relatively less impact on PPG is physical size and form of the whole kernel rice, probably due to the fact that the size is minimized by chewing (52). The
particle size only plays a major role when the rice has been milled to rice flour due to the higher surface area-starch ratio which leads to an increased rate of digestion (53).
In addition, the effect of brown rice versus white rice on glycaemic and insulinaemic response shows a clear effect (26, 30, 37) when compared at identical cooking times:
brown rice always gives a lower PPG and PPI (Table 4 in supplemental material). However, in reality consumers cook brown rice longer than white rice resulting a mixed outcome: in some cases white rice was found to have a higher glycaemic response (9, for Pelde), a neutral effect (9, for Dongaara and Calrose) or an even lower response than for brown
rice (18). In most of these studies (9, 18, 30) commercially white rice was taken at random
and not milled from the same batch of brown rice. Therefore the variety and physicochemical properties of the rice samples may have differed (53). Only two studies (26, 37) used white and brown rice from the same batch. However, a recent longer-term
study showed that the iAUC over 5 days consumption was 19.8% lower for a group eating brown vs white rice, as measured with a continuous glucose monitoring device
(54). However, it is not clear if the brown and white rices were of the same rice variety.
Therefore results cannot clearly be attributed to the milling alone. It is possible that the dietary fibre-rich bran fraction in brown rice can continue to serve as a barrier to digestive enzymes (53), but several other modes of action are possible. The magnitude
of effect of milling and polishing could also be somewhat dependent on the rice strain and cooking conditions (18). White rice has a shorter minimum cooking time and higher
volume expansion than brown rice, indicating that white rice is more easily hydrated and gelatinized compared with brown rice and therefore more readily digested resulting in a higher PPG response (53) when cooked under the same conditions.
In addition to the rice source and processing, there is interindividual variation observed in PPG (iAUC and peak blood glucose) to carbohydrate-rich foods. This has been reported to account for at least 20% of the total variation in PPG (55). One of the factors
which could be responsible for the interindividual variation in PPG to rice could be ethnicity. The PPG (+iAUC) was over 60% greater for five rice varieties and 39% greater for glucose amongst Chinese compared with Europeans (29) (Table 1). The
most likely explanation for the ethnic differences is that the Chinese are more likely to become insulin resistant compared to Europeans of the same or higher relative body weight and waist circumference (56). Truong et al. (57) also observed that
Asian-Americans on average exhibited higher levels of blood glucose than Caucasians after a control food with 50g carbohydrates. The conclusion is that if one compares results across studies one should take into account the ethnicity of the subjects: i.e. Asian
people typically give a higher PPG response than Caucasians, which may also increase the apparent magnitude of differences between rice types and characteristics.
A final factor contributing toward interindividual variation in PPG is the degree of habitual mastication (52). The latter may be a considerable contributor especially to
foods consisting of intact grains (such as rice) which rely on mechanical breakdown for carbohydrate release. Indeed, a recent study (58) showed that rice chewed 15 times
produced a PPG, peak PPG and GI significantly lower than when chewed 30 times. Conclusions
While rice as a total category may be a major global contributor to the dietary GL, there is wide variation in the glycaemic and insulinaemic responses to rice as eaten. This can be largely attributed to the inherent starch characteristics of the specific cultivars, but within a given rice type the mode of post-harvesting processing and ‘at-home’ preparation can also have a large influence. A reduced glycaemic impact is mediated mainly by the relative content of amylose (vs amylopectin), reduction of gelatinization, or the facilitation of retrogradation. Perhaps surprisingly, milling and polishing (thus white vs brown rice) has been found to have inconsistent impacts on acute glycaemic responses when compared under realistic cooking times, which are longer for brown rice. The glycaemic response to rice can be further influenced by individual characteristics of the consumer, such as chewing habit and ethnicity. In order to interpret and compare reported PPG responses between different rice studies, the rice cultivar, amylose/amylopectin ratio, post-harvest processing parameters and the cooking conditions should be considered. In addition, a lower PPG response of rice can be achieved by choosing the right conditions: e.g. high amylose content, minimized cooking times (or pressure parboiled) and cooled before consumption. The opposite effect (a higher PPG response) can be achieved by selecting for low amylose (waxy) white rice, with a long cooking time and consumed directly after cooking. Sources of financial support: No additional external financial support
Conflict of interest
HMB, DJM, JSH are employees of Unilever. Unilever manufactures and markets consumer food products, including products used for the preparation of rice-based dishes.
Authorship
HMB carried out the systematic review, and HMB and DJM extracted data from papers. HMB wrote the article with significant contributions from DJM and JSH.
REFERENCES
1. Kennedy G, Burlingame B, Nguyen VN (2003) Nutritional contribution of rice and impact of
biotechnology and biodiversity in rice-consuming countries. Proceedings of the 20th Session of the
International Rice Commission, Bangkok, Thailand, FAO.
2. Kumar S, Mohanraj E, Sudha V, et al. (2011) Perceptions about varieties of brown rice: a qualitative
study from Southern India. J Am Diet Assoc 111, 1517-1522.
3. Zhang G, Malik VS, Pan A, et al. (2010) Substituting brown rice for white rice to lower diabetes
risk: a focus-group study in Chinese adults. J Am Diet Assoc 110, 1216-1221.
4. Mohan V, Radhika G, Vijayalakshmi P, et al. (2010) Editorial: can the diabetes/cardiovascular disease epidemic in India be explained, at least in part, by excess grain (rice) intake? Ind J Med Res 131, 369-372.
5. Blaak EE, Antoine JM, Benton D, et al. (2012) Impact of postprandial glycaemia on health and
prevention of disease. Obes Rev 13 , 923-84.
6. Hu EA, Pan A, Malik V, et al. (2012) White rice consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes:
meta-analyssi and systematic review. Br Med J 344, e1454.
7. Neal B (2012) White rice and risk of type 2 diabetes. Br Med J 344, e2021.
8. Foster-Powell K, Holt SHA, Brand-Miller JC (2002) International table of glycemic index and
glycemic load values: 2002. Am J Clin Nutr 76, 5-56.
9. Brand Miller J, Pang E, Bramall L (1992) Rice: a high or low glycemic index food? Am J Clin Nutr
56, 1034-1036.
10. Sajilata MG, Singhal RS, Kulkarni PR (2006) Resistant starch – a review. Comprehensive Reviews
in Food Science and Food Safety 5, 1-17.
11. Hu P, Zhao H, Duan Z, et al. (2004) Starch digestibillity and the estimated glycemic score of
different types of rice differing in amylose content. J Cer Sci 40, 231-237.
12. Atwell WA, Hood LF, Lineback DR, et al. (1988)The terminology and methodology associated with
basic starch phenomena. Cereal Foods World 33, 306–311.
13. Tester RF and Sommerville MD (2003) The effects of non-starch polysaccharides on the extent of gelatinization, swelling and alpha-amylase hydrolysis of maize and wheat starches. Food
hydrocolloids 17, 41-54.
14. Faraj A, Vasanthan T, Hoover R (2004) The effect of extrusion cooking on resistant starch
formation in waxy and regular barley flours. Food Res Int 37, 517-525.
15. Mitra A, Bhattacharya D, Roy S (2007) Role of resistant starches particularly rice containing
resistant starches in type 2 diabetes. J Hum Ecol 21, 47-51.
16. Sievert D, Pomeranz Y (1989) Enzyme-resistant starch. I. Characterization and evaluation by
enzymatic, thermoanalytical and microscopic methods. Cereal Chemistry 66, 342-347.
17. Dipti SS, Bergman C, Indrasari SD et al. (2012) The potential of rice to offer solutions for
malnutrition and chronic diseases. Rice 5, 1-18.
18. Ranawana DV, Henry CJK, Lightowler HJ et al. (2009) Glycaemic index of some commercially
available rice and rice products in Great Britain. Int J Food Sci Nutr 60(S4), 99-110.
19. Owens G (ed.) (2001) Cereals processing technology. Cambridge, Woodhead Publishing Limited, UK
20. Li M, Piao J-H, Tian Y, et al. (2010) Posprandial glycaemic and insulinaemic responses to
GM-resistant starch-enriched rice and the production of fermentation-related H2 in healthy Chinese
adults. Br J Nutr 103, 1029-1034.
21. Casiraghi MC, Brighenti F, Pellegrini N, et al. (1993) Effect of processing on rice starch digestibility evaluated by in vivo and in vitro methods. J Cereal Sci 17, 147-156.
22. Al-Mssallem MQ, Hampton SM, Frost GS, et al. (2011) A study of Hassawi rice (Oryza sativa L.) in terms of its carbohydrate hydrolysis (in vitro) and glycaemic and insulinaemic indices (in vivo).
23. Juliano BO, Goddard MS (1986) Cause of varietal difference in insulin and glucose responses to
ingested rice. Qual Plant Plant Foods Hum Nutr 36, 35-41.
24. Juliano BO, Perez CM, Komindr S, et al. (1989) Properties of Thai cooked rice and noodles
differing in glycemic index in non-insulin-dependent diabetics. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 39,
369-374.
25. Panlasigui L, Thompson LU, Juliano BO et al. (1991) Rice varieties with similar amylose content differ in starch digestibility and glycemic response in humans. Am J Clin Nutr 54, 871-877. 26. Panlasigui LN, Thompson LU. (2006) Blood glucose lowering effects of brown rice in normal and
diabetic subjects. Int J Food Sci Nutr 57, 151-158.
27. Kim JC, Kim J-I, Kong B-W, et al. (2004) Influence of the physical form of processed rice products on the enzymatic hydrolysis of rice starch in vitro and on the postprandial glucose and insulin
responses in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 68, 1831-1836.
28. Larsen HN, Rasmussen OW, Rasmussen PH, et al. (2000) Glycaemic index of parboiled rice depends on the severity of processing: study in type 2 diabetic subjects. Eur J Clin Nutr 54: 380-385.
29. Kataoka M, Venn BJ, Williams SM, et al. (2013) Glycaemic responses to glucose and rice in people
of Chinese and European ethnicity. Diabet Med 30, 101-107.
30. Trinidad TP, Mallillin AC, Encabo RR, et al. (2013) The effect of apparent amylose content and dietary fibre on the glycemic response of different varieties of cooked milled and brown rice. Int J
Food Sci Nutr 64, 89-93.
31. Zarrati M, Pirali M, Mirmiran P, et al. (2008) Glycemic index of various brands of rice in healthy
individuals. Int J Endocrinol Metab 4, 200-204.
32. Larsen HN, Christensen C, Rasmussen OW, et al. (1996) Influence of parboiling and physico-chemical characteristics of rice on the glycaemic index in non-insulin-dependent diabetic subjects.
Eur J Clin Nutr 50, 22-27
33. Goddard MS, Young G, Marcus R. (1984) The effect of amylose content on insulin and glucose
responses to ingested rice. Am J Clin Nutr 39, 388-392.
34. Hettiarachchi P, Jiffry MTM, Jansz ER, et al. (2001) Glycaemic indices of different varieties of rice
grown in Sri Lanka. Ceylon Med J 46, 11-14.
35. Srinivasa D, Raman A, Meena P, et al. (2013) Glycaemic index (GI) of an Indian branded thermally
treated Basmati rice variety: a multi centric study. J Assoc Phys India 61, 716-720.
36. Henry CJK, Lightowler HJ, Strik CM, et al. (2005) Glycaemic index and glycaemic load values of
commercially available products in the UK. Br J Nutr 94, 922-930.
37. Karupaiah T, Aik CK, Heen TC, et al. (2011) A transgressive brown rice mediates favourable
glycaemic and insulin responses. J Sci Food Agric 91, 1951-1956.
38. Chiu Y-T, Stewart ML (2013) Effect of variety and cooking method on resistant starch content of white rice and subsequent postprandial glucose response and appetite in humans. Asia Pac J Nutr
22, 372-379.
39. Wolever TMS, Jenkins DJA, Kalmusky J, et al. (1986) Comparison of regular and parboiled rices: explanation of discrepancies between reported glycemic responses to rice. Nutr Res 6, 349-357. 40. Jung EY, Suh HJ, Hong WS, et al. (2009) Uncooked rice of relatively low gelatinization degree
resulted in lower metabolic glucose and insulin responses compared with cooked rice in female
college students. Nutr Res 29, 457-461.
41. Bhattacharjee P, Singhal RS, Kulkarni PR (2002) Int J Food Sci Techn 37, 12.
42. Björck I, Granfeldt Y, Liljeberg H, et al. (1994) Food properties affecting the digestion and
absorption of carbohydrates. Am J Clin Nutr 59(Suppl 3), 699S-705S.
43. Fredriksson H, Silverio J, Andersson R, et al. (1998) The influence of amylose and amylopectin characteristics on gelatinization and retrogradation poperties of different starches. Carbohydr
44. Fitzgerald MA. Rahman S, Resurreccion AP, et al. (2011) Identification of a major genetic
determinant of glycaemic index in rice. Rice 4, 66-74.
45. Tran NAV, Daygon DA, Resurreccion R, et al. (2011) A single nucleotide polymorphism on the
Waxy gene explains gel consistency. Theor Appl Genet 123, 519-525.
46. Benmoussa M, Moldenhauer KAK, Hamaker BR (2007) Rice amylopectin fine structure variability
affects starch digestion properties. J Agric Food Chem 55, 1475-1479.
47. Oli P, Ward R, Adhikari B, et al. (2014) Parboiled rice: understanding from a materials science
approach. J Food Eng 124, 173-183.
48. Islam MR, Shimizu N, Kimura T (2002) Effect of processing conditions on thermal properties of
parboiled rice. Food Sci Technol Resh 8, 131-136.
49. Zavareze EdR, Storck CR, de Castro LAS, et al. (2010) Effect of heat-moisture treatment on rice
starch of varying amylose content. Food Chem 121, 358-365.
50. Yadav BS, Sharma A, Yadav RB. (2009) Studies on effect of multiple heating/cooling cycles on
the resistant starch formation in cereals, legumes and tubers. Int J Food Sci Nutr 60(S4), 258-272.
51. Parastouei K, Shahaboddin ME, Motalebi M, et al. (2011) Glycemic index of Iranian rice. Sci Res
Essays 6, 5302-5307.
52. Ranawana V, Henry JK, Pratt M (2010) Degree of habitual mastication seems to contribute to
interindividual variations in the glycemic response to rice but not to spaghetti. Nutr Res 30,
382-391.
53. Chang UJ, Hong YH, Jung EY, et al. (2014) Rice and the glycemic index: Benefits, risks and mechanisms of whole grains in health promotion. In: Watson RR, Preedy V, Zibadi S. (eds). Wheat and rice in disease prevention and health. Elsevier Inc. P 357-363
54. Mohan V, Spiegelman D, Sudha V, et al. (2014) Effect of brown rice, white rice, and brown rice with legumes on blood glucose and insulin responses in overweight Asian Indians: randomized
trial. Diabetes Techn Ther 16, 317-325.
55. Vega-Lopez S, Ausman LM, Griffith JL, et al. (2007) Interindividual variability and intra-individual
reproducibility of glycemic index values for commercial white bread. Diabetes Care 30, 1412-1417.
56. Dickinson S, Colagiuri S, Faramus E, et al. (2002) Postprandial hyperglycemia and insulin
sensitivity differ among lean young adults of different ethnicities. J Nutr 132, 2574-2579.
57. Truong TH, Yuet WC, Hall MD (2014) Glycemic index of American-grown jasmine rice classified
as high. Int J Food Sci Nutr 65, 436-439.
58. Ranawana V, Leow MK-S, Henry CJK. (2014) Mastication effects of the glycaemic index: impact
on variability and practical implications. Eur J Clin Nutr 68, 137-139.
59. Gatti E, Testolin G, Noè D, et al. (1987) Plasma glucose and insulin responses to carbohydrate
food (rice) with different thermal processing. Ann Nutr Metab 31, 296-303.
60. Matsuo T, Mizushima Y, Komuro M, et al. (1999) Estimation of glycemic and insulinemic responses to short-grain rice (Japonica) and a short-grain rice-mixed meal in healthy young subjects. Asia
Pacific J Clin Nutr 8, 190-194.
61. Shobana S, Kokila A, Lakshmipriya N, et al. (2012) Glycaemic index of three Indian rice varieties.
ap te r 2 bl e 1: Hu m an in vi vo s tudie s o n th e po st-pr andi al gl yc ae m ic an d in su linaem ic e ffec ts o f r ice. For GI and II va lue s, 5 0g of av ai la bl e c ar bo hy dr ate s w er e ed a nd ref er enc e va lu e = 1 00 , w ith g lu cos e as the re fer en ce ex cept w her e n ot ed. Pub licat ion + Exp . Particp an ts (N, M /F , B M I, ag e) Fo od A m ylose w /w % G ly cae mic r es ponse In suli n resp ons e AU C G I Pea k Brand -M iller et al . ( 199 2) (9) N=8 h ea lthy vol un teers, 19-36y, BM I 18 -25 kg/m 2 Ric es gr ow n i n A us tra lia , m in = minut es b oi led Doon gar a (w hi te ), 1 4 min Doon gar a (br.) , 3 0 m in Pel de br ow n, 30 m in Sunb row n qu ic k, 16 m in Cal rose ( w hi te) , 1 4 m in Cal rose ( brow n) , 35 m in Pel de ( par boi le d), 14 m in W ax y r ic e, 1 4 mi n Pel de w hi te, 14 m in 28 28 20 NR 20 20 20 <2 20 GI vs b read 64 66 76 80 83 87 87 88 93 II v s br ead 40 39 55 54 67 51 57 89 67 Rana w an a et al . ( 200 9) (18) N=14 he al thy subjec ts , a ge 18-65 y, BM I < 30 k g/m 2 W hi te rice= W . Brow n r ice= B. m in = minut es b oi led 1. G uili n ri ce n oodl es , 8 m in 2. Jia ngxi ri ce no odles , 8 m in 3. Eas y-co ok l ong grain ric e, 15 min . 4. Long -grain ric e (Ind ic a t ype) , 15 min 5. W. b as ma ti rice , 1 0 min 6. Whit e ( 60% ) an d b ro wn (4 0% ) bas mat i r ic e 25 min 7. Ba smat i + w ild ric e, 20 m in 8. B. b asmat i ri ce, 25 m in 9. Thai red ric e, 2 5 m in 10. Eas y c ook b asm at i r ic e, 15 min 11. Th ai glu tinou s ric e, 10 m in 20-25 20-25 20-25 20-25 <2 76 74 76 91 94 92 96 116 111 111 144 37 40 47 47 50 59 63 75 76 80 92
Rice r ev ie w 4 5 Pub licat ion + Exp . Particp an ts (N, M /F , B M I, ag e) Fo od A m ylose w /w % G ly cae mic r es ponse In suli n resp ons e AU C G I Pea k Li et al (201 0) (20) N=16 he al thy subjec ts , 9M /7F , age 2 3-26, BM I 18-24 RS : R esis tant -starch enriched (RS 2 0% ) [High am ylose ] W T: W ild -ty pe ( RS 2 % ) Ind ic a type (O ry za s at iv a L. cv . Te-Q ing) , R S pr odu ced w ith ant is en se inh ibi tio n s tarch-br anchi ng en zy m e G I ( 4 ho ur ) 48 77 6.8 7.2 II 34 54 Cas ira gh i et al . ( 199 3) (21) N=9 h ea lthy subjec ts m ean a ge 26, BM I 22 Ital ian Fi no ribe ri ce , p ro ce ss ed as : Par boiled (15 m in boil ti m e) Q ui ck -coo ki ng pa rboiled (8 mi n) Convent io nal polis hed ( 20 min ) G I v s br ead 70 79 115 Al -M ssal le m et al . ( 201 1) (22) N=13 he al thy subjec ts , 6M / 7F , BM I 25. 6± 1.0 k g/ m 2, 25 -42 y Lon g-gra in ri ce var iety ‘ U nc le Ben’ s’ r ic e ( UB R) a nd tradi tion al Saud i Ar ab ian ric e: H ass aw i r ic e (HR). UB R HR 19 26 54 59 78 56 Jul iano an d G od dar d (198 6) ex p 1. (23) N=16 Ri ce coo ked: s am e deg re e of don en ess Lab el le New re x 28 24 (tAUC 0-180 m in ) 19. 0* 19. 3* A UC (µ U/m l) 86 64 Jul iano an d G od dar d (198 6) ex p 2. (23) N=33 Ri ce coo ked: s am e deg re e of don en ess M oc hi Gom e Lab el le Pec os 1 24 18 (tAUC 0-180 m in ) 19. 2* 19. 3* 19. 7* AUC (µ U/m l) 113 95 110
ap te r 2 Pub licat ion + Exp . Particp an ts (N, M /F , B M I, ag e) Fo od A m ylose w /w % G ly cae mic r es ponse In suli n resp ons e AU C G I Pea k Jul iano et a l (198 9) (24) N=8 t ype 2 DM subjec ts Lo ng g rai n non -wa xy (RD2 1 an d RD23) an d wax y rice Non w ax y ri ce W axy r ic e 16 2 71 75 Panl as ig ui e t al ( 199 1) : ex p 1 (25) N= 11 he al thy subjec ts (4M ,7F ), 23 -44 y, 100 ± 10 % idea l bo dy w ei ght Lo ng-grai n , no nwa xy rice : IR62; IR 36 a nd IR 42 , wh ite ri ce : bo iled for 22 m in
IR42 IR62 IR36
26.7 27.0 26.7 mm ol. m in/l 55 65 81 61 72 91 AUC pmol. m in/l 924 0 713 1 941 5 Panl as ig ue et al ( 199 1) : ex p 2 (25) N= 11 he al thy subjec ts (3M ,8F ), 23 -50 y, 100 ± 10 % idea l bo dy w ei ght Lo ng-grai n , no nwa xy rice : IR62; IR 36 a nd IR 42 , w hite ri ce ; 50g exp 2: boile d f or mi nimu m co okin g IR42, bo ile d fo r 14 m in . IR62, bo ile d fo r 20 m in . IR36, bo ile d fo r 19 m in . 26. 7 27. 0 26. 7 m m ol.min/ l 110 .4 110 .8 118 .0 81 75 78 Panl as ig ui and Thom ps on (200 6) Exp 1 (26) N=10 he al thy subjec ts (3M , 7F ),24-5 0 y, 1 00 ±10% id ea l bo dy w ei ght IR42 ric e, bro w n rice IR42 ric e, w hit e ric e 26. 7 26. 7 m m ol.min/ l 107 134 G I v s brea d 83 94 Panl as ig ui and Thom ps on (200 6) Exp 2 (26) N=9 T2D M (5M ,4F ), 45 -64y IR42 ric e, bro w n rice IR42 ric e, w hit e ric e 26. 7 26. 7 m m ol.min/ l 406 626 G I v s brea d 56 87
Rice r ev ie w 4 7 Pub licat ion + Exp . Particp an ts (N, M /F , B M I, ag e) Fo od A m ylose w /w % G ly cae mic r es ponse In suli n resp ons e AU C G I Pea k Ki m et al . (200 4) (27) N=10 T 2D pat ie nts ; 4M /6F ; m ean a ge 57, BM I 24 Korean rice s: G arae duk: 16 m m s tic k o f st eam ed ext ru ded ric e f lour Cooke d ric e: Gela tinized g ra in s, bo iled p olished ric e Bag sulg i – Rice ca ke: Larg e blo ck of st eam ed ri ce f lo ur m m ol /l /4hr 730 914 1070 m g /d l/4h r 174 2 257 1 326 6 Lar se n et al . (200 0) (28) N=9 t ype 2 DM , 26. 6k g/m 2, 6 0 ys Ind ic a r ic e v ar ie ty BR16, hi gh am ylose, long gr ain Pres sur e p ar bo iled ri ce Tradi on al m ild par bo ile d ric e Non-par boi led ri ce W hi te b re ad 27 27 27 iA UC m m ol/l /3 hr 231 274 335 626 G I v s brea d 39 46 55 100 10. 5 11. 0 10. 9 14. 0 iA UC pm ol /l/ 3 hr 7590 7719 7595 1652 Kata ok a et al . (201 2) (29) N=32 he al thy Chi ne se; 3 3y, BM I: 22. 9 kg/ m 2 and 3 1 he al th y Eur opean subjec ts : 3 4y, BM I: B M I: 25.8 kg/m 2 Ric e t ype s: Jasm in e ric e, bas mat i, bro w n ric e, Do ong ara an d p arbo iled ri ce ( Unc le B en ’s) Doon gar a Par boiled Bas ma ti Brow n Ja sm in e 30 (9) 20-25 (9 ) Low (32) iA UC Eur /Chi n m m ol.min/ l 109 / 179 112 / 194 116 / 184 129 / 210 140 / 225 G I E ur /Chi n 55 / 6 7 57 / 7 2 57 / 6 7 65 / 7 8 68 / 8 0 Tri ni dad e t al (201 3) (30) N=9-10 h ea lthy vol un teers, 27-55y Cook ed m ille d an d brow n r ic e M illed ric e PSB rc10 IR64 PSB Rc18 IM S2 PSB Rc12 NSIC RC1 60 Sin ando m eng 27. 0 22. 9 18. 0 0.6 21.0 15.3 12.6 m m ol.min/ l 188 212 221 233 236 259 280 50 57 59 63 63 70 75
ap te r 2 Pub licat ion + Exp . Particp an ts (N, M /F , B M I, ag e) Fo od A m ylose w /w % G ly cae mic r es ponse In suli n resp ons e AU C G I Pea k Brown ric e IR64 Sin ando m eng 22. 0 12. 1 189 204 51 55 Zar rati et al. (200 8) (31) N= 30 he al thy subjec ts (13M /17 F), ag e 35y ,BM I: 23 kg/m 2 O ne Iran ian rice ty pe : Kaz em i an d im ported ric es .
Sorna pearl Basm
at i Kaz em i 32 31 27 52 61 68 m ax im um chan ges 1.2 1.7 1.5 II 47 52 62 Lar se n et al (199 6) (32) N=12 T 2D pat ie nts , 7M /5F m ean a ge 58, BM I 30 Deh ulled , mill ed ric es: BR2 = Lo w am ylose v ariet y BR4 lo w Gel at ini zatio n tem p an d g el co nsist en cy v s BG 16 PB = Parbo ile d NP = N ot Parbo iled BR4-PB BR16-PB BR16-NP BR2-PB W. Bread 27 28 28 12 iA UC m m ol/l /3 hr 361 391 411 566 756 G I v s brea d 47 50 53 73 100 m m ol/l 14. 5 14. 7 14. 8 15. 9 17. 3 iA UC pm ol /l/ 3 hr 129 64 128 21 110 87 162 15 201 83 G od dar d et al . (198 4) (33) N=33 16M /17 F, 27-81y,w ei gh t: w ithi n 20% des irable w Lon g-gra in ri ce: L ab el le M ed ium grain r ic e: Pe co s Sw eet ric e: M oc hi Go m e 23-25 14-17 <2 19. 4* 20. 0* 19. 4* 6.3 6.6 6.8 100 μ U/ml 105 110 Hetti ar ach chi et al . ( 200 1) N=22 he al thy subjec ts , 2 5-50y Shr ila nk ian ric e var ietie s ( red vs w hi te a nd p ar bo iled vs r aw ric e) Ric e br eed ing i ns titu te: Bg = Bat hal aga oda Bw = B om buw al a Bg 3 50, raw , red Bw 351 , par bo il, r ed GI vs bread 55 ± 6 56 ± 5
Rice r ev ie w 4 9 Pub licat ion + Exp . Particp an ts (N, M /F , B M I, ag e) Fo od A m ylose w /w % G ly cae mic r es ponse In suli n resp ons e AU C G I Pea k Bw 272 6-B, pa rb oi l, red Bg 9 4-1, pa rb oi l, w hi te BW 30 2, raw , w hi te Bg 3 00, pa rb oi l, w hi te Bw 400 , raw , r ed Bg 4 50, raw , w hi te Bg 9 4-1, raw , w hi te Bw 272 6-B, r aw , r ed Bw 351 , raw , r ed 58 ± 5 62 ± 6 64 ± 6 66 ± 5 66 ± 5 67 ± 5 68 ± 6 68 ± 7 73 ± 4 Sri ni vasa et al . ( 201 3) (35) N=83 he al thy vol un teers, (64M , 1 9F) ,18-37y, w ei gh t 44-74 k g An I ndia n ther m al ly tr eate d basm ati ri ce m m ol .min/l 182 55 M g/ dl 7.6 Henr y et al . (200 5) (36) N=8, m ean age =3 7; BM I 23 kg/m 2 Bas ma ti r ic e, Ind ian, bo iled 8 m in. Bas ma ti r ic e, Ind ian, ea sy -coo k, boi led 9 m in . Bas ma ti r ic e, bo iled 12 m in . Bas ma ti ric e, org anic, b oi le d 9 m in . 69 67 52 57 Kar upaiah e t al . ( 201 1) (37) N=9 h ea lthy subjec ts , 6M /4F , age gr ou p< 30 y, BM I: 23 kg /m 2 Trans gr ess iv e br ow n ric e ( BR) , cros s b etw ee n w ild r ic e O .rufi po gon G rif f. an d O . s ativ a L. sub sp. Indic a cv. M R21 9, po lis hed ver sion (P R) an d w hi te ric e (C ap Ram bu tan ) ( W R ) BR PR WR 13 15 18 m m ol.min/ l 84 130 141 51 79 86 II 39 63 68
ap te r 2 Pub licat ion + Exp . Particp an ts (N, M /F , B M I, ag e) Fo od A m ylose w /w % G ly cae mic r es ponse In suli n resp ons e AU C G I Pea k Chi u an d Stew ar t (201 3) (38) N=21 he al thy subjec ts ,1 2M /9F , 18 -65 y , B M I 18. 5-3 0.1 kg/ m 2 Refr ige rated lon g g ra in r ic e pr epar ed w ith r ic e coo ker ( 2. 55g RS /1 00g as -e at en) H RS , Refr ige rated s hort -gra in ric e pr epar ed w ith p re ss ur e coo ker (0.2 0g R S/ 100 g) LR S High re sistan t s tar ch ri ce Low res ist ant s tarch ric e 211 181 84 78 W ol ever e t al . (198 6) , ex p 1. (3 9) N=18 dia be tic s, 13 NIDDM (6F /7M ; 67 y s; 124 % i de al w ei ght) an d + 5 IDD M (4F /1M ; 54 ys , 1 04% idea l w ei ght) W hi te b re ad W hi te br ea d + tom ato 15 m in r egular r ic e 15 m in p ar bo iled ri ce 23 23 NIDD M /IDD M m m ol.min/ l 951 /1 220 100 3/ 120 8 816 /1 019 614 /7 10 NIDD M /IDD M G I v s brea d 100 /1 00 107 /9 5 86/ 77 68/ 64 NIDD M /IDD M m m ol/l 7.7 /9. 7 8.2 /9. 6 6.4 /7. 8 4.7 /5. 9 W ol ever e t al . (198 6) , ex p 2. N=18 dia be tic s, 13 NIDDM (6F /7M ; 67 y s; 124 % i de al w ei ght) an d + 5 IDD M (4F /1M ; 54 ys , 1 04% idea l w ei ght) W hi te br ea d + tom ato 5m in regu lar ri ce 15m in reg ul ar r ic e Ins ta nt ri ce 5m in par boi led rice 15m in p ar boil ed ric e 25m in p ar boil ed ric e GI vs b read 103 58 83 65 54 67 66 Jung et a l. (200 9) (40) N=12 he al thy fem al es m ean age 2 2, BM I 21 Korean (Pun gt ak reg ion) ric e, proce ss ed a s: UP = U nco ok ed rice p ow der UFP = Free ze-dr ie d UP CR = Coo ked ri ce (bo ile d 15 min ) 50 59 72 74 68 95 II 74 68 95
Rice r ev ie w 5 1 Pub licat ion + Exp . Particp an ts (N, M /F , B M I, ag e) Fo od A m ylose w /w % G ly cae mic r es ponse In suli n resp ons e AU C G I Pea k Par as tou ei et al . ( 201 1) (51) N=10 he al thy you ng a dul ts (m ean a ge 20, BM I 20) ‘Iran ian ’ w hit e ric e ( no fur th er det ai ls on type) : Flu ffy (Soak ed 35 ’ Boiled 1 0’ dr ai ned a nd s immer ed 20-30’ ) Steam ed (Boi led 5-8’ simmer ed 30 ’) 55 66 Truon g et a l, 201 4 (57) N=12 he al thy vol un teers (pF /3M ; 18 -65 ys ;23 k g/ m 2) Fou r br an ds of J asmine rice Della (Unite d St ate s) Jazz men ( United St at es) Rein deer ( Thai la nd) M ah at ma (Th ail an d)
Low Low Low low
96 106 115 116 G at ti et al . (198 7) (59) N=14 he al thy subjec ts , 9M /5F , 21-32y, w ei gh t: 88-115 k g Ric e w as cooked in t w o di ffere nt m ann er s: Boi led in sa lted w at er Bak ed fo r 1 0 min a t 16 0 C af te r boi ling 60 m in 61 43 AUC (U/m l) 2,5 36 2,6 76 M at suo et al (199 9) ex p 1 (60) N= 8 hea lthy adu lts , 3M /5F , m ean a ge 25, BM I 20 Sho rt -grain Kosh ih ik ari rice 3 hr G I a nd II v s gluc ose referen ce 48 II= 65 Shob an a et al . (201 2) (61) N=23 he al thy vol un teers, 18-45y, BM I < 23 .0 kg/m 2 In dian ri ce v ariet ie s ( So na M asu ri, Pon ni and Surti Kola m) Ponn i Sona M as ur i Sur ti K ol am mmo l. m in /l 175 172 185 70 72 77 *T he AUC w as not c alculated by the tra pezoi dal m et hod , b ut by the formu la: time 1 + tim e 2 + ¾ ti m e3 + ti m e 4 + time 5 4 2
ap te r 2 EMENT AR Y M AT ERI AL le 2: Gl yc ae m ic a nd ins ulin r es pons e dat a cla ss ifi ed b y in he re nt c har acter ist ics (e .g . am yl os e c ont ent + gr ain ty pe + va rie ty /na m e) , p os t-h ar ve st an d um er p roc es si ng . In heren t ch arac terist ic s Proces s Post -harv est Proces s co nsu m er G ly cae mic r es ponse In su lin Pu blica tion Am yl os e G rai n type Var iety Cook er Boi ling tim e [m ] AUC G I Pea k [m m ol /l] Wa xy (<2 % ) M oc he G om e 19 1 6.8 110 G od dar d-198 4 (33) M oc he G om e Degr ee o f do nen es s 19 2 11 3 2 Jul iano-1 98 6-2 (23 ) RD23 75 Jul ian o-198 9 (2 4) Tha i gl utino us w hi te 10 144 92 Ra na w an a-200 9 (1 8) 0.6 IM S2 m illed coo ked 233 3 63 Tri ni dad -2 01 3 (30) Lo w (1 2 – 20 % ) 12 BR2 pa rboiled 56 6 4 100 15 .9 162 15 4 Lar se n-19 96 (32 ) 12. 1 Si nan dome ng br ow n coo ked 20 4 3 55 Trini da d-2 013 (30) 12. 6 Si nan dome ng m illed coo ked 280 3 75 Trini da d-2 013 (30) 13 M R21 9 brow n 84 51 39 Kar up ai ah -2 01 1 (37) 15 M R21 9 pol is he d 130 79 63 Kar upa iah-2011 (37) 15. 3 NSIC RC160 m illed coo ked 259 3 70 Trini da d-2 013 (30) 16 Lo ng RD 21 71 Jul ia no -198 9 (2 4) 14-17 m ed ium Pec os 20 1 6.6 105 1 G odd ar d-1 984 (33) 18 Pec os De gr ee o f do nen es s 20 2 11 0 2 Jul iano-1 98 6-2 (23 ) 18 Cap R am buta n w hi te 141 86 68 Kar upa iah-2011 (37) 18 PSB R c18 m illed coo ked 221 3 59 Trini da d-2 013 (30) 19 long Unc le Ben’s pa rboiled Ric e:w at er = 1: 2 17 54 78 Al -M ssal le m -201 1 (2 2) NR Unc le Ben’s pa rboiled Ric e c oo ker 19 4 72 Kata ok a-20 12-Chin ese (2 9) NR Unc le Ben’s pa rboiled Ric e c oo ker 11 2 57 Kata ok a-20 12-Eur op ea n (2 9) xpr es sed a s m mo l/l, and insulin re sponse e xpre ss ed a s µ U/ m l xpr es sed a s m mo l/l; t AUC 0-180 min. , an d insulin re spo nse expre sse d a s µ U/ml xpr es sed a s m mo l/l, and insulin re sponse e xpre ss ed a s p m ol/l. xpr es sed a s i AU C m mol /l/3hr, and insulin re sponse expres se d a s p m ol /l/3hr
Rice r ev ie w 5 3 In heren t ch arac terist ic s Proces s Post -harv est Proces s co nsu m er G ly cae mic r es ponse In su lin Pu blica tion Am yl os e G rai n type Var iety Cook er Boi ling tim e [m ] AUC G I Pea k [m m ol /l] NR Ar om at ic Thai J asm in e W hi te Ri ce c oo ker 225 80 Katao ka-20 12-Chin ese (2 9) NR Ar om at ic Thai J asm in e W hi te Ri ce c oo ker 140 68 Katao ka-20 12-Eur op ea n (2 9) 20 Pel de br ow n 30 76 55 Br and-M iller -19 92 (9) 20 Pel de pa rboiled 14 87 57 Brand -M iller -19 92 (9) 20 Pel de w hi te 14 93 67 B rand-M iller -19 92 (9) 20 Cal ros e Br ow n 35 87 51 Brand -M iller -19 92 (9) 20 Cal ros e w hi te 14 83 67 Br and-M iller -19 92 (9) low Jasm in e De lla w hi te coo ked 96 Truon g-201 4 (5 7) low Jasm in e Jazz m en w hi te coo ked 10 6 Truon g-201 4 (5 7) low Jasm in e Re ind eer w hi te coo ked 115 Truon g-201 4 (5 7) low Jasm in e M aha tm a w hi te coo ked 116 Truo ng-201 4 (5 7) In termed iate ( 20 – 25 % ) 21. 0 PSB R c12 m illed coo ked 236 3 63 Trini da d-2 013 (30) 22. 0 IR 64 br ow n coo ked 18 9 3 51 Trini da d-2 013 (30) 22. 9 IR 64 m illed coo ked 212 3 57 Trini da d-2 013 (30) 23 “regu lar ” w hi te bo iling 15 816 5 86 6.4 W ole ver -1 98 6-1-NIDDM (39) 23 “regu lar ” w hi te bo iling 15 1019 5 77 7.8 W ole ver -1 98 6-1-ID DM (39) 23 “regu lar ” par boiled bo iling 15 61 4 5 68 4.7 W ole ver -1 98 6-1-NIDDM (39) 23 “regu lar ” par boiled bo iling 15 71 0 5 64 5.9 W ole ver -1 98 6-1-ID DM (39) 23 “regu lar ” w hi te bo iling 5 58 W olev er -1 986-2 (39) 23 “regu lar ” w hi te bo iling 15 83 W olev er -1 986-2 (39) 23 “regu lar ” par boiled bo iling 5 54 W ole ver-1 986 -2 (39) 23 “regu lar ” par boiled bo iling 15 67 W ole ver-1 986 -2 (39) 23 “regu lar ” par boiled bo iling 25 66 W ole ver-1 986 -2 (39) 23-25 l ong La belle 19 1 6.3 100 1 G odd ar d-1 984 (33) 24 l ong Lab el le 19 2 86 2 Jul iano-1 98 6-1 (23 ) 24 l ong Lab el le 19 2 95 2 Jul iano-1 98 6-2 (23 ) Ind ia n Bas mati W hi te boi ling 8 69 Henr y-2005 (36) 5 AUC e xpr es sed a s m mo l/l
ap te r 2 Inheren t ch arac terist ic s Proces s Post -harv est Proces s co nsu m er G ly cae mic r es ponse In su lin Pu blica tion Am yl os e G rai n type Var iety Cook er Boi ling tim e [m ] AUC G I Pea k [m m ol /l] Ind ia n Bas mati W hi te Boi ling 12 52 Henr y-20 05 (36) Bas mati Eas y-c oo k bo iling 9 67 Hen ry -200 5 (36) O rgani c Bas mati W hit e ( ?) boi ling 9 57 Henr y-200 5 (36) Bas mati W hite Ric e c oo ker 18 4 67 Katao ka-20 12-Chin ese (2 9) Bas mati W hite Ric e c oo ker 11 6 57 Katao ka-20 12-Eur op ea n (2 9) Bas mati The rm al -tr eat ed 182 6 55 7. 6 6 Sr ini va sa-201 3 (3 5) Pon ni W hi te Ric e:w at er = 1:3. 5 35 17 5 70 Sho ban a-20 12 (61 ) m edium Sona M as ur i W hite Ri ce:w ater = 1:3. 5 35 17 2 72 Shob an a-20 12 (61 ) Sur ti Ko lam W hi te Ri ce: w at er = 1:3. 5 35 18 5 77 Shob an a-20 12 (61 ) High (25 – 33% ) 26 Has saw i Br ow n Ri ce: w at er= 1: 2 45 59 56 Al -M ssal le m -201 1 (2 2) 26. 7 Lo ng IR36 W hi te bo iling 22 81 3 91 941 5 3 Pan la sig ui -19 91-1 (25) 26. 7 Lo ng IR36 W hi te bo iling 19 78 Pan la sig ui -19 91-2 (25) 26. 7 Lo ng IR42 W hi te bo iling 22 55 3 61 924 0 3 Pan la sig ui -19 91-1 (25) 26. 7 Lo ng IR42 W hi te bo iling 14 91 Pan la sig ui -19 91-2 (25) 26. 7 Lo ng IR42 Brow n 107 3 83 Pan la sig ui -20 06-heal thy (26) 26. 7 Lo ng IR42 W hi te 134 3 94 Pan la sig ui -20 06-heal thy (26) 26. 7 Lo ng IR42 Brow n 40 6 56 Panl as ig ui -20 06-T2DM (26) 26. 7 Lo ng IR42 w hi te 626 91 Panl as ig ui -20 06-T2DM (26) 27. 0 l ong IR62 w hi te boi ling 22 65 3 72 713 1 3 Pan la sig ui -19 91-1 (25) 27. 0 l ong IR62 w hi te boi ling 20 75 Pan la si gui -19 91-2 (25) 27. 0 PSB r c10 m illed coo ked 188 3 50 Trini da d-2 013 (30) 27 BR4 pa rboiled 36 1 4 47 14. 5 1296 4 4 Lar se n-19 96 (32 ) 28 BR16 Par boil ed 391 4 50 14. 7 1282 1 4 Lar se n-19 96 (32 ) 28 BR16 po lis he d 411 4 53 14. 8 1108 7 4 Lar se n-19 96 (32 ) 27 In di ca-lo ng BR16 Pres sur e par boil ed 231 4 39 10. 5 7590 4 Lar se n-20 00 (28 ) 27 In di ca-lo ng BR16 M ild pa rboi le d 27 4 4 46 11. 0 7719 4 Lar se n-20 00 (28 ) 27 In di ca-lo ng BR16 Pol is he d 335 4 55 10. 9 7595 4 Lar se n-20 00 (28 ) xpr es sed a s m mo l.m in/ l., a nd P eak expr es sed a s m m ol/l
Rice r ev ie w 5 5 In heren t ch arac terist ic s Proces s Post -harv est Proces s co nsu m er G ly cae mic r es ponse In su lin Pu blica tion Am yl os e G rai n type Var iety Cook er Boi ling tim e [m ] AUC G I Pea k [m m ol /l] 28 New re x Degr ee o f do nene ss 19 2 64 2 Jul iano-1 98 6-1 (23 ) 28 Doong ar a Br ow n bo iling 30 66 39 Brand -M iller -19 92 (9) 28 Doong ar a w hi te bo iling 14 64 40 Br and -M iller-19 92 (9) 28 Doong ar a w hi te 179 67 Kata ok a-20 12-Chin ese (2 9) 28 Doong ar a w hi te 109 55 Kata ok a-20 12-Euro pe an (2 9) 27 Kazem i 68 27 m g/d l 62 Zar rati -20 08 (3 1) 31 Bas mati 61 32m g/dl 52 Zarr ati -200 8 (3 1) 32 Sor na p ea rl 52 22m g/dl 47 Zar rati -20 08 (3 1)
ap te r 2 le 3: Gl ycae m ic a nd in su lin r es po ns e c las sif ie d b y (p re ssur e) p ar bo ile d ver su s non -p ar bo ile d r ice an d q ui ck c ook rice erel y) parb oiled v ersu s non oiled rice in = m inu tes b oi le d Variet y Gl ycaem ic r es ponse Insu lin Pub licat ion AUC GI *vs br ead Peak boiled, 14 m in Pel de (w hi te) 87* 57 B rand-M iller -19 92 (9) par boi led, 1 4 min Pel de ( w hi te) 93* 67 Br and-M iller -19 92 (9) boiled, 15 m in Ital ian F ino ribe 70 * Ca si ra gh i-1 99 3 (21) ck -coo ki ng pa rboiled , 8 m in Ital ian F ino ribe 79 * Ca si ra gh i-1 99 3 (21) par boi led, 2 0 min Ital ian Fi no ribe 11 5* Ca si ra gh i-1 99 3 (21) boiled BW 35 1, red 56* Hett iar ac hchi -20 01 (3 4) par boi led BW 35 1, raw , r ed 73* He ttiar ac hchi -2001 (3 4) boiled BW 27 26 -B, red 58* He ttiar ac hchi -2001 (3 4) par boi led BW 27 26 -B , raw , red 68 * He ttiar ach chi -2001 (3 4) boiled Bg 9 4-1, w hi te 62* Hett iar ach chi -2001 (3 4) par boi led Bg-94 -1, raw , w hi te 68* Het tiar ach chi -2001 (3 4) boiled Par boiled (Un cl e Ben’ s, M as terfoo ds ) 112 57 Kata ok a-20 12-Eur op ea n (2 9) boiled Par boiled (Un cl e Ben’ s, M as terfoo ds ) 194 72 Kata ok a-20 12-Chin ese (2 9) boiled Ind ic a r ic e BR1 6 391 50 * 14.7 128 21 La rs en-19 96 (32 ) par boi led Indic a r ic e BR1 6 411 53* 14. 8 110 87 Lar se n-19 96 (32 ) sur e p ar bo iled Ind ic a r ic e BR1 6 231 39* 10. 5 759 0 La rse n-20 00 (28 ) tion al mil d p arb oi led Indica ric e BR1 6 274 46 * 11.0 771 9 La rse n-20 00 (28 ) par boi led Indic a r ic e BR1 6 335 55* 10. 9 759 5 La rse n-20 00 (28 ) y-coo k Bas m at i r ic e, 1 5 m in 111 80 Rana w an a-2009 (1 8) te r ice (non-e as y c oo k) Bas mati ri ce , 10 m in 94 50 Rana w an a-2009 (1 8) y-coo k Lon g grain, In di ca, 1 5 m in 76 47 Rana w an a-200 9 (1 8) eas y coo k Lo ng gr ain , In di ca, 1 5 m in 91 47 Rana w an a-200 9 (1 8) boiled Regu lar lon g-gra in 614 68 * 4.7 W ol ever -1 986-NIDDM -1 (39) par boi led Regul ar lon g-gr ai n 816 86 * 6.4 W ol ever -1 98 6-NI DDM -1 (39) boiled Regu lar lon g-gra in 710 64 * 5.9 W ol ever -1 986-IDDM -1 (39) par boi led Regul ar lon g-gr ai n 101 9 77 * 7.8 W ol ever -1 98 6-IDDM -1 (39)
Rice r ev ie w 5 7 (Sev erel y) parb oiled v ersu s non parb oiled rice M in = m inu tes b oi le d Variet y Gl ycaem ic r es ponse Insu lin Pub licat ion AUC GI *vs br ead Peak Non-par boi led Regu lar , 5 m in 58* W ol ever-1 986-NIDDM -2 (39) Par boiled Regu lar , 5 m in 54* W ole ver-1 986 -NI DDM -2 (39) Non-par boi led Regul ar , 15 m in. 83* W ole ver-1 986 -NI DDM -2 (39) Par boiled Regu lar , 15 m in 67* W ol ever-1 986 -NI DDM -2 (39) Par boiled Regu lar , 25 m in 66* W ol ever-1 986 -NI DDM -2 (39)
ap te r 2 le 4: Gl ycae m ic a nd in su lin r es po ns e c las sif ie d b y state of m illin g illi ng st at e (bro wn v ersu s wh ite) in = min b oi le d Variet y Gl ycaem ic r es ponse Insu lin ** II v s br ea d Pub licat ion AUC GI *vs br ead Peak hi te , 14 m in . Doo ngara 64* 40** Br and-M iller -19 92 (9) n, 30 m in Do on gara 66* 39** Br and-M iller -19 92 (9) hi te , 14 m in Pel de 93* 93** Br and-M iller -19 92 (9) n, 30 m in Pel de 76* 76* * Br and-M iller -19 92 (9) hi te , 14 m in Cal ros e 83 * 67** Br and-M iller -19 92 (9) n, 35 m in Ca lrose 87* 51 ** Brand -M iller -19 92 (9) hi te Trans gr ess iv e 13 0 79 63 Kar upa iah-2011 (37) n Trans gr essi ve 84 51 39 Kar upa iah-2011 (37) hi te IR42 134 94* Panl as ig ui a nd T homps on-20 06-1-hea lthy (26) n IR42 107 83* Pan la si gui a nd Thomps on-20 06-1 hea lthy (26) hi te IR42 626 87 Pan la si gui a nd Thomps on-20 06- 2-T2 D M (26) n IR42 406 56 Pan la si gui a nd T homps on-20 06-2-T2 D M (26) hi te Bas ma ti ric e, 10 m in 94 50 Ra na w ana-200 9 (1 8) n Bas mati ri ce , 25 m in 11 6 75 Ranaw an a-200 9 (1 8) hi te IR64 212 57 Trini da d-2 013 (30) n IR64 189 51 Tri ni dad-2013 (30) hi te Si nand omen g 28 0 75 Trini da d-2 013 (30) n Si nan domeng 20 4 55 Tri ni dad-2013 (30)
