Next Article in Journal
Resveratrol Inhibits Porcine Intestinal Glucose and Alanine Transport: Potential Roles of Na+/K+-ATPase Activity, Protein Kinase A, AMP-Activated Protein Kinase and the Association of Selected Nutrient Transport Proteins with Detergent Resistant Membranes
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Cholesterol Levels on Mortality in Patients with Long-Term Peritoneal Dialysis Based on Residual Renal Function
Open AccessArticle

Gastrointestinal Tolerance and Glycemic Response of Isomaltooligosaccharides in Healthy Adults

1
Global Nutrition R&D, Ingredion Incorporated, 10 Finderne Ave, Bridgewater, NJ 08807, USA
2
Global Sweeteners R&D, Ingredion Incorporated, 10 Finderne Ave, Bridgewater, NJ 08807, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2018, 10(3), 301; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10030301
Received: 9 January 2018 / Revised: 26 February 2018 / Accepted: 28 February 2018 / Published: 3 March 2018
Ingredients delivering functional and nutritional benefits are of interest to food manufacturers. Isomaltooligosaccharides (IMOs) which serve as alternate sweeteners fit into this category. IMOs are a mixture of α-(1 → 6) and α-(1 → 4)-linked glucose oligomers, synthesized by an enzymatic reaction from starch (corn, tapioca). The aim of this study was to evaluate the fermentability and glycemic response of IMO in a healthy population. Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over human studies were conducted. In the first study (n = 26), participants’ breath hydrogen over 24 h, gastrointestinal tolerance, and glycemic and insulinemic response to BIOLIGOTM IL5040 isomaltooligosaccharide were measured. In another study (n = 10), participants’ two-hour post-prandial glycemic response to BIOLIGOTM IL5040 isomaltooligosaccharide and BIOLIGOTM IL7010 isomaltooligosaccharide was measured compared to dextrose (control). The IMOs differed in the composition of mono and di-saccharide sugars. IMO syrup dose was matched for 50 g of total carbohydrates and was consumed by mixing in water (237 mL/8 oz.). Mean composite gastrointestinal score was not significantly different (p = 0.322) between the control (1.42) and IMO (1.38). Lack of difference in glycemic response (p = 0.662), with no impact on breath hydrogen (24 h; p = 0.319) and intestinal tolerance, demonstrates that IMO is digestible and can be used to replace sugars in product formulations. View Full-Text
Keywords: isomaltooligosaccharides; glycemic response; breath hydrogen; tolerance isomaltooligosaccharides; glycemic response; breath hydrogen; tolerance
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Gourineni, V.; Stewart, M.L.; Icoz, D.; Zimmer, J.P. Gastrointestinal Tolerance and Glycemic Response of Isomaltooligosaccharides in Healthy Adults. Nutrients 2018, 10, 301.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop