Respondents’ recruitment
A total of 120 Kuala Nerus locals indicated an interest in participating in the clinical experiment (Fig. 1). Out of a total of 120 individuals, 74 individuals did not match the inclusion criteria or did not start further contact. Common causes for ineligibility were FINDRISC score < 4, current breastfeeding, smoking and being diagnosed with T2DM. A total of 46 individuals enrolled during the second screening phase (capillary FBG test). Of the 46 individuals, 6 refused to engage any further due to schedule constraints while 4 had capillary FBG of > 7.0 mmol/L. On the other hand, 6 individuals were dropped from the study shortly after it began owing to non-compliance and schedule conflict. Finally, 30 respondents (7 men and 23 women) were successfully completed all two test days with 100% response rate.
Respondents’ characteristics at baseline
The characteristics of the completed respondents are displayed in Table 3. The mean age of 30 individuals was 36.1 ± 8.7 years. The respondents were predominantly female (76.7%) of Malay ethnicity (96.7%), married (43.3%) and with tertiary education (60.0%). The majority of the respondents were employed (83.3%) with a monthly income ranging below RM 1000.
The mean capillary FBG during the screening was 5.6 ± 0.5 mmol/L which indicated a normal glucose homeostasis in these respondents. All the respondents were at risk of T2DM, with an average FINDRISC score of 6.3 ± 1.8. In general, 17 of the 30 respondents were at moderate risk of T2DM while 13 respondents fell into the high risk category of T2DM. There were no marked side effects associated with the ingestion of the test products.
All respondents had a height of 158.6 ± 6.4 cm, a body weight of 75.1 ± 15.0 kg, a % body fat of 39.0 ± 8.3%, a visceral fat of 10.3 ± 3.7 and were predominantly in the pre-obese range or higher. The mean BMI was 29.8 ± 5.1 kg/m2, which was in the obese class I category (27.5–34.9 kg/m2). On the other hand, the mean WC was 91.0 ± 11.3 cm. On average, the respondents were considered as normotensive with a normal mean heart rate.
Table 3
Respondents’ characteristics at baseline (n = 30)
Parameters
|
Mean (SD)
|
n (%)
|
Age (years)
|
36.1 ± 8.7
|
|
Gender
Male
Female
|
|
7 (23.3)
23 (76.7)
|
Ethnicity
|
|
|
Malay
Non-Malay
|
|
29 (96.7)
1 (3.3)
|
Marital Status
Single
Married
Widowed/Divorced
|
|
9 (30.0)
13 (43.3)
8 (26.7)
|
Educational level
No formal education
Primary level
Secondary level
Tertiary level
|
|
0 (0.0)
1 (3.3)
11 (36.7)
18 (60.0)
|
Employment status
Employed
Unemployed
|
|
25 (83.3)
5 (16.7)
|
Monthly household income (RM)
≤ RM1000
RM1000-RM2300
RM2301-RM5599
≥RM5600
|
|
15 (50.0)
11 (36.7)
3 (10.0)
1 (3.3)
|
Capillary FBG (mmol/L)
|
5.6 ± 0.5
|
|
FINDRISC score
Moderate risk (4–6 points)
High risk (≥ 7 points)
|
6.3 ± 1.8
|
17 (56.7)
13 (43.3)
|
Height (cm)
|
158.6 ± 6.4
|
|
Weight (kg)
|
75.1 ± 15.0
|
|
% Body Fat (%)
Acceptable: 18–25% (men), 25–31% (women)
At risk: >25% (men), > 31% (women)
|
39.0 ± 8.3
|
1 (3.3)
29 (96.7)
|
BMI (kg/m2)
BMI classes
Normal (18.5–22.9)
Pre-obese (23.0-27.4)
Obese class I (27.5–34.9)
Obese class II (35.0-39.9)
Obese class III (≥ 40.0)
|
29.8 ± 5.1
|
2 (6.7)
9 (30.0)
15 (50.0)
3 (10.0)
1 (3.3)
|
Waist Circumference (cm)
Category 0: <90 (men), < 80 (women)
Category 1: 90–99 cm (men), 80–89 cm (women)
Category 2: 100 cm (men), ≥ 90 cm (women)
|
91.0 ± 11.3
|
5 (16.7)
14 (46.7)
11 (36.7)
|
Visceral Fat
|
10.3 ± 3.7
|
|
Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHg)
|
122 ± 15
|
|
Diastolic Blood Pressure (mmHg)
|
75 ± 9
|
|
Classification
Optimal (< 120/80)
Normal (120–129/80–84)
At risk (130–139/85–89)
Hypertension Stage 1 (140–159/90–99)
|
|
15 (50.0)
5 (16.7)
3 (16.7)
7 (23.3)
|
Heart Rate (bpm)
|
74 ± 9
|
|
Glycemic response
Table 4 demonstrates the intervention effects after controlling for confounding factors on blood glucose levels between the placebo and intervention group. However, there was no significant difference of mean blood glucose levels within placebo group (F = 2.536, p = 0.069, ηp2 = 0.316, power = 0.618) and intervention group (F = 2.312, p = 0.090, ηp2 = 0.296, power = 0.573) based on time. There was also no significant difference of mean blood glucose levels among two groups based on time after controlling for confounding factors (F = 0.920, p = 0.471, ηp2 = 0.149, power = 0.242). Although statistical significance was not reached, the ηp2 values were well above the large cut offs of 0.1379. There were 31.6% and 29.6% of variation associated with the placebo and intervention time point respectively whereas the time point combined with the group types accounts for 13.8% of the variation.
Table 4
Time and group by time interaction of blood glucose levels over 120 min (n = 30)
Time (min)
|
0
|
30
|
60
|
90
|
120
|
Time effect
|
Group x Time Effect
|
F
|
p
|
ηp2
|
Power
|
F
|
p
|
ηp2
|
Power
|
Placebo
|
5.7 ± 0.4
|
7.7 ± 0.7
|
8.2 ± 1.2
|
7.0 ± 1.0
|
6.1 ± 0.6
|
2.536
|
0.069
|
0.316
|
0.618
|
0.920
|
0.471
|
0.149
|
0.242
|
Intervention
|
5.6 ± 0.4
|
6.7 ± 0.6
|
7.4 ± 1.0
|
6.9 ± 0.8
|
6.5 ± 0.6
|
2.312
|
0.090
|
0.296
|
0.573
|
The presented results are indicated as mean values (standard deviation). |
Repeated measures ANCOVA within group analysis and between group analysis with regard to time were applied after controlling for confounding factors. |
The blood glucose 2 hr iAUC and Cmax of both placebo and intervention groups were summarized in Table 5. The table depicts a significantly lower blood glucose 2 hr iAUC and Cmax in the intervention group with relative reduction of 26.8% and 13.3% respectively versus the placebo group (t(29) = 5.570, p < 0.001 and Z = -4.144, p < 0.001, respectively).
Table 5
Postprandial blood glucose 2 hr iAUC and Cmax (n = 30)
Type of groups
|
Blood glucose
|
2 hr iAUC (mmol/L*min)
|
Cmax (mmol/L)
|
Placebo
|
184.1 ± 64.0
|
8.3 (1.0)
|
Intervention
|
134.7 ± 44.5
|
7.2 (1.1)
|
p-value
|
< 0.001
|
< 0.001
|
The presented results are indicated as means values (standard deviation) – 2 hr iAUC and median (iinterquartile range) - Cmax |
Tested using paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed ranks test respectively
Perceived satiety and food intake
Table 6 shows an overview of perceived satiety of both the placebo and intervention groups namely hunger, fullness, desire to eat, prospective food consumption and thirstiness from 0 to 120 min. No significant difference between groups as tested using Wilcoxon signed-rank test was observed for all parameters at 0 min (p > 0.05). From 60 to 120 min, the respondents in the placebo group reported a significantly greater hunger (Z = -2.676, p = 0.007; Z = − .3.811, p < 0.001; Z = -4.045, p < 0.001, respectively), desire to eat (Z = -2.946, p = 0.003; Z = − .4.110, p < 0.001; Z = -3.970, p < 0.001, respectively),and prospective food consumption (Z = -2.856, p = 0.004; Z = − .4.011, p < 0.001; Z = -3.992, p < 0.001, respectively) rating as well as lower fullness rating (Z = -3.898, p < 0.001; Z = − .3.9119, p < 0.001; Z = -4.083, p < 0.001, respectively) than intervention group. For time point at 30 min, a significant difference observed in hunger (Z = -2.887, p = 0.004), fullness (Z = -2.701, p = 0.007) and desire to eat (Z = -2.714, p = 0.007) parameter. Thirstiness was not significantly different between groups at each time point (p > 0.05). Perceived hunger, desire to eat, prospective food consumption and thirstiness ratings decreased postprandially at 30 min and then increased gradually from 30 min to 120 min for both treatment groups. On the other hand, perceived fullness ratings increased postprandially at 30 min and then decreased gradually from 30 min to 120 min.
Table 6
Perceived satiety over different time points (n = 30)
Time (min)
|
0
|
30
|
60
|
90
|
120
|
Hunger
|
Placebo
|
5 (2)a
|
0 (1)b
|
1 (2)c
|
3 (4)d
|
4 (4)e
|
Intervention
|
6 (2)a
|
0 (1)b
|
0 (2)c
|
1 (2)d
|
2 (4)e
|
p-value
|
0.100
|
0.004
|
0.007
|
< 0.001
|
< 0.001
|
Fullness
|
Placebo
|
3 (4)a
|
10 (3)b
|
8 (3)c
|
7 (4)d
|
6 (2)e
|
Intervention
|
3 (4)a
|
10 (2)b
|
9 (2)c
|
8 (3)d
|
8 (3)e
|
p-value
|
0.936
|
0.007
|
< 0.001
|
< 0.001
|
< 0.001
|
Desire to eat
|
Placebo
|
5 (2)a
|
0 (3)b
|
2 (3)c
|
3 (4)d
|
5 (4)e
|
Intervention
|
6 (2)a
|
0 (2)b
|
1 (2)c
|
2 (3)d
|
3 (3)e
|
p-value
|
0.977
|
0.007
|
0.003
|
< 0.001
|
< 0.001
|
Prospective food consumption
|
Placebo
|
5 (3)a
|
0 (3)b
|
2 (4)c
|
4 (3)d
|
5 (4)a
|
Intervention
|
5.5 (2)a
|
0 (2)b
|
1 (2)c
|
2 (3)d
|
3 (3)e
|
p-value
|
0.105
|
0.165
|
0.004
|
< 0.001
|
< 0.001
|
Thirstiness
|
Placebo
|
5 (3)a,d
|
2 (4)b
|
3 (4)c
|
5 (3)a
|
7 (4)d
5 (5)d
|
Intervention
|
5.5 (7)a,d
|
1 (5)b
|
3 (4)c
|
4.5 (4)a
|
p-value
|
0.172
|
0.567
|
1.000
|
0.156
|
0.016
|
The presented results are indicated as median values (interquartile range) |
Values with different superscript letters within a row indicate statistically significant within the group at level p ≤ 0.0083
Tested using Friedman test followed by Wilcoxon signed ranks test
There was a statistically significant difference in perceived satiety parameters of both the placebo and intervention groups depending on time points for hunger (χ2(4) = 92.889, p < 0.001 and χ2(4) = 99.522, p < 0.001, respectively), fullness (χ2(4) = 90.550, p < 0.001 and χ2(4) = 100.177, p < 0.001, respectively), desire to eat (χ2(4) = 91.909, p < 0.001 and χ2(4) = 96.824, p < 0.001, respectively), prospective food consumption (χ2(4) = 59.479, p < 0.001 and χ2(4) = 88.162, p < 0.001, respectively) and thirstiness (χ2(4) = 77.922, p < 0.001 and χ2(4) = 61.791, p < 0.001, respectively). Post hoc analysis with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests was performed with a Bonferroni correction applied, resulting in a significance level set at p ≤ 0.0083. For perceived hunger, fullness and desire to eat ratings, significant difference was observed at each individual time point for both groups. By looking at prospective food consumption rating in the placebo group, no significant difference was only observed between 0 min and 120 min (Z = -1.649, p = 0.099) while significant difference was observed in intervention group across the time point from 0 min to 120 min. Next, thirstiness ratings of both the placebo and intervention groups were not significantly different between 0 min and 90 min (Z = -0.576, p = 0.565 and Z = -1.710, p = 0.087, respectively) and between 0 min and 120 min (Z = -1.779, p = 0.075 and Z = -0.027, p = 0.978, respectively).
In terms of AUC as displayed in Fig. 2, all perceived satiety parameters were significantly different between the treatment groups (p < 0.001) except for thirstiness (t(29) = 0.465, p = 0.645) in which the respondents in the intervention group claimed a higher degree of fullness (t(29) = -6.628, p < 0.001) with a lower degree of hunger (t(29) = 4.389, p < 0.001), desire to eat (t(29) = 5.379, p < 0.001) and prospective food consumption (t(29) = 4.530, p < 0.001).
Table 7
compares the total calories and macronutrients compositions of dietary intake between the placebo and intervention groups. Respondents in the intervention group had a significantly lower calories (Z = -3.651, p < 0.001) and fat intake (Z = -2.386, p = 0.017) as well as higher dietary fiber intake (Z = -4.762, p < 0.001) than the placebo group. Meanwhile, no significant difference was observed in carbohydrate and protein intakes (Z = 1.923, p = 0.054 and Z = -1.286, p = 0.199, respectively).
Dietary Variables
|
Placebo
|
Intervention
|
p-value
|
Energy intake (kcal)
|
1893 (318)a
|
1796 (439)b
|
< 0.001
|
EI:BMR
|
1.29 (0.17)
|
1.22 (0.07)
|
< 0.001
|
Macronutrients
|
|
Carbohydrate intake
Total (g)
% from energy intake
|
225.2 (77.3)
47.5
|
219.3 (62.2)
48.8
|
0.054
|
Dietary fiber (g)
Protein intake
Total (g)
% from energy intake
|
1.3 (3.3)
75.3 (19.8)
15.9
|
6.5 (1.2)
74.1 (20.0)
16.5
|
< 0.001
0.199
|
Fat intake
Total (g)
% from energy intake
|
77.2 (23.9)
36.7
|
74.3 (30.5)
34.7
|
0.017
|
The presented results are indicated as median values (interquartile range).
Tested using Wilcoxon signed ranks test.