{"title":"对SSBs和ASBs的血糖反应:混合膳食的作用和个体差异。","authors":"Sejin Kim, YoonJu Song","doi":"10.1186/s12937-025-01181-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs) are widely reported to have minimal glycemic impact compared to sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), their effects in mixed meal conditions and individual variability in response remain poorly understood. This study aimed to evaluate postprandial glycemic response (PPGR) and individual variability in response to an SSB (regular cola) and an ASB (zero cola), both in single and mixed conditions, using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 66 healthy young adults participated in this 14-day, non-randomized crossover intervention study. Test meals included 75 g oral glucose load as a reference, muffin, regular cola, zero cola, muffin with regular cola (MRC), and muffin with zero cola (MZC). PPGR was evaluated using incremental area under the curve. The glucose dip was assessed as the minimum glucose reduction from baseline. Participants were classified as MZC-High (n = 17) if their glycemic response to MZC was higher than to MRC, and as MZC-Stable (n = 44) if MRC showed the higher response.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 75 g oral glucose load reference exhibited a typical glycemic pattern, peaking at 45 min before steadily declining. The muffin induced a moderate glycemic response, while regular cola led to a rapid glucose rise followed by a sharp decline. When combined with a muffin, MRC exhibited a slightly higher glycemic response (iAUC<sub>180</sub>:161.6 mmol∙min/L), whereas MZC showed a similar response to the muffin alone (113.3 and 111.1 mmol∙min /L, respectively). At 120 min, the glucose dip was most pronounced for regular cola, whereas oral glucose load and muffin showed smaller reductions. These patterns persisted at 180 min, with oral glucose load showing the largest drop. Mixed meals attenuated glucose dips, with MRC and MZC preventing excessive declines. Individual responses analysis revealed that while the overall iAUC was not significantly different between muffin alone and MZC, 26 participants (MZC-High Responders) exhibited a higher iAUC with MZC than with MRC, suggesting variability in glucose regulation. Comparisons between MZC-High Responders and MZC-Stable participants showed no significant differences in age or body composition.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While zero cola alone or in combination with a muffin had a minimal overall glycemic impact, some individuals exhibited higher glycemic responses in mixed conditions. These findings suggest that individual variability and mixed condition should be considered when consuming artificially sweetened beverages.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS, cris.nih.go.kr) No. KCT0009921.</p>","PeriodicalId":19203,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition Journal","volume":"24 1","pages":"113"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Glycemic response to SSBs and ASBs: the role of mixed meals and individual variability.\",\"authors\":\"Sejin Kim, YoonJu Song\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12937-025-01181-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs) are widely reported to have minimal glycemic impact compared to sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), their effects in mixed meal conditions and individual variability in response remain poorly understood. This study aimed to evaluate postprandial glycemic response (PPGR) and individual variability in response to an SSB (regular cola) and an ASB (zero cola), both in single and mixed conditions, using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 66 healthy young adults participated in this 14-day, non-randomized crossover intervention study. Test meals included 75 g oral glucose load as a reference, muffin, regular cola, zero cola, muffin with regular cola (MRC), and muffin with zero cola (MZC). PPGR was evaluated using incremental area under the curve. The glucose dip was assessed as the minimum glucose reduction from baseline. Participants were classified as MZC-High (n = 17) if their glycemic response to MZC was higher than to MRC, and as MZC-Stable (n = 44) if MRC showed the higher response.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 75 g oral glucose load reference exhibited a typical glycemic pattern, peaking at 45 min before steadily declining. The muffin induced a moderate glycemic response, while regular cola led to a rapid glucose rise followed by a sharp decline. When combined with a muffin, MRC exhibited a slightly higher glycemic response (iAUC<sub>180</sub>:161.6 mmol∙min/L), whereas MZC showed a similar response to the muffin alone (113.3 and 111.1 mmol∙min /L, respectively). At 120 min, the glucose dip was most pronounced for regular cola, whereas oral glucose load and muffin showed smaller reductions. These patterns persisted at 180 min, with oral glucose load showing the largest drop. Mixed meals attenuated glucose dips, with MRC and MZC preventing excessive declines. Individual responses analysis revealed that while the overall iAUC was not significantly different between muffin alone and MZC, 26 participants (MZC-High Responders) exhibited a higher iAUC with MZC than with MRC, suggesting variability in glucose regulation. Comparisons between MZC-High Responders and MZC-Stable participants showed no significant differences in age or body composition.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While zero cola alone or in combination with a muffin had a minimal overall glycemic impact, some individuals exhibited higher glycemic responses in mixed conditions. These findings suggest that individual variability and mixed condition should be considered when consuming artificially sweetened beverages.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS, cris.nih.go.kr) No. KCT0009921.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19203,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nutrition Journal\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"113\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nutrition Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-025-01181-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-025-01181-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Glycemic response to SSBs and ASBs: the role of mixed meals and individual variability.
Background: While artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs) are widely reported to have minimal glycemic impact compared to sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), their effects in mixed meal conditions and individual variability in response remain poorly understood. This study aimed to evaluate postprandial glycemic response (PPGR) and individual variability in response to an SSB (regular cola) and an ASB (zero cola), both in single and mixed conditions, using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).
Methods: A total of 66 healthy young adults participated in this 14-day, non-randomized crossover intervention study. Test meals included 75 g oral glucose load as a reference, muffin, regular cola, zero cola, muffin with regular cola (MRC), and muffin with zero cola (MZC). PPGR was evaluated using incremental area under the curve. The glucose dip was assessed as the minimum glucose reduction from baseline. Participants were classified as MZC-High (n = 17) if their glycemic response to MZC was higher than to MRC, and as MZC-Stable (n = 44) if MRC showed the higher response.
Results: The 75 g oral glucose load reference exhibited a typical glycemic pattern, peaking at 45 min before steadily declining. The muffin induced a moderate glycemic response, while regular cola led to a rapid glucose rise followed by a sharp decline. When combined with a muffin, MRC exhibited a slightly higher glycemic response (iAUC180:161.6 mmol∙min/L), whereas MZC showed a similar response to the muffin alone (113.3 and 111.1 mmol∙min /L, respectively). At 120 min, the glucose dip was most pronounced for regular cola, whereas oral glucose load and muffin showed smaller reductions. These patterns persisted at 180 min, with oral glucose load showing the largest drop. Mixed meals attenuated glucose dips, with MRC and MZC preventing excessive declines. Individual responses analysis revealed that while the overall iAUC was not significantly different between muffin alone and MZC, 26 participants (MZC-High Responders) exhibited a higher iAUC with MZC than with MRC, suggesting variability in glucose regulation. Comparisons between MZC-High Responders and MZC-Stable participants showed no significant differences in age or body composition.
Conclusion: While zero cola alone or in combination with a muffin had a minimal overall glycemic impact, some individuals exhibited higher glycemic responses in mixed conditions. These findings suggest that individual variability and mixed condition should be considered when consuming artificially sweetened beverages.
Trial registration: Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS, cris.nih.go.kr) No. KCT0009921.
期刊介绍:
Nutrition Journal publishes surveillance, epidemiologic, and intervention research that sheds light on i) influences (e.g., familial, environmental) on eating patterns; ii) associations between eating patterns and health, and iii) strategies to improve eating patterns among populations. The journal also welcomes manuscripts reporting on the psychometric properties (e.g., validity, reliability) and feasibility of methods (e.g., for assessing dietary intake) for human nutrition research. In addition, study protocols for controlled trials and cohort studies, with an emphasis on methods for assessing dietary exposures and outcomes as well as intervention components, will be considered.
Manuscripts that consider eating patterns holistically, as opposed to solely reductionist approaches that focus on specific dietary components in isolation, are encouraged. Also encouraged are papers that take a holistic or systems perspective in attempting to understand possible compensatory and differential effects of nutrition interventions. The journal does not consider animal studies.
In addition to the influence of eating patterns for human health, we also invite research providing insights into the environmental sustainability of dietary practices. Again, a holistic perspective is encouraged, for example, through the consideration of how eating patterns might maximize both human and planetary health.