FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1973332033> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1973332033 endingPage "269" @default.
• W1973332033 startingPage "268" @default.
• W1973332033 abstract "Is There An Answer? is intended to serve as a forum in which readers to IUBMB Life may pose questions of the type that intrigue biochemists but for which there may be no obvious answer or one may be available but not widely known or easily accessible. Readers are invited to e-mail [email protected] if they have questions to contribute or if they can provide answers to questions that are provided here from time to time. In the latter case, instructions will be sent to interested readers. Answers should be, whenever possible, evidence-based and provide relevant references. Paolo Ascenzi In an earlier installment in this series (1), I wrote about a controversy that erupted when Arthur Agatston, the Miami Beach cardiologist who invented the South Beach Diet, wrote in his best-selling book of the same title (2) that maltose, a carbohydrate in beer, is responsible for “beer belly” and noted that it has a glycemic index (GI) even higher than glucose, to which it must be broken down before we can absorb it. The US brewing company, Anheuser-Busch, went thermonuclear and assailed Agatston in full-page advertisements nationwide that proclaimed that there is no maltose in beer. To anyone who knows anything about the carbohydrate composition of beer, including Anheuser-Busch, this had to be special pleading. Maltose is a normal component of beer brewed in the traditional manner. It disappears if fermentation is prolonged, producing more alcohol and giving rise to the “light beers.” The presence of maltose in beer is therefore variable. But most beers also contain the unfermentable maltodextrins, the GI of which is the same as of maltose. Meaning that we digest maltodextrins. So, the “beer belly” label, if valid, could still be applied. By quantitative and paper chromatographic examination of typical beers, we confirmed these well-known facts (1). I decided to look further into the GI question. The GI is a measure of the increase in blood glucose followed by eating or drinking of digestible carbohydrates containing glucose, or which, like fructose, can be converted into glucose in the liver. Glucose is often used as the standard and is given a GI value of 100. Recourse to the web revealed claims in one case by the self-styled Low-Carb Bartender, Bob Skilnik (3), who said he was relying on published data from the Human Nutrition Unit at the University of Sydney, Australia, that beer has little measurable carbohydrate and as a result “registers zero on the GI.” Again, this is special pleading, as in the case of Anheuser-Busch. A beer that contains little carbohydrate will necessarily have a low GI. But the majority of beers contain significant amounts of digestible carbohydrate and these should certainly not register zero in terms of GI. We found that many brands contained 8–10 g, or more, of digestible carbohydrate per 12-ounce can, no small amount considering how much beer a person might consume in one sitting. It was ironic that Skilnik in most cases overstated the relevant amount of carbohydrate in beers, the relevant amount being the quantity of digestible carbohydrate. Skilnik publishes numbers given to him by the brewers, which are in fact the values for total carbohydrate, including the significant amount of indigestible carbohydrate. It is the digestible carbohydrate that contributes to the calories in beer (the “carbs”). Thus, we found that Guinness contains about 7 g of digestible carbohydrate per 12-ounce bottle, but there was 14 g of total carbohydrate, the same figure reported by Skilnik (see ref.4). I decided that rather than conjecture about the GI of beer, it was time to measure the changes in blood glucose consequent on drinking it, but if I had wanted to involve my students in this, I would have had to get permission from the medical school office that regulates human experimentation, and I knew that this can be a very time-consuming process. So, I decided that I would be the guinea pig. No permission is needed for self-experimentation. If the results looked promising, it would be worth the paperwork to get permission to expand the project by enrolling volunteers. Accordingly, I began to drink solutions containing 10 g glucose in 12 ounces of water and 12 ounces of beer containing the same amount of digestible carbohydrate. Sure enough the beer and the glucose caused increases in blood glucose that averaged 30–35 mg/100 mL after 30 min. So, much for the GI of beer being zero. As I continued these experiments it occurred to me that I had not considered how long a period I should take to drink a bottle of beer. I began by drinking it within a minute and the same with the glucose, which is easy enough to do. Only then, by making inquiries to the University of Sydney, did I discover that in their standard procedure for measuring the GI, the food is eaten or drunk over a period of 12 min. That is quite a long time to take to drink a bottle of beer. So, then the question arose in my mind as to the effect on blood glucose that might be caused by eating or drinking a food rapidly versus slowly. The answer seemed obvious but I considered that the research was worth undertaking, as did Dr Agatston, whose Research Foundation has funded some of these investigations. I obtained permission to recruit student volunteers and embarked on extensive tests with solutions of pure sugars, sodas and juices, and solid foods such as breads, cereals, pizzas, etc. In each case, the food was eaten or drunk as rapidly as possible, or in five equal portions over 12 min. The results were quite unexpected and, seemingly, random. With my colleagues as coauthors, the findings will be offered for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. But I can summarize our findings by the following. In 21 tests with glucose, where one might think that drinking glucose more rapidly would give 21 spikes that were higher, the split was nine spikes higher with rapid drinking and 12 higher with a slower rate. For other liquids, in 56 tests, the split was 28/28 and in 84 tests with solids, the split was 54/30. Although seemingly random, by making internal comparisons, we are looking to see if some kind of order might emerge from the apparent chaos. New Questions 1. Is protoglobin the ancestor of heme-proteins? 2. When the hairdresser cuts your hair, are covalent protein bonds broken? And if so, what is the chemical reaction?" @default.
• W1973332033 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1973332033 creator A5080609267 @default.
• W1973332033 date "2009-03-01" @default.
• W1973332033 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W1973332033 title "The wars of the carbohydrates 7. Does consuming carbohydrate slowly elicit a lower spike in blood glucose?" @default.
• W1973332033 cites W2079420904 @default.
• W1973332033 cites W2094857135 @default.
• W1973332033 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/iub.148" @default.
• W1973332033 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18975285" @default.
• W1973332033 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W1973332033 type Work @default.
• W1973332033 sameAs 1973332033 @default.
• W1973332033 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1973332033 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1973332033 hasAuthorship W1973332033A5080609267 @default.
• W1973332033 hasBestOaLocation W19733320331 @default.
• W1973332033 hasConcept C115903868 @default.
• W1973332033 hasConcept C17093226 @default.
• W1973332033 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W1973332033 hasConcept C2778977261 @default.
• W1973332033 hasConcept C2781390188 @default.
• W1973332033 hasConcept C31903555 @default.
• W1973332033 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1973332033 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W1973332033 hasConceptScore W1973332033C115903868 @default.
• W1973332033 hasConceptScore W1973332033C17093226 @default.
• W1973332033 hasConceptScore W1973332033C185592680 @default.
• W1973332033 hasConceptScore W1973332033C2778977261 @default.
• W1973332033 hasConceptScore W1973332033C2781390188 @default.
• W1973332033 hasConceptScore W1973332033C31903555 @default.
• W1973332033 hasConceptScore W1973332033C41008148 @default.
• W1973332033 hasConceptScore W1973332033C55493867 @default.
• W1973332033 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W1973332033 hasLocation W19733320331 @default.
• W1973332033 hasLocation W19733320332 @default.
• W1973332033 hasOpenAccess W1973332033 @default.
• W1973332033 hasPrimaryLocation W19733320331 @default.
• W1973332033 hasRelatedWork W2006036731 @default.
• W1973332033 hasRelatedWork W2007709060 @default.
• W1973332033 hasRelatedWork W2021504226 @default.
• W1973332033 hasRelatedWork W2039972894 @default.
• W1973332033 hasRelatedWork W2042621009 @default.
• W1973332033 hasRelatedWork W2053392769 @default.
• W1973332033 hasRelatedWork W2088258719 @default.
• W1973332033 hasRelatedWork W2403686225 @default.
• W1973332033 hasRelatedWork W2951227770 @default.
• W1973332033 hasRelatedWork W1875134308 @default.
• W1973332033 hasVolume "61" @default.
• W1973332033 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1973332033 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1973332033 magId "1973332033" @default.
• W1973332033 workType "article" @default.