Comparison of conventional and microwave assisted heating on carbohydrate content, antioxidant capacity and postprandial glycemic response in oat meals

Joanna Harasym , Remigiusz Olędzki

Abstract

Minimally processed cereal breakfast products from whole grain entered the market due to consumer demand of more nutritional food with more controlled sugar release. However, the subsequent processing of such products with different cooking methods in the consumer’s kitchen may lead to significant differentiation of their nutritional value. Therefore, the evaluation of the impact of frequently used cooking methods on a final quality of breakfast cereals meal is needed. The present study investigates how the two different methods of heating, conventional and microwave (MW) assisted, affect the carbohydrate content, profile and resulting glycemic index of so prepared food as well as the antioxidant activity of meals. Two products available on the market—oat bran and flakes—were used. The highest starch content in fluid phase of oatmeal was detected in samples heated for 3 min with microwaves, regardless the type. The lowest starch content was obtained for 5 min MW heated flakes sample. The total content of glucose was about 1.5 times lower in bran vs. flakes oatmeal. The highest β-glucan content in fluid fraction was also observed for bran meal but its release was independent of applied conditions.
Author Joanna Harasym (EaE / IChaFT / DBaFA)
Joanna Harasym,,
- Department of Biotechnology and Food Analysis
, Remigiusz Olędzki (EaE / IChaFT / DBaFA)
Remigiusz Olędzki,,
- Department of Biotechnology and Food Analysis
Journal seriesNutrients, ISSN 2072-6643, (A 35 pkt)
Issue year2018
Vol10
No2
Pages1-13
Publication size in sheets0.6
Keywords in Englishantioxidant capacity, carbohydrate polymers, glucose, glycemic response, microwave assisted heating, oat bran, oat flakes, β-glucan
ASJC Classification1106 Food Science
DOIDOI:10.3390/nu10020207
Languageen angielski
LicenseJournal (articles only); author's original; Uznanie Autorstwa (CC-BY); after publication
Score (nominal)35
Score sourcejournalList
Publication indicators Scopus Citations = 1; WoS Citations = 2; Scopus SNIP (Source Normalised Impact per Paper): 2016 = 1.392; WoS Impact Factor: 2017 = 4.196 (2) - 2017=4.603 (5)
Citation count*4 (2020-09-23)
Additional fields
UwagaThe Authors acknowledge financial support of Narodowe Centrum Nauki, Poland through grant NN312506640.
Cite
Share Share

Get link to the record


* presented citation count is obtained through Internet information analysis and it is close to the number calculated by the Publish or Perish system.
Back